By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Colin Moriarty is back

WolfpackN64 on 21 March 2017
Aura7541 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Prove it. Seriously, stop throwing these politically nonsensical claims around.

Equality is a liberal value. As a matter of fact, our good friend VGPolyglot strives for gender equality, but his proposed ideas to achieve that is illiberal (e.g. equality of outcome policies as opposed to equality of opportunity).

Freedom is a liberal value and equality before law, now equality in welbeing. If you're far left, you're for equality in welbeing, because there can be no euality before law in a country where your material wellbeing is still being taken into account before court, thus there is no real freedom. That's where many liberals fall in a pit, because they don't really believe in equality in material wellbeing. They'd throw us a bone and tell us to be happy with the marrow, while feasting on all the flesh.



Around the Network
potato_hamster on 21 March 2017
WolfpackN64 said:
Aura7541 said:

That doesn't change the fact that there are far leftists who claim they espouse liberal values.

Prove it. Seriously, stop throwing these politically nonsensical claims around.

Maybe you should hop on twitter or tumbler for like three minutes. You'll find thousands.



Aura7541 on 21 March 2017
WolfpackN64 said:
Aura7541 said:

Equality is a liberal value. As a matter of fact, our good friend VGPolyglot strives for gender equality, but his proposed ideas to achieve that is illiberal (e.g. equality of outcome policies as opposed to equality of opportunity).

Freedom is a liberal value and equality before law, now equality in welbeing. If you're far left, you're for equality in welbeing, because there can be no euality before law in a country where your material wellbeing is still being taken into account before court, thus there is no real freedom. That's where many liberals fall in a pit, because they don't really believe in equality in material wellbeing. They'd throw us a bone and tell us to be happy with the marrow, while feasting on all the flesh.

And those types of people are not liberal because they are opposed to equality of opportunity, where the particular opportunity is to achieve material wellbeing if one works hard enough to earn it.



WolfpackN64 on 21 March 2017
Aura7541 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Your argument is basically: You hold a certain word as existant and a carrier of meaning -> I dispute this -> you claim I can't back this up statistically (basically you say I don't know everyone, which is true, but the same is true for you) -> I refer to an absolute authority (an official dictionary) -> you reject the authority and go back to square one.

You're intentionally creating a circle of so called fallacy pitfalls which are nothing more then an abolute rejection of everything I brought forward. Of course, nothing I would bring forward helps. I could throw Oxford dictionary's at your head, you'd play with it like the children you are.

And guess what? If you want to prove that the authority is valid, then you need to argue on the merits of the term as in show me the reason why the dictionaries do not include Regressive Left in the dictionary and why that reason is valid. It always goes back to arguing the merits. This is not a circle I made. This is a circle you made.

You know what? Fine, let's look at the Wikipedia article.

""Regressive left" (also formulated as "regressive liberals") is a political epithet, used as a pejorative to describe a section of left-wing politics who are accused of paradoxically holding reactionary views by their tolerance of illiberal principles and ideologies, particularly tolerance of Islamism, for the sake of multiculturalism and cultural relativism."

And see, there is already a problem. A tolerance of illiberal ideas. Not the holding of them, but tolerating them. As a far leftist, I don't tolerate the far right. I'd ban them outright if I'd had the power to. If anyone would declare their religious law to be absolute and above the law, they'd face the law (and potentially, jail). If the far left fraternizes with people of foreign origin and religion, it would be to fight injustice.



VGPolyglot on 21 March 2017
Aura7541 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Freedom is a liberal value and equality before law, now equality in welbeing. If you're far left, you're for equality in welbeing, because there can be no euality before law in a country where your material wellbeing is still being taken into account before court, thus there is no real freedom. That's where many liberals fall in a pit, because they don't really believe in equality in material wellbeing. They'd throw us a bone and tell us to be happy with the marrow, while feasting on all the flesh.

And those types of people are not liberal because they are opposed to equality of opportunity, where the particular opportunity is to achieve material wellbeing if one works hard enough to earn it.

However, how would equal of opportunity after the first generation, where the people who were ahead will have children that will almost surely be better off than the children of the others? Would you reset after every generation?



Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 21 March 2017
Aura7541 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Freedom is a liberal value and equality before law, now equality in welbeing. If you're far left, you're for equality in welbeing, because there can be no euality before law in a country where your material wellbeing is still being taken into account before court, thus there is no real freedom. That's where many liberals fall in a pit, because they don't really believe in equality in material wellbeing. They'd throw us a bone and tell us to be happy with the marrow, while feasting on all the flesh.

And those types of people are not liberal because they are opposed to equality of opportunity, where the particular opportunity is to achieve material wellbeing if one works hard enough to earn it.

That is ideal in an early stage of capitalism, but capitalism inevitably leads to monopoly and concentration of wealth, in which case your meritocracy has largely ceased to exist.



dahuman on 21 March 2017

holy shit he's already loaded with cash lol, wtf



WolfpackN64 on 21 March 2017
potato_hamster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Prove it. Seriously, stop throwing these politically nonsensical claims around.

Maybe you should hop on twitter or tumbler for like three minutes. You'll find thousands.

There's a reason I quit twitter, it's become an absolute cesspit where no real debate is possible in any civilized way.



potato_hamster on 21 March 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Aura7541 said:

And those types of people are not liberal because they are opposed to equality of opportunity, where the particular opportunity is to achieve material wellbeing if one works hard enough to earn it.

However, how would equal of opportunity after the first generation, where the people who were ahead will have children that will almost surely be better off than the children of the others? Would you reset after every generation?

Hey, that's for you to sort out. Ohh wait, everyone does their best, from ditch diggers to baristas to crab fisherman to brain surgeons for the same pay, regardless of the hours just because they want to do their part in society, and will be driven by no bigger desire than the happiness they feel that society functions, so no one will "be ahead", right?



Aura7541 on 21 March 2017
WolfpackN64 said:
Aura7541 said:

And guess what? If you want to prove that the authority is valid, then you need to argue on the merits of the term as in show me the reason why the dictionaries do not include Regressive Left in the dictionary and why that reason is valid. It always goes back to arguing the merits. This is not a circle I made. This is a circle you made.

You know what? Fine, let's look at the Wikipedia article.

""Regressive left" (also formulated as "regressive liberals") is a political epithet, used as a pejorative to describe a section of left-wing politics who are accused of paradoxically holding reactionary views by their tolerance of illiberal principles and ideologies, particularly tolerance of Islamism, for the sake of multiculturalism and cultural relativism."

And see, there is already a problem. A tolerance of illiberal ideas. Not the holding of them, but tolerating them. As a far leftist, I don't tolerate the far right. I'd ban them outright if I'd had the power to. If anyone would declare their religious law to be absolute and above the law, they'd face the law (and potentially, jail). If the far left fraternizes with people of foreign origin and religion, it would be to fight injustice.

Remember when I said that the term was coined by a Muslim and you said you didn't care? Perhaps you should read the second paragraph of the same page.

WolfpackN64 said:
Aura7541 said:

And those types of people are not liberal because they are opposed to equality of opportunity, where the particular opportunity is to achieve material wellbeing if one works hard enough to earn it.

That is ideal in an early stage of capitalism, but capitalism inevitably leads to monopoly and concentration of wealth, in which case your meritocracy has largely ceased to exist.

Which type of capitalism? You're only naming one type of capitalism as it is possible to run on a capitalist system with government oversight and regulation. Your post is ultimately an over-generalization.