Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

GOAT  edberg  davis  

Latest topics
» I Have A Question
Yesterday at 10:24 pm by bogbrush

» The End od Internet Neutrality?
Yesterday at 10:20 pm by bogbrush

» Federer taps in BBC award
Yesterday at 8:22 pm by noleisthebest

» The doping program joke of the ITF!!!
Yesterday at 5:47 pm by Tenez

» This Is What A Feminist Looks Like
Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:22 am by bogbrush

» The Ultimate GOAT List
Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:17 pm by Tenez

» The Best Shot Of The Year!
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:59 pm by noleisthebest

» Djoko takes Stepanek on
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:53 pm by noleisthebest

» Nadal whines over surface match ups with Federer in 2017
Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:44 pm by noleisthebest

December 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Calendar Calendar

Affiliates
free forum


This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Page 13 of 16 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:57 am

DECIMA wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
DECIMA wrote:Actually one last thing on the vaccine issue, I forgot a crucial point.
Smallpox is an example of a deadly disease which wouldn’t have been eradicated if not for compulsory vaccinations. Under your stateless model... vaccines would be neither compulsory nor free (poor people can test afford it + some may not trust pharma), even around 10% of people not taking the vaccine means no herd immunity, which keeps the disease alive, smallpox would still be present in 2017.
This in turn would put everyone at risk again, for example children who aren’t old enough for vaccines could then die even if their parents wanted to vaccinate them asap.
Bottom line, you can’t compel. That’s absolute for me. I think smallpox is a far lesser blight than a dictatorial government forcing you to take injections.
Alright, good place to end this specific discussion on vaccines.
In order to be fair, people should consider your sincerely held principles, but also the practical implications in terms of outcome of the quoted discussion above.
My principles are entirely practical, that's why they matter.

You go down the compulsion route and the logic takes you to Stalin or Mao. It just does. People imposing decisions for good reasons are the most dangerous of all because they will never stop, they're doing it for the greater good (they think).

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:35 pm

bogbrush wrote:I’d do what I could to relieve it but top priority would be preventing more attacks; pretty obvious really
Yeah I fully agree with you on that, firstly you'd need to have a realistic plan to stop future attacks or the hostile country would keep attacking. And after that you would 'do what you could to relieve it (the impact)', that's clearly another sensible step.

Let me just summarise so far, and you can point out if there's anything without clarity:
-Your ideal society/nation would have taxation to fund defence spending.
-First priority would be to spend on protecting country from nukes and drones
-If this priority was either completed or realistically on track you would:
Be prepared to spend the defence money on poor civilians who had treatable cancer due to a chemical attack by a hostile foreign nation... thus neutralising the attack in terms of harm caused to citizens.

Your position seems completely sensible, are we agreed so far atleast?

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:03 pm

No, my ideal society wouldn't have nations states BUT right now as things are I accept with regret that due to millenia of cultural divergence there are nigh-insurmountable barriers to that model.

After that unfortunately all sorts of perverse messed up bahaviour follows and what you describe seems about as sensible as it can be in the messed up circumstances.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:07 pm

I understand, but I am only using nation states as part of your model because you indicated it was most up to date version.

Tell you what I'll be generous and give you a choice:
You can continue the hypothetical as it is (with nation states), or have the same hypothetical with a foreign powerful terrorist group attacking an island (same size as UK but not a nation).
Sticking with the first option and successfully defending your ideas would give you the satisfaction of saying you've defended something that is realistic in the context of the evolution of humans and human society thus far. Your choice entirely though.

Edit: Moreover, a discussion about policies and econ is a lot about how to manage human behaviours. As you astutely pointed out, it's (flawed) human behaviour which in your eyes leads to the necessity of nation states. But your model does rely a lot on human behaviour too, namely self-interest. It would be inconsistent of you to use some human behaviours because it suits your model, but ignore those behaviours which have led you to believe we need nation states.
Thus if you decided to choose the hypothetical with no nation states, you would first have to admit this inherent flaw in the model (which you yourself must also see hence you changed your mind).

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:13 pm

There’s nothing to defend really, why don’t you just ask me the question you’re building up to?

The answer is no, we aren’t born with obligations.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:15 pm

bogbrush wrote:There’s nothing to defend really, why don’t you just ask me the question you’re building up to?

The answer is no, we aren’t born with obligations.
Should I ask on the presumption you believe in nation states or not? Make a choice

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:44 pm

I don’t really know what you mean. I’ve told you where I am on that. Ask either, or both but let’s move this somewhere fast, it’s not progressing.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:44 pm

This world is perfect! No need to change anything. It is changing on its own initiative and we just need to adapt. Whether we needed to have kings, dictators, or tyranny of corporations, it's all a learning process.

Tenez

Posts : 17437
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:12 am

bogbrush wrote:I don’t really know what you mean. I’ve told you where I am on that. Ask either, or both but let’s move this somewhere fast, it’s not progressing.
Alright, but don't complain later on that I didn't offer a choice.

-I will presume that you are happy defending your model with nation states in place. You have recognised that the evolution of human society has meant that they are necessary, whether you think it's flawed human thinking is irrelevant, as any discussion about policies or economics would have to address flaws in human nature.

-You have said you were happy with compulsory taxation in order to fund defence spending
-You have said first priority of this spending is protection against attacks such as drones/nukes
-You have said if this (above) was on track, and a foreign country had attacked the most impoverished neighbourhoods with a chemical that causes cancer, you would be happy to spend that defence money onto medical treatment to ensure the foreign country wouldn't claim many lives of your fellow citizens.

