|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 9, 2019 10:17:57 GMT -5
So if I was saying that, based on Ayn Rand's comments on native Americans, that all Libertarians were okay with the Native American genocide, would you agree with me? If I cite a single piece of evidence in favor of this claim, then it is sufficiently proven to be true, correct?
So in other word, you can never classify anyone's beliefs as being anything. After all, if their beliefs differ by even one matter from a group's norm, then they can't belong to that group at all.
That would mean a Nazi who didn't agree with Hitler about everything wouldn't be a Nazi at all. Is that what you are claiming?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 18:26:25 GMT -5
You haven't answered my question, Bob. Are statements from a single representative of an ideology enough to make sweeping statements about every single person who believes in that particular ideology?
You seem to believe so, at least as far as "leftism" is concerned. Am I correct in that assessment?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 18:29:07 GMT -5
So if I was saying that, based on Ayn Rand's comments on native Americans, that all Libertarians were okay with the Native American genocide, would you agree with me? If I cite a single piece of evidence in favor of this claim, then it is sufficiently proven to be true, correct? So in other word, you can never classify anyone's beliefs as being anything. After all, if their beliefs differ by even one matter from a group's norm, then they can't belong to that group at all. That would mean a Nazi who didn't agree with Hitler about everything wouldn't be a Nazi at all. Is that what you are claiming? Bob
If I make the claim "All Nazis love dogs" and there was one Nazi who hated dogs, then my claim would be incorrect. If not every leftist denies reality, then "every leftist denies reality" is an incorrect statement. How is it hard to comprehend that when you make a statement about a group of people, that statement actually has to correspond to facts in order to be correct?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 9, 2019 19:09:00 GMT -5
You haven't answered my question, Bob. Are statements from a single representative of an ideology enough to make sweeping statements about every single person who believes in that particular ideology? You seem to believe so, at least as far as "leftism" is concerned. Am I correct in that assessment?
Obviously not. Statements from a single representative of an ideology are NOT ENOUGH to make sweeping statements about every single person who believes in that ideology.
Therefore Ayn Rand's statements about the Native American genocide do not apply to the rest of the people who follow her ideology.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 9, 2019 19:15:10 GMT -5
So in other word, you can never classify anyone's beliefs as being anything. After all, if their beliefs differ by even one matter from a group's norm, then they can't belong to that group at all. That would mean a Nazi who didn't agree with Hitler about everything wouldn't be a Nazi at all. Is that what you are claiming? Bob
If I make the claim "All Nazis love dogs" and there was one Nazi who hated dogs, then my claim would be incorrect. If not every leftist denies reality, then "every leftist denies reality" is an incorrect statement. How is it hard to comprehend that when you make a statement about a group of people, that statement actually has to correspond to facts in order to be correct?
So if the claim is made that Nazis hate Jews and tried to kill all of them, the fact that Schindler, a member of the Nazi Party, saved 1,200 Jews proves that this claim is false. Therefore Nazis did not hate Jews and tried to kill all of them.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 14:13:27 GMT -5
You haven't answered my question, Bob. Are statements from a single representative of an ideology enough to make sweeping statements about every single person who believes in that particular ideology? You seem to believe so, at least as far as "leftism" is concerned. Am I correct in that assessment? Obviously not. Statements from a single representative of an ideology are NOT ENOUGH to make sweeping statements about every single person who believes in that ideology. But statements from two people are?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 10, 2019 14:41:52 GMT -5
Obviously not. Statements from a single representative of an ideology are NOT ENOUGH to make sweeping statements about every single person who believes in that ideology. But statements from two people are?
So if there were another Nazi Party member besides Schindler who also saved Jews, that wouls "prove" that the Nazis were really good people, right?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 17:19:48 GMT -5
That's what you seem to be claiming, yes.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 10, 2019 18:48:46 GMT -5
That's what you seem to be claiming, yes.
Actually, that is what you are claiming. You said:
"If I make the claim "All Nazis love dogs" and there was one Nazi who hated dogs, then my claim would be incorrect.
If not every leftist denies reality, then "every leftist denies reality" is an incorrect statement."
So you are claiming that in order to say anything accurate about a group, EVERY MEMBER of that group has to have exactly the same opinions.
That means if there were one other Nazi besides Schindler who save Jews, that would "prove" the Nazis were not mass murderers.
You said it. I didn't.
Why are those two examples of "good Nazis" not enough to show that the Nazis were mass murderers? Because there are plenty of other examples of Nazis who were killers.
So if you are saying these examples are false or not typical of leftists, you have to present counter-examples to refute his claim.
You didn't.
