Jysfors ?
Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
http://www.meforum.org/166/the-arab-betrayal-of-balkan-islam
TLDR version: enthusiastic cooperation with America, becoming traitors to Islam.
FTA:
Necronic
Staff member
Late to the party but /r/atheism is such an absurd place. Faces of atheism is still one of the funnier things that came out of it
[DOUBLEPOST=1489616170,1489615874][/DOUBLEPOST]Also of course there is the amazing Mr euphoric
[DOUBLEPOST=1489616170,1489615874][/DOUBLEPOST]Also of course there is the amazing Mr euphoric
[DOUBLEPOST=1489616314][/DOUBLEPOST]There's also a pretty good subreddit called magicalskyfairy that just constantly shits all over them when they crawl too far up their own asses.
#4 really says it, and I'm right there with #8.
He's leaving that for Frank Oz.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
figmentPez
Staff member
That's how western dragons work in Shadowrun, though. They invest their hoards.
figmentPez
Staff member
THIS IS AN INSULT TO ORANGE CREAMSICLES!
Cold to its core
Appeals to the common denominator
Cheap
A nostalgic throwback to a time that is nothing like what you remember
Appeals to the common denominator
Cheap
A nostalgic throwback to a time that is nothing like what you remember
Bruh. That is way to real.
This somewhat goes with the discussion @@Li3n and I were having in the other thread, but is its "own thing" IMO that emphasizes much of what I mean about government overreach:
I don't even agree with 100% of the issues he raises (or believe it's more nuanced in a case or two) but even with the flaws, it remains an excellent video, especially his final statement:
"If you aren't free to make bad choices (providing you're not directly harming anyone else) you aren't really free."
I don't even agree with 100% of the issues he raises (or believe it's more nuanced in a case or two) but even with the flaws, it remains an excellent video, especially his final statement:
"If you aren't free to make bad choices (providing you're not directly harming anyone else) you aren't really free."
Also "I have no moral responsibility to anyone but myself."
This seems more objectivist than libertarian. I'm a Christian and a libertarian, and I absolutely think I have a moral responsibility to those less fortunate. There may be a philosophical difference with modern liberals over how the most good is done (private charity vs government benefits), but to state that libertarians are fundamentally uninterested in providing for the welfare of others is flat wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wouldn't a Libertarian's ideal be to help/guide other people to become Libertarian, being as how Libertarians view maximizing personal liberty as the best possible outcome?
--Patrick
Perhaps some might see it that way, but for me it isn't a religion. I see it as the best political philosophy, so I try my best to affect change in that direction. I know it isn't perfect, and that some concessions must be made for the sake of practicality. I also acknowledge that for pure libertarianism to work, it requires a well-informed AND moral populace. Since we don't seem to have one of those (and never really have) I don't see pure libertarianism ever working - but if I can provide some pressure on the R-D pendulum by my actions and votes, I don't see that as a bad thing.
To expand upon this, I would say that the following is true to (most) libertarians: It is wrong for the government (or anybody really) to take your wealth/money/whatever away and give it to another (or even back to you... bribing people with their own money is old-hat to governments IMO) because they/you "deserve" it according to the government, but it is absolutely not a conflict to choose to give your money away for a cause you believe in.
Speaking as someone who did a year of national service, pic 8 is so accurate it gave me whiplash just from the memories.
fade
Staff member
See, the part I have difficulty with is the concept of "my" money. I would not have had this money nor had the opportunities to earn it if not for the communal actions and wealth of people and institutions around me. I also fond it quite difficult to think of the government as a "they". For better or worse, it's an "us".
"I" do not have any measurable agency in the outcome of government (see that Princeton study from 2014) actions. Thus it is not "us" or "we" it is "them."
As for the other part of the argument, I usually go to the idea that any that are directly responsible for my wealth/income usually also have a rather direct relationship with me. And thus we are supporting each other. While the government is a PART of that, it is certainly not 30-50% (or more) of that, and thus entitled to that percentage of my income by default. Government is not the society, it is a necessary evil to have as a part of that society.
There's an old OLD saying that I can't remember exactly, nor whom said it originally: If people were angels, we wouldn't need government, and if government were made up of angels, you wouldn't worry about if what they were doing was right.
Necessary Evil. Anything else is conflating "society" with government, which is itself dangerous for many many reasons.
I have to say that the tribalism of politics is what frustrates me the most. I am inclined to agree with Fade, in that the government is "us". To me that means that a democratic government is composed of people, like my family and community are composed of people. By making government a "them", I think the danger one falls into is believing that "they" are lesser and that one is better than "them". But that isn't true, I think fundamentally so. I prefer to think of a democratic government as "like me" in that, while it is flawed, it conforms to our societies values. The people in the government are capable of compassion as well as of greed. The more we think of the government as the "other", the more the government becomes closed off, actually becoming the other. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Keep the government recognizably human: Transparent, open to contributions from the constituents, and fair. Granted, it is not always those things. But that is somewhat my point. It isn't policy that makes government other. It is we who do not participate because we already do not trust the government.
See: democratic government and shares our societies values.
That's our fault as much as it is theirs. Which was the whole point of my post.
If you are just going to respond to the first three sentences and ignore the rest, I'll stick to just writing three sentences in the future. Or maybe 140 characters.
GasBandit
Staff member
Everything past the first 3 sentences was a mixture of wishful thinking and a fairy tail. I think you also vastly overestimate the inherent morality of "human."
It is the nature of power, and thus the nature of government, that it inherently becomes malevolent the more it grows - even if that power was gained via democratic process. The only way to be assured it does not is to reduce its power as much as possible while grudgingly allowing the minimal amount necessary to do the things that only a government can do. To do otherwise... gets us where we are today. Or (and probably will be soon) worse.
No, you vastly overestimate YOUR inherent morality. That was also part of my point. You think you are better than the government. I think I am as base as they are.
GasBandit
Staff member
I think I am less capable of harm than the government, that's for sure - if only because I don't have the power to do so.
Sure, but that's not what I said. "They" will be corrupted. You will not. The language you use suggests superiority.
I argue that you are part of the problem in the first place that drives the people in government to become the other. You paint them the enemy, they conform to the role you've given them.