My question is this:
You have principally agreed to have compulsory taxation in order to fund medical treatment for people if they are a victim of a chemical attack by a foreign country.
There are some viruses which nearly all humans have, which can sometimes randomly cause cancer at no fault to the person.
Person A gets cancer because of a chemical attack by humans, completely impoverished. Person B gets the same cancer because of a virus, also impoverished.
Humans and viruses are both organisms, humans are just more complex, neither has free will, they just do as they're programmed. You said humans aren't more 'alive' than viruses.
Why should Person A get treatment and live saved by the state but Person B not?

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:25 am

Firstly, I didn’t say I liked a State model, I said that for defensive reasons there seemed little alternative right now to defending positive cultural developments against others who, for example have no heritage of common law principles.

On that basis I thought in a time of conflict that you’d help those injured in conflict. We would be in a shared defensive effort.

The second situation is entirely different and as I told you, anticipating your question, nobody is obligated. There are sound reasons why it might be wise to help but that’s not the same as saying it should be compulsory. That’s tyranny.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:59 am

I can see BB got strangled by Decima's sophism.

Tenez

Posts : 17437
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:58 pm

Tenez wrote:I can see BB got strangled by Decima's sophism.
Very happy to clarify and help with any confusion Tenez.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:10 pm

bogbrush wrote:
On that basis I thought in a time of conflict that you’d help those injured in conflict. We would be in a shared defensive effort. The second situation is entirely different and as I told you, anticipating your question, nobody is obligated.
You agreed that we have taxation to help civilians who had cancer due an action of another human, but not other circumstances such as viruses where the civilian was just as unlucky.

Your argument is tenuous both from your position and from the position of a potential patient.
You have spent the last few weeks eloquently arguing how there's no difference between humans and virsuses in terms of how 'alive' they are- just organisms which have evolved to different levels of complexity and function.
But when it comes to saving lives, suddenly there's a difference. Be honest, is this perhaps to do with your inherent biases? You grew up studying human history, how humans did xyz, you are human yourself so can relate much more to another of your species... maybe these biases have clouded your thinking... or you were wrong in the past few weeks and there is something special about humans beyond functional differences?

From the position of the patient, it makes even less sense. 2 people in dire poverty, both of them have cancer for reasons outside their control. I think most people would agree that the humane thing to do would be for the state to save both their lives, but you pick one. One of them just had the luck of being attacked by humans, so you use taxation (compulsory, obligation) to save that patient's life; other one is left to rot. Your society isn't just inhumane, it's not consistent.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by legendkillar on Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:52 pm

Tenez wrote:I can see BB got strangled by Decima's sophism.

LaughLaughLaugh

I sense another 10 pages of pain!

legendkillar

Posts : 1945
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:06 pm

Nope that's it for me in terms of new questions. I'll address any counter points from Bogbrush, but this 13 page thread won't be stretching to 23 just yet.
Feel free to contribute, if not there's plenty of other threads on tennis for you.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:35 pm

DECIMA wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
On that basis I thought in a time of conflict that you’d help those injured in conflict. We would be in a shared defensive effort. The second situation is entirely different and as I told you, anticipating your question, nobody is obligated.
You agreed that we have taxation to help civilians who had cancer due an action of another human, but not other circumstances such as viruses where the civilian was just as unlucky.

Your argument is tenuous both from your position and from the position of a potential patient.
You have spent the last few weeks eloquently arguing how there's no difference between humans and virsuses in terms of how 'alive' they are- just organisms which have evolved to different levels of complexity and function.
But when it comes to saving lives, suddenly there's a difference. Be honest, is this perhaps to do with your inherent biases? You grew up studying human history, how humans did xyz, you are human yourself so can relate much more to another of your species... maybe these biases have clouded your thinking... or you were wrong in the past few weeks and there is something special about humans beyond functional differences?

From the position of the patient, it makes even less sense. 2 people in dire poverty, both of them have cancer for reasons outside their control. I think most people would agree that the humane thing to do would be for the state to save both their lives, but you pick one. One of them just had the luck of being attacked by humans, so you use taxation (compulsory, obligation) to save that patient's life; other one is left to rot. Your society isn't just inhumane, it's not consistent.
No, you're just upset I saw the conclusion a mile off. No matter how often you try to claim I regard the nation state as ideal, I do not. I have accepted that mutual defence against illiberal cultures makes sense but that's a completely different position. Sorry.

You want me to accept that people have obligations to each other that they never agreed to. I won't do that. I wholly agree that it is kind to help but I can't agree that it then becomes right to compel unkind people against their will to hand over their stuff. Sorry, but that's just violence and as the old saying goes the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Hitler was an evil git but Mao and Stalin each killed far more people and were never stopped by the rest of the World because they claimed - and were somewhat accepted as such - to be doing good. There are even retards today who think Mao on balance did good.

100% consistent and as always 100% logical.


Last edited by bogbrush on Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:35 pm

legendkillar wrote:
Tenez wrote:I can see BB got strangled by Decima's sophism.

LaughLaughLaugh

I sense another 10 pages of pain!
Nah, thankfully this one is concluded.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:19 pm

Nice filibuster. A long paragraph addressing everything but the question I asked (never said I was upset or claimed nation states were ideal for you), and then quick concluding line to LK.
That was so cleverly done I nearly forgot you completely avoided answering.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:17 pm

You didn’t ask a question. You made a speech* and suggested my opinions are based on biases, which is kind of redundant since all our opinions indicate a bias. I am biased towards various freedoms because I’ve come to the conclusion that’s the only way to operate rationally.