But you can easily fix that by presenting your counter examples now.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 6:32:45 GMT -5
I am saying that if you are making a statement that refers to every member of a group, it actually has to be correct for every member of a group. How do you have a problem with the idea that claims have to be factually correct in order to be treated as correct? If you had been saying "Warren and Dolezal deny reality" then I wouldn't have objected to it, since you demonstrated that claim to be correct. But Warren and Dolezal are not all leftists, not even close, unless your definition of "leftist" is so narrow as to exclude anybody but Warren and Dolezal. Nobody should seriously make the claim that literally every single member of the NSDAP personally killed Jews. That would be ridiculous, and wrong. There are plenty of people who, like Schindler, joined the Nazi party out of opportunism and careerism.
The claims people make with regards to antisemitism and the Holocaust refer to the Nazi government and its policies, not literally every single person in history who ever was a member of a Nazi organization.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 11, 2019 11:20:55 GMT -5
I am saying that if you are making a statement that refers to every member of a group, it actually has to be correct for every member of a group. How do you have a problem with the idea that claims have to be factually correct in order to be treated as correct? If you had been saying "Warren and Dolezal deny reality" then I wouldn't have objected to it, since you demonstrated that claim to be correct. But Warren and Dolezal are not all leftists, not even close, unless your definition of "leftist" is so narrow as to exclude anybody but Warren and Dolezal. Nobody should seriously make the claim that literally every single member of the NSDAP personally killed Jews. That would be ridiculous, and wrong. There are plenty of people who, like Schindler, joined the Nazi party out of opportunism and careerism.
The claims people make with regards to antisemitism and the Holocaust refer to the Nazi government and its policies, not literally every single person in history who ever was a member of a Nazi organization. But I didn't make a claim about "every leftist." And Neither did Maverick Philosopher. Here again is what he said (from the top post in this thread): "Here is perhaps the deepest metaphysical error of the Left: leftists deny that there is a reality antecedent to our classifications and conceptualizations. (V. I. Lenin was of course an exception.) Everything becomes a social-political construct. How convenient for identity-political totalitarians! The bird of reality can be carved up any way that suits the will to power of some interest group -- because there is no bird to carve. Next stop: the Twilight Zone. Rachel Dolezal is black. Elizabeth Warren is a Cherokee." Maverick Philosopher specifically says that Lenin is an exception! If there is one exception, then he is not claiming that "every member" of the group is the same. Therefore your criticism of his claim is false. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 11:49:12 GMT -5
So when he claims that "leftists deny reality", is he only talking about Dolezal and Warren, or is he also talking about an unspecified number of leftists whom he doesn't name and doesn't provide evidence for?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 12, 2019 20:42:05 GMT -5
So when he claims that "leftists deny reality", is he only talking about Dolezal and Warren, or is he also talking about an unspecified number of leftists whom he doesn't name and doesn't provide evidence for?
Maverick made a claim and provided two clear cases. If you want to demonstrate that he is wrong, all you have to do is provide some counter examples.
Do you have any?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 21:51:25 GMT -5
So when he claims that "leftists deny reality", is he only talking about Dolezal and Warren, or is he also talking about an unspecified number of leftists whom he doesn't name and doesn't provide evidence for? Maverick made a claim and provided two clear cases. If you want to demonstrate that he is wrong, all you have to do is provide some counter examples. Do you have any? Bob
Have you actually read my last two posts?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 12, 2019 22:08:19 GMT -5
Maverick made a claim and provided two clear cases. If you want to demonstrate that he is wrong, all you have to do is provide some counter examples. Do you have any? Bob
Have you actually read my last two posts?
Yes. You provided no counter examples at all of leftists who don't fit Maverick's cases. All you did was imply that Maverick has to provide an immense number of cases without giving an exact number.
Tell us McAnswer, exactly how many more examples do you you claim Maverick has to provide before he has case?
And how many cases do you provide when you make your points?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 14:50:19 GMT -5
Have you actually read my last two posts? Yes. You provided no counter examples at all of leftists who don't fit Maverick's cases.
