Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2013, 01:33 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2013 01:40 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(19-02-2013 12:18 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  You seem to be quite keen on trying to point out fallacies in the arguments of others. Perhaps you should apply that same scrutiny to your own.

Good day.

There aren't any.

If there were, an adequate opposition, would have pointed that out. Are we playing this game again?

Does this not remind you of anything? Some politicians, maybe? Religion? This thread? General disagreements in society?

Also, I only pointed out fallacies after you continually failed to provide anything relevant to the discussion or any of the important points I was making.

Now, apparently I'm supposed to do your work, as a part of my work, with little to no benefit to myself, or in general. Looks like someone ordered a little bit of right-wing, to go along with their libertarianism.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 07:54 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
"Bullshit, bothers me. People who talk about the government like it's an evil Iron Man,~"

Straw man

"That's just another piece of complete, dog shit, that people like to toss around-- "The words changed meaning magically.~""


Straw man

"Those people, they used to be progressive Democrats. ~ a libertarian wouldn't have even wanted the Constitution, if any government at all."

Arguments from ignorance, poisoning the well, contradictory claim

"Stereotyping and prejudice is never okay."

Argument from authority, contradiction

"The correlation I was talking about was between kids views, along with
their parents views, and their views as adults, especially political and
ideological."

Moving the goal posts

"However, you can not say X is A, without providing how,"


Straw man, red herring

"A government by definition includes absolutely nothing, in any
definition that I've heard, in my entire life, that makes it a
requirement, that a government is violent."


Appeal to tradition (attempted), argument from ignorance


"If there were, an adequate opposition, would have pointed that out."

I'm not here to nitpick your debate style, I'm here to debate the merits of the subject at hand. I've tried to do that with you and I have pointed out a few fallacies in your arguments, when they were really important and when it was clear to me that you either didn't understand or were being dishonest. I can deal with that stuff with no problems but, and this is why I'm done with this argument, I won't pretend to have a debate with someone who consistently launches passive aggressive attacks on me and the arguments I present.

I even tried to ask you why the subject of anarchy bothered you so much and you responded with a belligerent slaying of straw men. I should have stopped then. But, that's not your fault, it's mine.

Good evening.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 10:42 AM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2013 10:50 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(19-02-2013 07:54 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Bullshit, bothers me. People who talk about the government like it's an evil Iron Man,~"

Straw man

"That's just another piece of complete, dog shit, that people like to toss around-- "The words changed meaning magically.~""


Straw man

"Those people, they used to be progressive Democrats. ~ a libertarian wouldn't have even wanted the Constitution, if any government at all."

Arguments from ignorance, poisoning the well, contradictory claim

"Stereotyping and prejudice is never okay."

Argument from authority, contradiction

"The correlation I was talking about was between kids views, along with
their parents views, and their views as adults, especially political and
ideological."

Moving the goal posts

"However, you can not say X is A, without providing how,"


Straw man, red herring

"A government by definition includes absolutely nothing, in any
definition that I've heard, in my entire life, that makes it a
requirement, that a government is violent."


Appeal to tradition (attempted), argument from ignorance


"If there were, an adequate opposition, would have pointed that out."

I'm not here to nitpick your debate style, I'm here to debate the merits of the subject at hand. I've tried to do that with you and I have pointed out a few fallacies in your arguments, when they were really important and when it was clear to me that you either didn't understand or were being dishonest. I can deal with that stuff with no problems but, and this is why I'm done with this argument, I won't pretend to have a debate with someone who consistently launches passive aggressive attacks on me and the arguments I present.

I even tried to ask you why the subject of anarchy bothered you so much and you responded with a belligerent slaying of straw men. I should have stopped then. But, that's not your fault, it's mine.

Good evening.

Exactly.

You picked out pieces that weren't even arguments (just general points mostly), and that were irrelevant to the major disagreements.

For the strawman claims, you are a few levels deep: those weren't part of the arguments, I was just making points and providing information (which you never disagreed with), and I was not reaching conclusions based off of them, by saying that those were your arguments, and then providing that misrepresentation to be false (which is the definition).

You, also, never made an attempt to solidify your argument(s), in response to any of the arguments I made directly against yours. You never asked me to elaborate or explain what I meant, nor did you question the intent or meaning.