Look, you want to compel people to act as you want them to, I want to let everyone act as they wish up to but not to the point of directly harming another.  There’s the whole thing in a sentence.

* a longer one than the paragraph I wrote that you criticised for length, by the way.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by legendkillar on Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:44 pm

DECIMA wrote:Nope that's it for me in terms of new questions. I'll address any counter points from Bogbrush, but this 13 page thread won't be stretching to 23 just yet.
Feel free to contribute, if not there's plenty of other threads on tennis for you.


I'll contribute.

I've read this thread in great detail. I've found the views expressed on it interesting, mostly maddening, but on the whole interesting. Now you have delighted in BB challenging others views and getting nothing back in a coherent manner. Just lots of random ranting and mashed up sentences supposedly disguised as wisdom. Now you have brought a different debate to the thread in a bid to be the 'one' that finds the holes in BB's logical approach to his views and beliefs.

Now your argument was flawed when you asked BB on his approach to treating cancer victims one from a chemical attack and one by other means, but both from an impoverished background and then ask how he means to fund this from a defence budget! Now I like a logical approach. This one isn't. Let me ask you why you think a defence budget would be used to fund treating a cancer patient who developed the disease by other means not related to a chemical attack? You mentioned them paying tax, yet taking a one size fits all approach. If only the scenario you presented worked like that in practice. BB stated he would help those he could, especially with a defence budget that also has to cover healthcare!

You think in your mind 2+2=4 when trying to disprove BB's logic with these questions when infact you are doing 2+2=5. Every time BB has answered your question, you shift it once you realise he isn't falling into this trap you've set. Clearly you envisaged the end result, which was showing BB's logic to be illogical within itself, but sadly not considered in great detail the journey of getting there. You are trying to bring in his views on organisms and atoms by trying to add the humanity element to it, which wasn't the others arguing to begin with that you were ridiculing?

Why not cut to the chase and say you don't agree with BB's logic in similar manner to which barry and SB concluded their debate?

legendkillar

Posts : 1945
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:03 pm

Bogbrush I have no problem with length, I was just pointing out that you didn't answer my question and used many words to talk about other things.

bogbrush wrote:Look, you want to compel people to act as you want them to, I want to let everyone act as they wish up to but not to the point of directly harming another.
I understand those are your sincerely held principles, which you always express eloquently, but surely you agree it isn't above any critique?  

I'll put my question with a max limit of 280 characters like twitter if you like:

Impoverished person A has cancer due to a chemical attack by other humans. Impoverished person B has cancer due to a virus. Both not the fault of the person. You are happy with compulsory taxation funding treatment for Person A, but not B. You've spent last few weeks saying how humans aren't 'more alive' than viruses, just more complex set of molecules. Is this inconsistent, if not, why not?


Last edited by DECIMA on Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:17 pm

Sorry legendkiller, you're way off the mark with your analysis there. Wrongly interpreting my views, and you didn't understand my points to Bogbrush.  

legendkiller wrote:Now you have delighted in BB challenging others views and getting nothing back in a coherent manner. Just lots of random ranting and mashed up sentences supposedly disguised as wisdom.
I genuinely sincerely agreed with most of what he was saying in that debate.

legendkiller wrote:Let me ask you why you think a defence budget would be used to fund treating a cancer patient who developed the disease by other means not related to a chemical attack?
You've completely missed the point here. Obviously the medical bill for normal cancer patients wouldn't come from the defence budget. In normal circumstances it would come from the healthcare budget. But Bogbrush has stated many times that there simply wouldn't be a state healthcare budget in his model.
It's not about the name of the budget at all, it's the fact BB called for compulsory taxes to spend for one thing, but not another.

legendkiller wrote:You are trying to bring in his views on organisms and atoms by trying to add the humanity element to it, which wasn't the others arguing to begin with that you were ridiculing?
I agree with him on those views, and yes I'm bringing them in to this debate. I would like the government to fund cancer treatment for poor people if it's caused by viruses or humans, which is a completely consistent position. Bogbrush thinks humans and viruses are both not alive, but only agrees with funding the cancer treatment if humans caused the cancer but not viruses. Raises questions on consistency, logic, and principles.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:23 pm

DECIMA wrote:Bogbrush I have no problem with length, I was just pointing out that you didn't answer my question and used many words to talk about other things.

bogbrush wrote:Look, you want to compel people to act as you want them to, I want to let everyone act as they wish up to but not to the point of directly harming another.
I understand those are your sincerely held principles, which you always express eloquently, but surely you agree it isn't above any critique?  

I'll put my question with a max limit of 280 characters like twitter if you like:

Impoverished person A has cancer due to a chemical attack by other humans. Impoverished person B has cancer due to a virus. Both not the fault of the person. You are happy with compulsory taxation funding treatment for Person A, but not B. You've spent last few weeks saying how humans aren't 'more alive' than viruses, just more complex set of molecules. Is this inconsistent, if not, why not?
I’m not happy with the first scenario. I’ve told you a good three or four times I’m not. I’m accepting of a situation where a group action is needed for personal defence but even there is someone declined to contribute I would acquiesce - after all, if the price of the defence of liberty is tyranny, what was the point? The second scenario is a poorly disguised argument for compulsory sequestration of peoples stuff.