Do I need to? Exactly as many as he is claiming to speak of. It's not my fault when Maverick is incapable of properly wording his own claims. Why are we still debating this? If he doesn't prove his claim, then he hasn't shown his claim to be correct, it's as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 13, 2019 15:05:32 GMT -5
Yes. You provided no counter examples at all of leftists who don't fit Maverick's cases. Do I need to? Well yes. Otherwise you have no counter-evidence. You mean the whole group? If that were true, then no one could ever make claims about any group. Did Nazis kill a lot of innocent people?According to you, we can't claim that because we haven't studied every single Nazi. No, but it is your fault when you make claims that are unsupported by any evidence. But he has given evidence for his claim. And you have yet to present any counter evidence. Have you held yourself to your own standard? Please give a list of all of your posts as evidence. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 15:11:39 GMT -5
Well yes. Otherwise you have no counter-evidence. Why do I need counter evidence for a claim that is not supported with evidence? Of course we can't! We can however prove that the Nazi government killed a lot of innocent people. Do you disagree? If yes, how about you provide supporting evidence for a change? Indeed! And until Maverick provides supporting evidence for his claims, I will continue to point out the lack of evidence. So he is talking only about Warren and Dolezal after all?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 13, 2019 20:26:47 GMT -5
So if I was saying that, based on Ayn Rand's comments on native Americans, that all Libertarians were okay with the Native American genocide, would you agree with me? If I cite a single piece of evidence in favor of this claim, then it is sufficiently proven to be true, correct? No, of course not.
But your claim would only stand until evidence is presented that other Libertarians do not agree with Ayn Rand's comments on native Americans. And I'm a Libertarian and I don't agree with Rand here.
All you have to do to refute Maverick Philosopher is show examples of "Progressives" who do not think that you can change your ethnic background just by saying so. Oh, and they have to be in some position of authority in the Progressive community, just like the two examples that Maverick Philosopher gave.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 11:57:56 GMT -5
So if I was saying that, based on Ayn Rand's comments on native Americans, that all Libertarians were okay with the Native American genocide, would you agree with me? If I cite a single piece of evidence in favor of this claim, then it is sufficiently proven to be true, correct? No, of course not. But your claim would only stand until evidence is presented that other Libertarians do not agree with Ayn Rand's comments on native Americans. And I'm a Libertarian and I don't agree with Rand here. All you have to do to refute Maverick Philosopher is show examples of "Progressives" who do not think that you can change your ethnic background just by saying so. Oh, and they have to be in some position of authority in the Progressive community, just like the two examples that Maverick Philosopher gave. Bob
Okay, thanks for agreeing that libertarians are pro genocide.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 13:13:13 GMT -5
No, of course not. But your claim would only stand until evidence is presented that other Libertarians do not agree with Ayn Rand's comments on native Americans. And I'm a Libertarian and I don't agree with Rand here. All you have to do to refute Maverick Philosopher is show examples of "Progressives" who do not think that you can change your ethnic background just by saying so. Oh, and they have to be in some position of authority in the Progressive community, just like the two examples that Maverick Philosopher gave. Bob
Okay, thanks for agreeing that libertarians are pro genocide.
Nope. I didn't agree that Libertarians are pro genocide. You made that up.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 16:40:34 GMT -5
Sorry Bob, I've already proven that libertarians are pro genocide with sufficient evidence. Now you have to provide counter evidence that they aren't.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 19:01:24 GMT -5
Sorry Bob, I've already proven that libertarians are pro genocide with sufficient evidence. Now you have to provide counter evidence that they aren't. Well gee McAnswer. I just scrolled through the entire thread and I couldn't find your "proof." Could you please tell me which post it's in so I could see it for myself?
And BTW, you changed the subject.
We were discussing how some "progressives" try to change reality just by saying so. You know, like the way Rachael Donazel and Elizabeth Warren tried to claim they were from a different racial background.
Do you think that these two acted correctly?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 10:00:26 GMT -5
Sorry Bob, I've already proven that libertarians are pro genocide with sufficient evidence. Now you have to provide counter evidence that they aren't. Well gee McAnswer. I just scrolled through the entire thread and I couldn't find your "proof." We've already established that Ayn Rand was pro genocide. Since Ayn Rand is representative of libertarianism, this means that libertarians are pro genocide. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 10:26:11 GMT -5
Well gee McAnswer. I just scrolled through the entire thread and I couldn't find your "proof." We've already established that Ayn Rand was pro genocide. Since Ayn Rand is representative of libertarianism, this means that libertarians are pro genocide. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Yes. I'm a Libertarian and I'm anti-genocide.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 11:44:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 12:06:26 GMT -5
Ad Hominem.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 12:08:54 GMT -5
Given your history of dishonesty and lying, I have sufficient grounds to believe that you are not being honest. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 12:15:14 GMT -5
Given your history of dishonesty and lying, I have sufficient grounds to believe that you are not being honest. Do you have evidence to the contrary? You have never given any actual evidence of that at all. You have merely made baseless claims without any supporting evidence.
Once again, you have to actually show proof. Your unsupported word is not enough.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 14:01:46 GMT -5
Do you have evidence to the contrary, yes or no?
|
|