You are, also, using fallacies that are used for rhetoric, and shouldn't even be used there. You just stated the irrelevant fallacies, without actually providing how what you were addressing was fallacious, and that, in itself, makes all of your claims of fallacies, fallacious claims.

You should definitely try to just simply forget those fallacy names. They don't really apply well to logic, debate or argument, they really only apply to rhetoric, where they are mainly distracting and a way to be irrelevant and take concentration away from the topic.

I was actually hoping that you would have finally addressed the relevant by now. Going through an exclusively taking the most irrelevant pieces of the conversation out, in order to respond only to what is in the interest of yourself, and to maintain the ability to keep believing whatever you want, without actually trying to defend your views, when you are challenged, is the problem that we have in the world, with society, in general, today. Every person thinks that they are entitled to their own truth and own beliefs, they are fools, they are unwise, yet they are so sure that every belief or opinion that they have in their head is truth and reality. Every other person who disagrees with them is just misrepresenting their views and doesn't understand, but when they are questioned on it..........nothing.

A damned day doesn't go past when I don't question, whether or not, I'm the one who is crazy, whether, or not, I'm the one who has the incorrect views, or whether, or not, I'm the one who should change views. I have my beliefs, and if they are misrepresented, I'll explain them again, then again, and if I see another person with different views, I'll ask them about them. I'll listen, I'll learn, I'll make up my mind, I'll change my mind, I'll say when I'm wrong, I'll apologize, I'll agree, I'll try to gain more understanding. Maybe that is what makes me crazy, and maybe I am just the crazy one.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 11:54 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
"I was actually hoping that you would have finally addressed the relevant by now."

Relevant to whom?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 03:27 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(20-02-2013 11:54 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "I was actually hoping that you would have finally addressed the relevant by now."

Relevant to whom?

Not "whom", but what.

The discussion that we were having. The arguments that you brought up and I responded to and/or the arguments I brought up in response, or otherwise, etc.; any of that would have been nice.

There were really only two main parts of the disagreement, I could see, looking back: 1) Whether, or not, calling the Founding Fathers libertarians, in a general sense, was an accurate representation of their views, or could be labeled as not a fair representation; and 2) Whether, or not, "Government, by definition, is a violent monopoly", was a true statement.

There were other little points here and there, and there is also the fundamental disagreement, arising from you making comments that came off to me as libertarian, me responding because I disagree with the views and you responding back, but all of those kind of only came down to those two main disagreements, that I could pick out of the discussion between us, in this thread.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
"1) Whether, or not, calling the Founding Fathers libertarians, in a
general sense, was an accurate representation of their views, or could
be labeled as not a fair representation;"

Not much relevance there for me. We can differ philosophically but we can't change the truth.

"2) Whether, or not, "Government, by definition, is a violent monopoly", was a true statement."


That's a fundamental point of contention for me and it's rooted in the same principles as the above tangent. We can differ about whether or not the state is justified in using violence but we cannot change a thing by arguing. I've argued these points with socialists and minarchists (Libertarians) alike but we can never have a productive argument unless we can agree on terms. Most people I've debated will admit the state's monopoly on violence, because one only has to look at it to see it. Once there is an agreement on that truth, the debate becomes whether the state should or shouldn't use violence and/or how much violence it should use, if any.

Another point of relevance to me is the contention you had with child rearing. I now understand that's not important to you and that's why I said... Relevant to whom? Because to me, that's infinitely more relevant than a dick measuring contest about names.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 06:11 PM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2013 06:25 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(20-02-2013 03:54 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "1) Whether, or not, calling the Founding Fathers libertarians, in a
general sense, was an accurate representation of their views, or could
be labeled as not a fair representation;"

Not much relevance there for me. We can differ philosophically but we can't change the truth.

"2) Whether, or not, "Government, by definition, is a violent monopoly", was a true statement."


That's a fundamental point of contention for me and it's rooted in the same principles as the above tangent. We can differ about whether or not the state is justified in using violence but we cannot change a thing by arguing. I've argued these points with socialists and minarchists (Libertarians) alike but we can never have a productive argument unless we can agree on terms. Most people I've debated will admit the state's monopoly on violence, because one only has to look at it to see it. Once there is an agreement on that truth, the debate becomes whether the state should or shouldn't use violence and/or how much violence it should use, if any.

