|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 14:34:12 GMT -5
Do you have evidence to the contrary, yes or no?
You're the one who made the unfounded, unsupported claim. Not me. It's your responsibility to give supporting evidence. Where is it?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 5:37:38 GMT -5
So I guess that's a "no".
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 16, 2019 10:15:36 GMT -5
So I guess that's a "no".
I will be glad to refute any "evidence" you provide. But you didn't provide any. So your claim is nothing more than an Ad Hominem and has no basis.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 12:50:18 GMT -5
So you still don't have any evidence to disprove that libertarians condone genocide?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 17, 2019 19:50:32 GMT -5
So you still don't have any evidence to disprove that libertarians condone genocide?
Do you have any evidence to disprove that you condone genocide?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 11:42:21 GMT -5
I was asking a simple question. Do you have evidence to disprove the genocidal nature of libertarianism, or not?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 18, 2019 14:03:56 GMT -5
I was asking a simple question. Do you have evidence to disprove the genocidal nature of libertarianism, or not?
Yes. The Non-Aggression Principle.
"The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle, or non-initiation of force, is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, aggression is defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual or their property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, it does not forbid forceful defense.
The NAP is considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism, especially natural-rights libertarianism.[2] It is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, classical liberalism and minarchism.[3][4][5][6]"
And here is the pledge that all new members of the Libertarian Party are required to take:
"The Libertarian pledge, a statement individuals must sign in order to join the Libertarian Party of the United States, declares, "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."[1]
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 11:13:10 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that Ayn Rand is not a libertarian? Aren't you still a follower of Ayn Rand?
How exactly can you reconcile your belief in a genocidal ideology with calling yourself a libertarian?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 20, 2019 11:36:38 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that Ayn Rand is not a libertarian? Aren't you still a follower of Ayn Rand? I'm saying that Rand made a false claim that completely contradicted the rest of her philosophy, especially the rule to never initiate violence. IMO, the rest of her philosophy is worth following. Complex Question Fallacy. You haven't demonstrated that that the entire ideology is genocidal, have you? I could also ask you how you can reconcile your belief in Postmodernism, and ideology that condones child rape and wife-beating, with your claim that you are against "repression." Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2019 15:04:32 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that Ayn Rand is not a libertarian? Aren't you still a follower of Ayn Rand? I'm saying that Rand made a false claim that completely contradicted the rest of her philosophy, especially the rule to never initiate violence. So Ayn Rand wasn't a real libertarian? So you don't see a problem in a belief whose main promponent saw genocide as a logical outcome?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 20, 2019 16:13:44 GMT -5
I'm saying that Rand made a false claim that completely contradicted the rest of her philosophy, especially the rule to never initiate violence. So Ayn Rand wasn't a real libertarian? LOL! Rand hated the Libertarian Party! Complex Question Fallacy. Rand's reasoning in this one case was faulty. Her conclusion clearly contradicted the foundation of her ethics, the Non-Initiation of Force Principle. Are you also going to say that Kan's philosophy is not worth following because Kant was a racist who thought that war was a good thing? If that is going to be your attitude, then you will have to reject every philosopher who wrote before the 20th century (and quite a few who wrote after as well). Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 18:36:02 GMT -5
So Ayn Rand wasn't a real libertarian? LOL! Rand hated the Libertarian Party! That doesn't answer the question.
You consider yourself both a libertarian and a follower of Rand's beliefs, do you not?
Evidently you personally believe that the two are compatible.
So you keep asserting without evidence, and contrary to the beliefs of the Ayn Rand Institute and several notable Randians. Are you saying that Rand and her followers were all too irrational and too stupid to see the flaws in her logic? If so, what does that say about Randians?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 22, 2019 21:25:42 GMT -5
LOL! Rand hated the Libertarian Party! That doesn't answer the question. You consider yourself both a libertarian and a follower of Rand's beliefs, do you not? Evidently you personally believe that the two are compatible. I do consider myself a Libertarian and I belief most of Rand's philosophy is correct. Exactly what evidence do I need to demonstrate that what happened to the Native American population was wrong? Everyone makes mistakes. Besides you will need to provide actual comments from other well-known Objectivists to demonstrate that they agreed with her mistakes. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2019 7:21:11 GMT -5
That doesn't answer the question. You consider yourself both a libertarian and a follower of Rand's beliefs, do you not? Evidently you personally believe that the two are compatible. I do consider myself a Libertarian and I belief most of Rand's philosophy is correct. "LOL! Rand hated the Libertarian Party!" Anyway, you still haven't answered the question. Was Rand a real libertarian, yes or no? Complex Question Fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 23, 2019 12:12:08 GMT -5
I do consider myself a Libertarian and I belief most of Rand's philosophy is correct. "LOL! Rand hated the Libertarian Party!" Anyway, you still haven't answered the question. Was Rand a real libertarian, yes or no? Mostly she was, with one major lapse. Really? How? A Complex Question Fallacy assumes facts not in evidence. What facts not in evidence does my question assume? Where is the "fallacy?" Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 12:11:10 GMT -5
"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!" Read more: unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/3940/prove-social-construction#ixzz5piqwniLCIf someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide evidence for that claim.And that is a basic rule here on the FACTS Board. Otherwise we would have to "prove" that ghosts don't exist, UFO's are not space ships from other planets, and the Jews were not trying to take over Germany before the Nazis saved the country. CARDINAL RULE: The person making the claim is the one who has to provide the Proof.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 27, 2019 12:33:44 GMT -5
"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!" Read more: unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/3940/prove-social-construction#ixzz5piqwniLCIf someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide evidence for that claim.And that is a basic rule here on the FACTS Board. Otherwise we would have to "prove" that ghosts don't exist, UFO's are not space ships from other planets, and the Jews were not trying to take over Germany before the Nazis saved the country. CARDINAL RULE: The person making the claim is the one who has to provide the Proof.
Maverick did provide two examples to make his point, didn't he?
And you didn't dispute his examples were correct.
And what about you? Do you believe "there is a reality antecedent to our conceptions and classifications"?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 18:31:03 GMT -5
So two examples would be enough to prove that libertarians support genocide and child rape?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 27, 2019 19:59:35 GMT -5
So two examples would be enough to prove that libertarians support genocide and child rape?
No. Two examples would not be enough to prove that an extreme position like supporting child rape is being advocated by a majority of Libertarians. Or any group actually. In addition you would have to show that the idea of supporting child rape was becoming popular among that group. That you haven't done.
On top of that, you provided only one sample.
In addition, you would have to demonstrate that there is a wide scale movement for the recognition of child rape as being socially acceptable. I haven't heard of any such movement. Have you?
By contrast, there is an actual movement, Postmodernism, that seems to say the only things that exist are things that the majority of a group agrees to.
Bob
|
|