There is no inconsistency, you’re clouded by your need to argue for compulsory universal healthcare.

Once you get past that it’s all pretty obvious.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:16 am

I'm sorry bogbrush, that's just a blatant U-turn. Let's have a look at what you yourself said on this thread:

bogbrush wrote:
DECIMA wrote:Question Set 2:
You said last month you had changed your mind and now supported nation states.
Would you support compulsory taxation to pay for a national defence to protect against other hostile countries?
Q2 Yeah, problem isn’t it? Nation states are silly really and it would be better if we didn’t have them but give me a choice between supra-National corporatism (like the EU), religious illiberalism (like Islam) or simply being dominated by people with no serious heritage of Common Law (like almost everywhere other than Britain, or England to be specific) and I suppose I take it.

If you go along with that then the whole tax for defence kind of follows.

So I suppose I’m stuck. On the one hand nation states are daft and are one root cause but over such a long period of time during which that’s been the model that I don’t see how we get out of it, except to something even worse. Everything else I can see how to dump but on this one I’m stumped.

I’m quite pessimistic on this front. Maybe one day eh?

You're clearly saying here that nation states is not ideal, but realistically the best way forward for UK given how human civilisation has progressed globally (and that you're quite pessimistic that this situation will change anytime soon).  
And you say 'tax for defence' follows this.

Definition of the word tax in the Oxford dictionary:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tax
A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

What you just said now:
bogbrush wrote:I’m accepting of a situation where a group action is needed for personal defence but even there is someone declined to contribute I would acquiesce - after all, if the price of the defence of liberty is tyranny, what was the point?

That is 100% a clear U-turn, out in the open. You can either admit it, or maybe just pretend you didn't say what you said.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:23 am

I know you really want me to endorse the State model, so much so you’ll seize on my reluctant acceptance of the current need for borders to justify it, but that’s as far as it goes. Borders, and the inevitable requirement to secure them, and only because extreme State models are endemic and lethally dangerous.

But after that you’re stuck with my core beliefs. No compulsion, no State sequestration, voluntary cooperation are the only sustainable models. If there’s conflict here it’s explicitly agreed.

What you therefore can’t do is use that to argue for all sorts of coercive sequestration of assets for collectivism.

Now if you have an actual point to make then go for it, but you’re flogging a dead horse pointing out that I’m pissed off that borders need to exist.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:31 am

bogbrush wrote:I know you really want me to endorse the State model, so much so you’ll seize on my reluctant acceptance of the current need for borders to justify it, but that’s as far as it goes.
Oh come on!
It's not about you hesitantly accepting borders, thats' fine, but... I literally have a quote from you saying that because you've accepted borders, 'tax for defence follows', and then within 24 hours you're saying that you wouldn't oblige people to contribute towards defence... which is not a tax.
I can speculate as to the reason for your U-turn, I suspect it's because you also said it was 'sensible' to have this defence money from taxes to be spent on cancer treatment for victims of chemical attacks from foreign nations, and then felt uncomfortable having to defend the discrepancy of why you would fund this but not normal cancer treatment.

Regardless of the reason, it is simply a fact that you've U-turned here. I don't mind that per se, but only if you're honest enough to admit that. Otherwise what's the point of your word, you could just say the sky is red one minute and then completely deny it the next?

Edit: Check inbox too


Last edited by DECIMA on Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:47 am

Since when do you bother with honesty Decima?

On another note it's normal to contradict oneself at some stage cause as I told you the world and ourselves are made of opposite forces. It is this very fact which allows "being". No duality, no life, no energy.

So give BB a break, it is all in the nuances.

Tenez

Posts : 17437
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by legendkillar on Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:19 am

Indeed. Concession or Compromise if you will.

It would be like belittling Tenez or any of the other non-Nadal fans for watching a Nadal match despite not supporting or liking his tennis.

Not sure what the objective is here or whether anyone really cares.

legendkillar

Posts : 1945
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:46 am

bogbrush wrote:On another note it's normal to contradict oneself at some stage cause as I told you the world and ourselves are made of opposite forces. It is this very fact which allows "being". No duality, no life, no energy.

So give BB a break, it is all in the nuances.
I do agree that it's completely fine to change your mind mid-debate, not sure about your duality point though.
In fact before the start of this debate I even categorically said that it was ok for him to adjust his model at any stage, and he was happy with that.

The only reason I pointed it out was because he didn't admit to it, and I was basing my arguments on what he had said earlier; so either it looked like I had complete short term memory loss or I pointed out the U-turn.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:52 am

legendkillar wrote:Indeed. Concession or Compromise if you will.
If I had done what Bogbrush had just done (U-turn without admitting), you would be attacking me for it, be honest.

legendkiller wrote:It would be like belittling Tenez or any of the other non-Nadal fans for watching a Nadal match despite not supporting or liking his tennis.
What? That's a very tenuous parallel with little logic.  

legendkillar wrote:
Not sure what the objective is here or whether anyone really cares.
If you don't care that's perfectly fine by me, I recognise this is a tennis forum and not everyone will be interested in this topic.
The 'objective' was to show the double standards of Bogbrush supporting taxation for defence spending and treating victims of a chemical attack, but not being willing for the state to tax and spend on poor citizens who had cancer for normal reasons out of their control. I think the fact he U-turned actually demonstrated this rather well.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:36 pm

Come on Amrit, you know damn well that I'll never - and have never - agreed to the principle of compulsion by the State. I'm fair enough to admit that in the f'd up World right now it looks like borders are needed, and I've even agreed that they must be defended, and those on the inside have a responsibility in there, but there we are.