Another point of relevance to me is the contention you had with child rearing. I now understand that's not important to you and that's why I said... Relevant to whom? Because to me, that's infinitely more relevant than a dick measuring contest about names.

If there isn't much relevance to you, how do you still hold political, social and economical, etc., views?

I made concrete arguments about both of those things I mentioned, neither of which you addressed properly. I provided an initial argument against the idea that it is fair to label them as libertarians, and then I provided a response to your definition of government as a violent monopoly. However, you ignored both.

You can call it arguing over, words, or whatever you want--even though you never disagreed with the definition(s) that I provided, and you never provided you own meanings, to let me know what you were basing your view on (leaving me in the dark)--but ultimately, the words represent ideas, actual things and people, etc., and have practical consequences and effects.

As far as the child raising, I didn't think we still had a disagreement. I initially had a concern with saying "empathy" and "peace", which I explained, and you, for whatever reason, took it as me being for violence, abuse, neglect, etc., which I corrected, and I thought it was done after that.

At the very least, it would be nice for you to address my arguments on those two questions. Especially the latter given that you are still saying this even after I argued against it:

Quote:Most people I've debated will admit the state's monopoly on violence, because one only has to look at it to see it.

I'm not most people you've debated with, and I supplied an argument to the contrary.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 06:37 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
"If there isn't much relevance to you, how do you still hold political, social and economical, etc., views? "

What the founding fathers are called has little relevance. Obviously since, like religion, politics has a definite affect on my life, I have views about it. And I've shared them.

"I made concrete arguments about both of those things I mentioned,
neither of which you addressed properly."

Properly? According to whom?

"I provided an initial argument against the idea that it is fair to label
them as libertarians, and then I provided a response to your definition
of government as a violent monopoly. However, you ignored both."


"The Founding Fathers might have been hypocritical, but they sure as hell
weren't libertarians and conservatives. It was a completely different
society at the time, but they were liberals, and influenced by liberal
ideas, so there is no reason to assume that if they lived in today's
society, they would be running around like all of these dumbasses
screaming about big and small government, like it's some mountain beast
living in the hills, that comes down to fuck with all of the village
people."

↑ That's not an argument. It's an opinion with expletives.

"You can call it arguing over, words, or whatever you want--even though
you never disagreed with the definition(s) that I provided, and you
never provided you own meanings,"

My definitions are what started a lot of this discourse.

"As far as the child raising, I didn't think we still had a disagreement.
I initially had a concern with saying "empathy" and "peace", which I
explained, and you, for whatever reason, took it as me being for
violence, abuse, neglect, etc., which I corrected, and I thought it was
done after that."

You explained your concern as such:

"Also, if you raise kids "in a peaceful and empathetic manner", you will
get a whole bunch of greedy douchebags running around with a sense of
entitlement, and that is exactly the problem with parenting, and are the
results of parenting, today."

And what you corrected was actually my correction of your omission of two words, which completely changed the context of your harshness quote.


One last thing... if I don't address a comment you make, it's because I don't see enough relevance in it or, it's ad hom. However, if I've ignored a comment you made and you think it's important, all you have to do is ask me to address it or ask me why I didn't. Taking your initial presumption that I've ignored it to dilute the debate and then beating me over the head with that presumption won't strengthen your argument.

Just ask. I'll answer.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 06:50 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
You didn't address them properly, because you never directly addressed them at all, you just side-stepped them.

And, what you provided, wasn't my argument.

That barely changed the context, if you are talking about me saying "some". I also, specifically stated, exactly what I was referring to, regarding my point, subsequently, or maybe prior (I'm not looking back) making the comment about the harshness, in the exact same post you responded to.

You did ignore it, because I pointed it out several times, and you still haven't address any of it. If you don't call that intentionally ignoring something, then I really can't say intentionally ignoring describes something that exists.

Just give me a second and I'll provide the arguments, so you can see them.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2013, 07:40 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Quote:That last part you posted, and I said wasn't my argument, was my original pointing out of the problem I had, which you didn't address, even though you responded to it by claiming the names changed. I subsequently wrote:

Quote:That was my original point, thanks for bypassing and ignoring it. Libertarian and liberal, describe different things. Libertarian and republican, also describe completely different things. Libertarian is a term that is almost synonymous with anarchist i.e. voluntary association, anti-authoritarian in the sense of a organized, governmental system. Liberal is a word that describes an open-minded view toward equality, progress and change within a society. Republican is rule of law, usually minus a monarch/king and involving the people.

What we can deduce from our Founding Fathers is that they were liberal and republican, just out of those terms. You can't assume that they would have had a view of government consistent with that of a libertarian, today, because the circumstances were different. They were reacting to divine rule of authoritarian kings, in a society that was a hell of a lot simpler, less complex economically, less technological and scientific advancements were made and known, less people, less infrastructure and so on. I'm not saying they would still be liberals with the knowledge and circumstance of today, but what I do know, is back then a conservative would have been alright with religious rule, divine rule, rule by a king, likely against forms of free speech, press, etc., and a libertarian wouldn't have even wanted the Constitution, if any government at all.

After that, you responded, by agreeing with me. I'll quote: "You can argue all you like that they weren't libertarians and from the perspective of verbiage, you'd be correct."

So, that's, an agreement, mostly, but then I went on to address the remaining part, which was "opposed (at least in words) religious rule, economic controls, and other government interventions that modern libertarians oppose. Likewise, as with most libertarians of today, they were strong proponents of a constitutional government, which is why they created one" and "However, to argue that they weren't libertarians in the philosophical sense it to argue that H.H. Holmes wasn't a serial killer because there was no such phrase in the nineteenth century.":

Quote:I don't care if people today view the history of liberal ideas, the Enlightenment era, etc., and find certain points that they agree with, and associate themselves with those people, without taking into account the context of the relative circumstances....

I'll try to say it again: You can't call them libertarian, even philosophically, by the standards of today, because they didn't have the same culture, experiences, circumstances, societal problems, economical problems, size/scale, access to technological advancements and advancements in science and engineering, etc.

I'm also not saying that they would have been liberal today, because without them being aware of the things I mentioned, you really can't make that judgement. The circumstances were completely different. However, you can't label them as libertarians either, because it's not taking into account the context of the circumstances they were in. There are libertarians, or people who call themselves libertarians today, who do not agree that we should have had a Constitution, so it would be completely insane to assume that people who would fall under the category of libertarian back then would have supported a Constitution, if they would have supported any form of government at all.

What you did was against what I was arguing, without providing against my argument. You were judging by today's standards, and taking things that you agreed with today and that they had views similar to back then, in an apples to oranges type of comparison, when those views, as I explain, were already encompassed within liberal views. You didn't explain how they were, or what made them libertarian, that made libertarianism a proper and fair analysis of their overall views.

You then completely bypassed that, and moved on with, quote: "Government, by definition, is a violent monopoly" would be just a blatantly incorrect statement."

I then posted:

Quote:A government by definition includes absolutely nothing, in any definition that I've heard, in my entire life, that makes it a requirement, that a government is violent. That is because it's not required for government, specifically the people a part of it, to be violent, or use violence, or force.

And a government is also, not a monopoly, even using the term outside of the traditional, economical sense. There is always and will always be a separation between civil society and the governmental system applicable to the state. Using the word legitimate, doesn't make it legitimate, and it doesn't make it exclusive.

I quoted, the originals, with explanation, if you want to go back and read, but I just simplified.

To simplify:

1) I provided why the Founding Fathers could accurately be called liberal over libertarian, by the definitions and examples I supplied. You agreed, but only in part. I still held that realm of the definition of libertarian wasn't applicable, providing both the definition and addressing context. You still didn't provide why you feel the definition of libertarian extends to the overall views of the Founding Fathers, but still seem to hold that it does.

2) I provided that a government was not a violent monopoly by the traditional definition of monopoly, but giving you the benefit of a favorable definition, said that the violence was not necessary (mean nothing in government makes in inherently violent, so using it as part of a general description would be, by definition, incorrect), and beyond that the power was not indefinitely legitimate or exclusive (the legitimate part was also just favorable benefit).

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: