We Have a BIG PROBLEM Here

Mcans - the problem isn't about any specific acts by an individual or party, it's the idea that so many people in both parties consider the other side to be literally evil. And you can't work with or compromise with evil people, all you can do is kill them.

As I've pointed out before, whatever people do, no matter how horrible, they believe that they were forced to do it in self defense. They didn't want to do the bad thing, but they were forced to do it to save themselves and their families from the evil "others".

Our political system was based on the idea that reasonable people could disagree with each other, but still work together for the benefit of the nation. These days both political extremes refuse to negotiate with the other side because the other side is evil, ignorant, stupid, etc. They attack the people presenting an idea, and do not try to show why it's a bad idea. It came from those people, who are evil, and therefore it's bad. 8-<

Do you mean this particular analysis?

I am not a Republican or a Democrat. So why should I include myself?



I would not call it "extreme" to compare VIOLENT groups to Nazi stormtroopers because that is how the Nazis actually started out. Didn't they?

I have never compared people who simply disagree with me to Nazis. Simple disagreement is not violence.

Bob

Do you include yourself in that?



I have on several previous occasions CRITICIZED AND COMPLETELY DISAVOWED Ayn Rand's justification for the genocide of Native Americans. Please note that her mistake (which is inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy) in no way refutes the rest of her philosophy.

Have you BTW ever disavowed Foucault's support of the murderous, tyrannical, and anti-gay Iranian Revolution?

Did Foucault's support negate the rest of his philosophy?

Bob

Notice how quickly you tried to shift away from your admission that you are "incapable of recognizing the same flaws in yourself that you see plentifully in your political opponents?" Sorry McAnswer, that doesn't work here.

The point is that you demolished your own case while you you were trying to demolish mine. And your Red Herrings didn't work.




Ho hum. How many times do I have to say that I totally disagree with and reject Rand's comments on the Native American genocide? If you want to have an argument over that, go find someone who agrees with her on that terrible genocide. I certainly don't

And I NEVER have compared people I disagree with to Adolph Hitler. I compare people who resort to VIOLENCE to achieve their political ends to the Nazis and Communists. That's a distinction you keep forgetting.

Why do you keep distorting and misquoting what I say and then pretend that you have refuted it? That doesn't work here you know.



Sez you with absolutely no supporting evidence other than misquotes and distortions.



You're joking here, right? The Cardinal Rule in Objectivist Ethics is the NON-INITIATION of Violence. Please tell me how that is consistent with Genocide?



Easy one. There is a causal chain between blaming the evil Capitalists for all the evils of the world and the eventual desire to kill them all.

There is no causal chain between "Never Initiate Violence" and "Let's kill all the Native Americans and take their land." Rand made a clear error here.




Oh, you mean the way I disavow Rand's error of supporting the Native American Genocide every time you bring that up?



Ditto for Rand. Shall we stop beating these long dead horses now?




Well yes, postmodernists don't make one aspect of their philosophy consistent with the other aspects. This is why their philosophies are an inconsistent mass of contradictions. You can't have, for example, your epistemology contradict your ethics. It simply won't work.

Bob

So, in supporting genocide, would you say that Ayn Rand was just like Adolf Hitler?

Of course you have appropriate quotes from Rand to support your claim. Where are they?

Bob

Wrong. The term "Objectivist" was not even invented until several years after the publication of "Atlas Shrugged." The name "Objectivist" does not appear anywhere in the book.



One mention in a book of over one thousand pages. Is that all you could come up with? And you didn't even bother to quote the entire sentence. That does make it difficult to see if you are quoting out of context, doesn't it?

And in Atlas Shrugged, exactly how many people did John Galt kill? None.

Okay, then how many people did he physically attack? Also none.

There is no error in logic here. The principle is "Do not Initiate Violence." Her characters stick to that throughout all of her books.

All people are animals, by the way. Some are suicidal and some are not. Do you deny this?

So how is pointing this out "dehumanizing?"

Bob

Humans can also be "savage" in their behavior.

Why is it dehumanizing to speak of a group of people as "savages", but not to speak of them as "suicidal animals"?