You can reach for sophistry all you like but that view is pretty clear and trying to segue from there to the NHS is really not up to much.

By the way, you know how I'd handle refusal to contribute to defended borders? I'd have us all know who did and didn't contribute and then others can decide (non-violently) how they wanted to trade or not trade with those who don't chip in. You don't need a State to make it clear to folk what the price of not helping out is.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:56 pm

bogbrush wrote:Q2 Yeah, problem isn’t it? Nation states are silly really and it would be better if we didn’t have them but give me a choice between supra-National corporatism (like the EU), religious illiberalism (like Islam) or simply being dominated by people with no serious heritage of Common Law (like almost everywhere other than Britain, or England to be specific) and I suppose I take it.
To me this sounds much like: nation states are silly, instead everyone should accept my (English in your case) set of values.

summerblues

Posts : 3083
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:00 pm

Alright I’ll drop the U turn issue BB, just one last thing:

You did say you agreed with taxes for defence. Taxes are by definition compulsory. And in the question which you responded to by agreeing to taxes I went out of my way to say ‘compulsory taxation’, to try and avoid doubt.
It is fine to change your mind, and it’s human to try and deny changing position in a debate, I’m sure we’ve all done it.

OK moving on, 2 more questions:
a) You said you would fund national defence using voluntary contributions. What if you can’t raise enough to build nukes or have a defence stopping them. Those against defence spending could all trade with each other (Scotland?).
You said the price of tyranny can’t be liberty, but is not taxing for defence really worth getting nuked?

2/ How would you deal with a deadly SARS outbreak without compulsory government quarantine? And how would someone in poverty who can’t afford healthcare even know he had SARS so he could be quarantined?

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:26 pm

DECIMA wrote:Alright I’ll drop the U turn issue BB, just one last thing:

You did say you agreed with taxes for defence. Taxes are by definition compulsory. And in the question which you responded to by agreeing to taxes I went out of my way to say ‘compulsory taxation’, to try and avoid doubt.
It is fine to change your mind, and it’s human to try and deny changing position in a debate, I’m sure we’ve all done it.

OK moving on, 2 more questions:
a) You said you would fund national defence using voluntary contributions. What if you can’t raise enough to build nukes or have a defence stopping them. Those against defence spending could all trade with each other (Scotland?).
You said the price of tyranny can’t be liberty, but is not taxing for defence really worth getting nuked?

2/ How would you deal with a deadly SARS outbreak without compulsory government quarantine? And how would someone in poverty who can’t afford healthcare even know he had SARS so he could be quarantined?
No, I didn't change my mind.

Turning to these other questions;

- if insufficient people want to pay for things then you can't have them. Controversial in today's climate I know, but a long term fact of life.
- Scotland isn't a person.
- name one outbreak of illness that has ever been handled via compulsory national quarantine. You're trying desperately to find a role for men with guns. Are you a civil servant?
- Oh I see, so in deadly epidemics we all know what's happening because we go to the Doctors and get tested? There was me thinking it becomes a national crisis, we tend to act sensibly by staying away from each other and not going to school/work and so on, and we learn the symptoms off the telly. Or do we all get ordered to train as Doctors, funded off the defence budget?

Honestly Amrit, this is just silly.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:11 pm

summerblues wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Q2 Yeah, problem isn’t it? Nation states are silly really and it would be better if we didn’t have them but give me a choice between supra-National corporatism (like the EU), religious illiberalism (like Islam) or simply being dominated by people with no serious heritage of Common Law (like almost everywhere other than Britain, or England to be specific) and I suppose I take it.
To me this sounds much like: nation states are silly, instead everyone should accept my (English in your case) set of values.
Yeah, it's just that the English Common Law is the greatest legal thing ever created. I'm sure people in other countries might disagree but that's because they have no idea of Common Law.

The one Country that I will recognise as having something equally amazing is America, who have their own form of limitation of the power of the State. it is not coincidental that they were heavily influenced by English law. 

It's very clear from looking around the Americas which countries were colonised by which European power. Broadly speaking, all the ones owing their origins to England are beacons of liberalism and freedom under the law, while all the ones colonised by Spain became authoritarian hellholes who periodically take it in turn to be run by nutcases and starve / imprison half their people.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by legendkillar on Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:17 pm

DECIMA wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Indeed. Concession or Compromise if you will.
If I had done what Bogbrush had just done (U-turn without admitting), you would be attacking me for it, be honest.

legendkiller wrote:It would be like belittling Tenez or any of the other non-Nadal fans for watching a Nadal match despite not supporting or liking his tennis.
What? That's a very tenuous parallel with little logic.  

legendkillar wrote:
Not sure what the objective is here or whether anyone really cares.
If you don't care that's perfectly fine by me, I recognise this is a tennis forum and not everyone will be interested in this topic.
The 'objective' was to show the double standards of Bogbrush supporting taxation for defence spending and treating victims of a chemical attack, but not being willing for the state to tax and spend on poor citizens who had cancer for normal reasons out of their control. I think the fact he U-turned actually demonstrated this rather well.


1) No Amrit I wouldn't. Because I don't classify what BB has stated as U-turn. He made it very clear by about post 6 that there were limitations on his logic and approach based on the scenario you depicted. It may feel to you people will jump over you in that way. Possibly because that's what you do to posters. I recall on 606V2 last year when that cosmic rascal emancipator declared it a weak era in mens tennis based on Djokovic's dominance. That prompted Foghorn Leghorn to weigh in on Federer fans as they didn't subscribe to 'Weak Era' theories. You then chimed in with the hypocrisy angle. I recall calling it diminished competition which HM Murdoch I believed subscribed to and yet old Foghorn and yourself claimed we were calling it 'Weak Era' which prompted me to consider my time there due to the inability of posters there to grasp the English language. Believe it or not, you actually summarized it in a better way by calling it "fluctuation in competition" which I have to say was one of the rare instances you concluded a debate succinctly (yes its a compliment). Basically many posters have seen this pattern all too often and I am not surprised they give you a slighter harsher time when debating. Me I now make a habit of avoiding those debates.

2) It's not tenuous or lacking logic. A U-turn for example would be someone saying "Oh Federer is the greatest" based on certain criteria or belief and then states "Oh Nadal is the greatest" based on the same criteria or belief. So it's essentially going 'totally' against the belief. 

You seemingly won't accept anything less than BB's views being exposed as flippant and inconsistent. He stated he'd have to embrace elements against his beliefs or logic in relation to the scenario you depicted. You've highlighted potential conflicts within his logic based on that scenario. I don't see how you then arrive at him U-turning.

Opinions, beliefs or logics are never perfect and sound to the pound to which they cover off every permutation or scenario.

This debate feels like A Few Good Men when Tom Cruise is trying to grind a confession out of Jack Nicholson that he doesn't have to give. Sadly I don't see BB folding that quickly! Winking

legendkillar

Posts : 1945
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:18 pm

legendkiller wrote:You then chimed in with the hypocrisy angle. I recall calling it diminished competition which HM Murdoch I believed subscribed to and yet old Foghorn and yourself claimed we were calling it 'Weak Era' which prompted me to consider my time there due to the inability of posters there to grasp the English language. Believe it or not, you actually summarized it in a better way by calling it "fluctuation in competition"
You're right that I always called it fluctuation in competition rather than any other term. As for the rest I think you're maybe getting mixed up between what I said and what Socal said. I can only defend myself.
I remember: I quoted posts from previous debates where Emanci and some others had said that there's nothing called fluctuation in competition, or if there is it's unknowable so can't be discussed. Then I quote posts from the same posters, who were claiming Djokovic had benefitted from fluctuation in competition.
Most of my posts were just quotes, I didn't need to add much, people's own words were exposing their own hypocrisy.

legendkiller wrote:You've highlighted potential conflicts within his logic based on that scenario. I don't see how you then arrive at him U-turning.
I can see you're valiantly trying to defend BB, but that's very unreasonable.
It's a clear cut U-turn, it's not even a question. He said due to borders, taxes for defence follows. Tax is a compulsory levy imposted by the state. He then said a day later he believes in borders but the defence fund would have voluntary contributions. That's not a tax. That's a fact, not opinion.
Now I speculate that the reason he U-turned may be because I was showing the double standards of how his ideal society wouldn't have the government treat poor people even if they had treatable cancer. Or maybe it was just a coincidence, who knows.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:11 pm

Yeah Amri, I don't even agree with BB's position, but I also have to say the way you are trying to approach this is silly.  On this thread you started off fine, but now you have deteriorated to what you normally do in tennis discussions - trying to nitpick detail in order to find inconsistencies and then use that to "validate" your position.

summerblues

Posts : 3083
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:27 pm

I don't actually this is nitpicking detail, whether he said he wanted tax for defence or not is actually vital; both in theory and in practice.
Hear me out SB,

In terms of a theoretical discussion, if anyone says 'I on strict principles believe state should never have compulsion to fund anything except x and y', it opens up the question as to why x and y were the exceptions? If there's similar argument for funding z, why can't the state fund x, y, and z on that principle?
But if you take the position 'I believe on strict principles that state should never have compulsion to fund anything period'- it basically shuts down the argument apart from just the pragmatic element.
So BB changing his position from taxes (compulsory) to voluntary contribution, meant my sequence of questions on healthcare could only rely on practical outcome rather than double standards of principle.

And in practice, there may be a big difference between living in a country where defence is funded by voluntary contributions, and one where compulsory taxes ensure a national defence is funded. Former may not have sufficient funding which could put country at risk of annihilation.
So this distinction was important in both regards, make sense?

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:36 pm

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, it's just that the English Common Law is the greatest legal thing ever created. I'm sure people in other countries might disagree but that's because they have no idea of Common Law.
Everyone thinks like that.  I suspect ISIS honchos might sound not too different from this.

Also, how does one who believes in atheism even define what a "greatest legal thing ever created" is?  What does "greatest" even mean?  If it turns out that the world will evolve to say Euro-style bureaucracy, then why not call that the greatest thing ever?

summerblues

Posts : 3083
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:51 pm

DECIMA wrote:if anyone says 'I on strict principles believe state should never have compulsion to fund anything except x and y', it opens up the question as to why x and y were the exceptions? If there's similar argument for funding z, why can't the state fund x, y, and z on that principle?
Because you will end up focusing on the trees and will miss the forest.  In discussions like these it needs to be understood that very few of the statements - even if presented as absolutes - are really quite meant as absolute.

BB essentially says that he wants a minimal role for the government but admits that here and there there will be exceptions.  You respond with bringing all your artillery to focus on what are essentially border skirmishes that even if you "win" will not lead anywhere interesting.

What difference will it make if your z should or should not be lumped with your x and y?  And what difference will it make if BB has not yet thought it through and will have to waver a bit before he makes up his mind?

If you want to fundamentally challenge his position which I would describe as "in general, the less government the better", the kind of hypotheticals you present are a waste of time.

summerblues

Posts : 3083
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:12 pm

Firstly there is a big difference between some compromise, and an absolute position, in terms of principle. Think about it.

Secondly, try and see it from my perspective for a second.
Initially:
If he says yes to taxes for defence to protect against other countries, the next questions are focused on why he wouldn't want taxes to protect people from other things apart from foreign countries.
If he says voluntary contributions for defence, the natural question to ask is how that would work in practice, the risk of not having enough funding etc.
Completely different sequence of questions.

So after he gave the first answer, I ask a series of questions based on that. Then as soon as it gets tough he indicates that he's switched his original stance. Switching at that stage means he cleverly avoids scrutiny on both positions (tax and voluntary).
It makes my critique and questions thus far invalid, as it wouldn't apply to his new position. It wasted time, and if I now ask many questions on his new stance, it will make it seem like he's successfully fended off all the questions so far so I am asking incessantly on the same topic in hope.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:04 pm

summerblues wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Yeah, it's just that the English Common Law is the greatest legal thing ever created. I'm sure people in other countries might disagree but that's because they have no idea of Common Law.
Everyone thinks like that.  I suspect ISIS honchos might sound not too different from this.

Also, how does one who believes in atheism even define what a "greatest legal thing ever created" is?  What does "greatest" even mean?  If it turns out that the world will evolve to say Euro-style bureaucracy, then why not call that the greatest thing ever?
I was going to cite ISIS in exactly the way you do, to make the same point.

For me Common Laws great genius is two things;

1. That everyone is under the law, even the King. Going way back before Magna Carta this principle sets England apart from the later dictatorships of Europe, where absolute rule was the norm.
2. That the law arises from precedent and understood principles, not by diktat. Thus we all know where we stand and are not subject to whim.

Ultimately this is the only truly sustainable model. Everything else evolves inevitably to tyranny, and eventual revolution. That applies to theocracy (ISIS), bureaucracy (EU), Corporatism (EU again) or Monarchy.

Others may thing their system of being ruled by the weird scribbling of various ancient nutters is better but I think my position is well known on that!

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:34 am

bogbrush wrote:Ultimately this is the only truly sustainable model. Everything else evolves inevitably to tyranny, and eventual revolution. That applies to theocracy (ISIS), bureaucracy (EU), Corporatism (EU again) or Monarchy.
I think it only looks to you as the only sustainable model because you are looking at it from your perspective (i.e., from the perspective of someone living in a democracy in the UK, so this particular model looms large in your daily life).  But if you step back and look at the world from afar so to speak, does it really look like the only sustainable model?

Over the millennia, and across cultures, this type of model was employed here and there (for example, Roman republic was arguably similar in many respects), but it is not at all clear that it is more sustainable than other models.  If anything, I would say tyranny seems to have far better long-run record of sustainability.

Anyway, I am far less hopeful than you are.  I am more inclined to believe that our system will dissolve into either EU-type creature (arguably both US and Europe are headed that way, and the rest of the world gives us still less hope) or, perhaps even more likely, that Nazism and Communism were a precursor for the systems that will come, and that they lost out only because they came ahead of their time.

summerblues

Posts : 3083
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:58 am

DECIMA wrote: [...] If he says voluntary contributions for defence [...]
By the time you get to "voluntary contributions for defense", you should realize you are deep into the bizarro world, and clearly you are leading the discussion into wilderness.

That said, there is a part of me that thinks "serves BB right".  With his claims that his opinions are all rational, he should, if taken fully seriously, be able to deal even with this type of nonsense.

summerblues

Posts : 3083
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:29 am

summerblues wrote:
That said, there is a part of me that thinks "serves BB right".  With his claims that his opinions are all rational, he should, if taken fully seriously, be able to deal even with this type of nonsense.
Alright, but let me know if you’re going to engage or contribute in a meaningful way rather than misunderstanding the points being made and then being rude for no reason.

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:44 am

bogbrush wrote:name one outbreak of illness that has ever been handled via compulsory national quarantine.
Sure, not a national quarantine, but there were many compulsory local ones during the SARS outbreak in China in the early 2003.
One of the problems was that people in SARS affected villages started panicking and running away from the village to save themselves.
Unfortunately this had the effect of massively spreading the disease across China.
To contain this, a quarantine was imposed on those village sites on China, which helped stop the endemic and save millions of lives.

How would you deal with this?

DECIMA

Posts : 4548
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by legendkillar on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

DECIMA wrote:
legendkiller wrote:You then chimed in with the hypocrisy angle. I recall calling it diminished competition which HM Murdoch I believed subscribed to and yet old Foghorn and yourself claimed we were calling it 'Weak Era' which prompted me to consider my time there due to the inability of posters there to grasp the English language. Believe it or not, you actually summarized it in a better way by calling it "fluctuation in competition"
You're right that I always called it fluctuation in competition rather than any other term. As for the rest I think you're maybe getting mixed up between what I said and what Socal said. I can only defend myself.
I remember: I quoted posts from previous debates where Emanci and some others had said that there's nothing called fluctuation in competition, or if there is it's unknowable so can't be discussed. Then I quote posts from the same posters, who were claiming Djokovic had benefitted from fluctuation in competition.
Most of my posts were just quotes, I didn't need to add much, people's own words were exposing their own hypocrisy.

legendkiller wrote:You've highlighted potential conflicts within his logic based on that scenario. I don't see how you then arrive at him U-turning.
I can see you're valiantly trying to defend BB, but that's very unreasonable.
It's a clear cut U-turn, it's not even a question. He said due to borders, taxes for defence follows. Tax is a compulsory levy imposted by the state. He then said a day later he believes in borders but the defence fund would have voluntary contributions. That's not a tax. That's a fact, not opinion.
Now I speculate that the reason he U-turned may be because I was showing the double standards of how his ideal society wouldn't have the government treat poor people even if they had treatable cancer. Or maybe it was just a coincidence, who knows.


I am not defending BB as he can pretty much take care of himself. And has done throughout this Q&A session.

I am afraid your going to be the sole one in the majority who believes what BB is doing is a U-turn. The questions changed as well as well the answers.

This is what BB said quite early on in your 'discussion'

"Q2 Yeah, problem isn’t it? Nation states are silly really and it would be better if we didn’t have them but give me a choice between supra-National corporatism (like the EU), religious illiberalism (like Islam) or simply being dominated by people with no serious heritage of Common Law (like almost everywhere other than Britain, or England to be specific) and I suppose I take it.

If you go along with that then the whole tax for defence kind of follows.

So I suppose I’m stuck. On the one hand nation states are daft and are one root cause but over such a long period of time during which that’s been the model that I don’t see how we get out of it, except to something even worse. Everything else I can see how to dump but on this one I’m stumped.

I’m quite pessimistic on this front. Maybe one day eh?"

So I've highlighted the key words from that response. Many responses later you stated:

"Alright, but don't complain later on that I didn't offer a choice.

-I will presume that you are happy defending your model with nation states in place. You have recognised that the evolution of human society has meant that they are necessary, whether you think it's flawed human thinking is irrelevant, as any discussion about policies or economics would have to address flaws in human nature.

-You have said you were happy with compulsory taxation in order to fund defence spending
-You have said first priority of this spending is protection against attacks such as drones/nukes
-You have said if this (above) was on track, and a foreign country had attacked the most impoverished neighbourhoods with a chemical that causes cancer, you would be happy to spend that defence money onto medical treatment to ensure the foreign country wouldn't claim many lives of your fellow citizens.

My question is this:
You have principally agreed to have compulsory taxation in order to fund medical treatment for people if they are a victim of a chemical attack by a foreign country.
There are some viruses which nearly all humans have, which can sometimes randomly cause cancer at no fault to the person.
Person A gets cancer because of a chemical attack by humans, completely impoverished. Person B gets the same cancer because of a virus, also impoverished.
Humans and viruses are both organisms, humans are just more complex, neither has free will, they just do as they're programmed. You said humans aren't more 'alive' than viruses.
Why should Person A get treatment and live saved by the state but Person B not?"

You presumed his position, which I will cover below in his response to that. Now how you've moved from spending in relation to defence to spending around healthcare is a total shift in goalposts and you know it.

BB said in response:

"Firstly, I didn’t say I liked a State model, I said that for defensive reasons there seemed little alternative right now to defending positive cultural developments against others who, for example have no heritage of common law principles.

On that basis I thought in a time of conflict that you’d help those injured in conflict. We would be in a shared defensive effort.

The second situation is entirely different and as I told you, anticipating your question, nobody is obligated. There are sound reasons why it might be wise to help but that’s not the same as saying it should be compulsory. That’s tyranny."

So he stated your assumption was incorrect. He also stated for "Defensive Reasons" so basically if someone is injured in an attack/conflict, it's an emergency response. If your saying that the person got cancer many moons after the attack, then it might have been a question that had merit, but it didn't.

Following from that, you launched into this whole U-Turn malark. As I stated his responses have been consistent with the questions and scenario depicted. It's just sadly the questions haven't been consistent with logic.

legendkillar

Posts : 1945
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:09 am

DECIMA wrote:
bogbrush wrote:name one outbreak of illness that has ever been handled via compulsory national quarantine.
Sure, not a national quarantine, but there were many compulsory local ones during the SARS outbreak in China in the early 2003.
One of the problems was that people in SARS affected villages started panicking and running away from the village to save themselves.
Unfortunately this had the effect of massively spreading the disease across China.
To contain this, a quarantine was imposed on those village sites on China, which helped stop the endemic and save millions of lives.

How would you deal with this?
This is very revealing.

Your example of a good way to handle an epidemic is to adopt the Chinese model of government; one where people have no say over their lawmaking and they are compelled at gunpoint to do what they are told by the government. If I wanted to make a contrast from my opinions, which essentially are that the default condition of mankind should be that we are free to make our own choices, and yours, I couldn't have found a more stark way of doing it.

I would rather we act on information as rational beings and take the consequences than submit myself to this type of subjugation.

bogbrush

Posts : 1378
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:26 am

Have you looked at the Greek model for democracy? This is where it started and it's in my view, probably the best. It worked well for 300 years. Of course it would need updating with modern times (no slaves, women could be elected, etc..) but it is based on random draw amongst citizens, a bit like  our justice system picks up citizens in trials.

Tenez

Posts : 17437
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 13 of 16 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum