Merkins 2012

[DyingStrong]

Who needs religion?
Who needs government?
Only sheep people who want to be guided, those who want to be fed with the same lies, regulated and want to be told what to do and how to behave.
True democracy, where people really vote and decide for everything. Who needs a stupid congress and house of whores, I mean house of representatives or whatever the fuck.

I say: fuck religion and fuck voting, fuck government and any form of regulation that cuts people's freedoms.

[ILOVEJESUS]

And then we can fuck each other

[Davin]

Victus wrote

Asked and answered.

Really? Let's see:

Victus wrote

No more so than arguing against religion.

Alright, so you think it's just as pragmamtic to be a libertarian as it is to argue against religion, I think that's a really stupid answer, but understood.

Victus wrote

The quote you generated from my response is not responding to that question.

Which was my point for bringing up that you didn't answer the question.

Victus wrote

My response...

...answers the question. Irr's question (above) asks how it can be pragmatic to be a libertarian (i.e., to support/argue for libertarian policies - which is all it means to 'be' a libertarian, since its a political philosophy). Being a libertarian is about as pragmatic as being an atheist. [...more preaching...]

So you think it's not pragmatic at all to be a libertarian.

Being a libertarian myself, I think I have a much better answer: fighting for maximising individual freedoms makes people aware of how ones freedoms can be taken or given away. My hope is that eventually most people will fight to protect their freedoms instead of giving them up in fear. As seen through the Solomon Asch experiments, all it takes to get people to not merely follow the group is to hear one dissenting voice. I don't care to convert people to being a libertarian, I only care that they give a shit about their reasonable freedoms.

Victus wrote

Strong atheism makes the claim that God does/can not possibly exist.

Aye it does, kudoes to you. However you stated just atheism, which is not the same thing. It does make me laugh how either you intentionaly misrepresent what people are talking to you about or you have some kind of reading comprehension problem.

Victus wrote

Broadly, you can go check out LearnLiberty, which has videos that explain some basic economics (search under 'economics') and EconLog (and affiliated sites) which is often data-driven (or argument-driven, as the case may be). Otherwise, it's a broad request. I could more easily respond if you narrow it down to a specific policy point (e.g., minimum wage, regulation, etc). Otherwise, I'm not sure where to start.

Not empirical evidence.

[Irreligious]

L'anarchie pour tout le monde!

Welcome back, Homocyclist, a.k.a. LivingStrong and now DyingStrong. You sure have a lot of aliases. How ya been?

[Victus]

Davin wrote

Really? Let's see:

Alright, so you think it's just as pragmamtic to be a libertarian as it is to argue against religion

Yep.

Davin wrote

I think that's a really stupid answer, but understood.

Ok.

Davin wrote

Which was my point for bringing up that you didn't answer the question.

Why would my response attempt to answer that question? It isn't even addressing it (the pre-text quote for the response that you quoted did not contain the question you demand I answer). Go check the quotes again.

Davin wrote

So you think it's not pragmatic at all to be a libertarian.

Not if your goal is to win elections or implement policies, no.

Davin wrote

Being a libertarian myself, I think I have a much better answer: fighting for maximising individual freedoms makes people aware of how ones freedoms can be taken or given away. My hope is that eventually most people will fight to protect their freedoms instead of giving them up in fear.

That explains why being a libertarian gives you the fuzzy-wuzzies, but it doesn't explain how it's at all pragmatic. It doesn't answer the question that you're hasseling me for not answeing myself (even though I have).

Davin wrote

As seen through the Solomon Asch experiments, all it takes to get people to not merely follow the group is to hear one dissenting voice. I don't care to convert people to being a libertarian, I only care that they give a shit about their reasonable freedoms.

The Asch experiments are pertinent to the extent that people are mindlessly generating policy preferences based on group identity. I don't think this is the case; I think they're just irrational.

Davin wrote

Aye it does, kudoes to you. However you stated just atheism, which is not the same thing.

Atheism includes both strong and weak forms of atheism. For your conclusion (that 'atheism' doesn't make affirmative arguments) to be true, only weak atheism can be considered a form of atheism. Strong atheism must not be included in the overall definition for that statement to be true. Since you've just admitted that this is not the case, I'll just accept this as your apology and carry on.

Davin wrote

Not empirical evidence.

If that were true, I wouldn't be able to go to the EconLib mainsite, do a search on 'minimum wage', find a great big encyclopedia article on the topic, skip to the bottom and see about two pages of citations, many of them studies in peer reviewed journals.

[DyingStrong]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

And then we can fuck each other

LOL, we do that anyways, -sex- -violence-

Hey, ILJ, I do not know if you are being serious or you're just joking. But in a more serious note:

I truly believe that the human race (in general) could be well capable of self-governance, each culture and country are different, I know, I am not an expert on cultural differences around the world, but I'm speaking mainly for the US and Mexico's cultures because those are the ones I know the most.
Why not create true democracies where people get proper education, go to schools, colleges and universities where students don't have to owe their souls when they finish their careers; where education is affordable to everyone. THEN, we will be creating a better society full with citizens who can MAKE decisions on their own, they wouldn't be brainwashed by religion nor government crap, lies, manipulations, etc. Citizens will be able to vote for EVERYTHING and people will decide for their future and the future of their children.
Voting for loser politicians will never solve the people's problems. They ALL, and I mean, ALL of them are whores and bend over to the best payer. Once in a while there is one more or less decent politician who can never make it to the top nor make a difference in his country because he gets whacked, killed.

[Victus]

DyingStrong wrote

Why not create true democracies where people get proper education, go to schools, colleges and universities where students don't have to owe their souls when they finish their careers; where education is affordable to everyone.

So... who's gonna pay for all this if we're all free to make our own choices (including the choice not to pay for others' education)?

DS wrote

Citizens will be able to vote for EVERYTHING and people will decide for their future and the future of their children.

If people are free to make their own choices, then what's there to vote about?

DS wrote

Voting for loser politicians will never solve the people's problems.

Libertarian ninja fix.

[Davin]

Victus wrote

Why would my response attempt to answer that question? It isn't even addressing it (the pre-text quote for the response that you quoted did not contain the question you demand I answer). Go check the quotes again.

Demand? I asked you to answer, I didn't demand. Go check again, I can wait for you to learn how to read first.

Victus wrote

That explains why being a libertarian gives you the fuzzy-wuzzies, but it doesn't explain how it's at all pragmatic. It doesn't answer the question that you're hasseling me for not answeing myself (even though I have).

It doesn't give me the warm fuzzies, I don't think I've ever experienced warm fuzzies from anything. Also it does in fact explain why it is pragmatic. More evidence of your reading problem.

Victus wrote

The Asch experiments are pertinent to the extent that people are mindlessly generating policy preferences based on group identity. I don't think this is the case; I think they're just irrational.

It's a good thing for you just thinking things, that totally counters my scientific study.

Victus wrote

Atheism includes both strong and weak forms of atheism. For your conclusion (that 'atheism' doesn't make affirmative arguments) to be true, only weak atheism can be considered a form of atheism. Strong atheism must not be included in the overall definition for that statement to be true. Since you've just admitted that this is not the case, I'll just accept this as your apology and carry on.

Atheism itself is the absence of a claim, whether people that fit under the term make claims or not doesn't matter for the definition of the term. Your silly attempt at word games is entertaining though.

Victus wrote

If that were true, I wouldn't be able to go to the EconLib mainsite, do a search on 'minimum wage', find a great big encyclopedia article on the topic, skip to the bottom and see about two pages of citations, many of them studies in peer reviewed journals.

I know you have problems with even basic concepts (like atheism, strong atheism and weak atheism), but I think even you can understand that an article that references empirical evidence is not itself empirical evidence.

[DyingStrong]

Irreligious wrote

L'anarchie pour tout le monde!

Welcome back, Homocyclist, a.k.a. LivingStrong and now DyingStrong. You sure have a lot of aliases. How ya been?

Hey, Irr, been OK, thanks, getting younger everyday. And you, how you've been?

Have several aliases, some others: MacPeppa, MedicalCyclist, Lancita Armstrong, and more. but I only have one real name and you all know it, the ones who have been RA members for years.

Irr, why do you think that anarchy would spread through out the world with self governance? Maybe that is the reason why religion and governments were created, to control people. Then, do you think that religion is OK? I mean, religions actually keep people restrained and hurdled, and so do governments.

Maybe religion and governments are needed to keep stupid/uneducated/savage people from causing anarchy?

[Victus]

Davin wrote

Demand? I asked you to answer, I didn't demand. Go check again, I can wait for you to learn how to read first.

Ok.

The Dictionary wrote

Ask.

6. To expect or demand

Davin wrote

It doesn't give me the warm fuzzies, I don't think I've ever experienced warm fuzzies from anything. Also it does in fact explain why it is pragmatic.

Your stated goal by which I am to assess your pragmatism is to have people fight for their freedoms instead of surrendering them. Over, say, the past decade, would you say that policies have gone in that direction?

I think they pretty obviously haven't.

Davin wrote

It's a good thing for you just thinking things, that totally counters my scientific study.

Asch's studies looked at conformity and the disruption thereof. What evidence do you have that voter preference for non-libertarian policies stems from conformity (i.e., what evidence do you have that these studies are even applicable to the question at hand)? Given that factors such as education (especially in economics) tends to increase libertarian policy preferences, why isn't voter irrationality a viable counter-model?

Davin wrote

Atheism itself is the absence of a claim

Weak atheism is, yes. But if you allow weak atheism to assume the whole definition of 'atheism', then you're intentionally leaving out the strong atheist position.

Davin wrote

whether people that fit under the term make claims or not doesn't matter for the definition of the term.

It does if strong atheism is part of the definition of atheism.

Davin wrote

Your silly attempt at word games is entertaining though.

I'm glad one of us is amused.

Davin wrote

I know you have problems with even basic concepts (like atheism, strong atheism and weak atheism), but I think even you can understand that an article that references empirical evidence is not itself empirical evidence.

You asked for empirical evidence, and I showed you where to get it. I even found you a nice, public-consumption level article with references handily marked for 'further reading' if you wanted to actually consult the empirical work itself. If you don't want to or for whatever reason aren't able, that isn't really an issue with my postion, is it?

[Davin]

You forgot the context:
6. To expect or demand: ask too much of a child.

Which clearly doesn't match the context of my question. I'll wait patiently for you to learn how to read.

Victus wrote

Your stated goal by which I am to assess your pragmatism is to have people fight for their freedoms instead of surrendering them. Over, say, the past decade, would you say that policies have gone in that direction?

I think they pretty obviously haven't.

Whether the pragmatic goals have been reached or not doesn't remove the pragmatism of the goals. However I have seen the changes in the people I know personally which means it is pragmatic. I.E.: it is practical to expect people to start paying more attention to and fighting for freedoms given that people have started to do so since I have been discussing things with them.

Victus wrote

Asch's studies looked at conformity and the disruption thereof. What evidence do you have that voter preference for non-libertarian policies stems from conformity (i.e., what evidence do you have that these studies are even applicable to the question at hand)? Given that factors such as education (especially in economics) tends to increase libertarian policy preferences, why isn't voter irrationality a viable counter-model?

The Asch experiments show that people tend to act as their immediate group does. In absence of evidence to support your claims you submit that what you believe is just as valid as evidence unless I fulfill your burden of proof? Damn Victus, are you turning into a theist? I weep for what is left of your brain cells.

Victus wrote

Weak atheism is, yes. But if you allow weak atheism to assume the whole definition of 'atheism', then you're intentionally leaving out the strong atheist position.

No, that is just from the definition of atheism. I'm so sorry you have a learning disability.

Victus wrote

It does if strong atheism is part of the definition of atheism.

Which it isn't.

Victus wrote

I'm glad one of us is amused.

Me too.

Victus wrote

You asked for empirical evidence, and I showed you where to get it. I even found you a nice, public-consumption level article with references handily marked for 'further reading' if you wanted to actually consult the empirical work itself. If you don't want to or for whatever reason aren't able, that isn't really an issue with my postion, is it?

I asked you for your empirical evidence that favors libertarianism and how it favors it and you gave me an article as empirical evidence. Don't try to blame me because you're having mental difficulties.

[Victus]

Davin wrote

You forgot the context:
6. To expect or demand: ask too much of a child.

Which clearly doesn't match the context of my question. I'll wait patiently for you to learn how to read.

Ok.

The thesaurus wrote

Main Entry: ask

Part of Speech: verb

Definition: question

Synonyms: buzz*, canvass, catechize, challenge, cross-examine, demand, direct, enjoin, examine, give the third degree, go over, grill, hit*, hunt for, inquire, institute, interrogate, investigate, needle, pick one's brains, pop the question, pry into, pump, put the screws to, put through the wringer, query, quiz, request, roast, sweat*

Devin wrote

Whether the pragmatic goals have been reached or not doesn't remove the pragmatism of the goals.

It does remove the pragmatism of your methods (arguing for libertarian policies), though.

Devin wrote

However I have seen the changes in the people I know personally which means it is pragmatic. I.E.: it is practical to expect people to start paying more attention to and fighting for freedoms given that people have started to do so since I have been discussing things with them.

Even as implemented policies on the whole become less libertarian in nature? Moreover, citing personal anecdote isn't going to win you any points, especially when later in the same post you (improperly) decry my lack of evidence.

Devin wrote

The Asch experiments show that people tend to act as their immediate group does.

Yes, but you haven't shown that this effect is what drives voters non-libertarian policy preferences. Moreover, even if conformity does have substantial effects on political affiliation, how can it explain temporal variability? I'm just asking for some evidence (or even an argument) if you have any.

Davin wrote

In absence of evidence to support your claims you submit that what you believe is just as valid as evidence unless I fulfill your burden of proof?

Who said there's an absence of evidence? Here are a few peer-reviewed papers for you.

Davin wrote

Damn Victus, are you turning into a theist?

I'm linking to published studies (or bibliographies/summaries thereof). You're citing personal anecdotes.

Davin wrote

No, that is just from the definition of atheism. I'm so sorry you have a learning disability.

Which it isn't.

To the wiki!

Wiki wrote

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Davin wrote

I asked you for your empirical evidence that favors libertarianism and how it favors it and you gave me an article as empirical evidence.

I gave you some websites that aggregate said evidence, and noted that I could give you more information if you wanted to narrow down your parameters. You never did.

[Davin]

Victus wrote

Ok.

If you think that synonyms can be used interchangeably without regard to context, then you're very ignorant. Still waiting patiently until you learn how to read.

Victus wrote

It does remove the pragmatism of your methods (arguing for libertarian policies), though.

Really? So if I started today and there hadn't been any changes yet you'd consider it pragmatic to determine that the approach isn't pragmatic? You're kind of thick aren't you?

Victus wrote

Even as implemented policies on the whole become less libertarian in nature?

Did I say those were my goals? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Victus wrote

Moreover, citing personal anecdote isn't going to win you any points, especially when later in the same post you (improperly) decry my lack of evidence.

My anecdotal evidence is all I need to continue because of my goals. You claimed to have empirical evidence that favors libertarianism but failed to provide it. Because of your obvious mental impairment I'll try to explain it as simply as I can: the difference is that I didn't claim something without providing what I claimed existed while you had.

Victus wrote

Yes, but you haven't shown that this effect is what drives voters non-libertarian policy preferences. Moreover, even if conformity does have substantial effects on political affiliation, how can it explain temporal variability? I'm just asking for some evidence (or even an argument) if you have any.

I never claimed that it did either. Another issue around your reading difficulties?

Victus wrote

Who said there's an absence of evidence? Here are a few peer-reviewed papers for you.

You merely stated something without backing it up. Now how does this evidence back up what you stated?

Victus wrote

I'm linking to published studies (or bibliographies/summaries thereof). You're citing personal anecdotes.

You do have the same kind of mindset of a theist. I also cited the Asch experiments, is your memory as shitty as your ability to comprehend what you read? Also your counting is off: I cited one personal anecdote, which wouldn't require a plural. You can count to two can't you?

Victus wrote

To the wiki!

Wow, it's on the wikipedia, that must be correct then! I have an idea, let's get as many links as we can, whomever has the most is the winner!

Victus wrote

I gave you some websites that aggregate said evidence, and noted that I could give you more information if you wanted to narrow down your parameters. You never did.

Why should I narrow down the parameters for your claims? You are very daft indeed.

[dogpet]

Atheist is nothing without theist. Are you fuckers really gonna elect someone who wears magic underpants ffs? Does he have a lucky pair for election day, or do they all sparkle the same when he opens the drawer? Does he wear the same pair every day? what about farts & dribble? How many times a day does he don a clean pair in case of assassination? The free world needs to know these things.

[Victus]

Davin wrote

If you think that synonyms can be used interchangeably without regard to context, then you're very ignorant. Still waiting patiently until you learn how to read.

Ok.

The Dictionary wrote

Synonym

1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses

'Demand' (the word I used to describe your action) is listed in one of the (admittedly backend) definitions of 'ask' (the action you claim to have taken. 'Demand' is also a synonym of 'ask'. Synonyms are what they are because they share "the same or nearly the same meaning".

You might want to concede the point. Just saying.

Davin wrote

Really? So if I started today and there hadn't been any changes yet you'd consider it pragmatic to determine that the approach isn't pragmatic?

Since the philosophical position (or its immediate predecessors) are over a century old, and modern-style advocacy/arguments are generations old, and policies are (arguably*) sliding in the opposite direction, it seems fair to conclude that said methods are not particularly effective.

*Some policies have actually become more libertarian over time, but often only while facing fierce and ongoing public resistance.

Davin wrote

Did I say those were my goals?

If you're a libertarian (and you have claimed as much), then having libertarian policies implemented has to be your goal.

Davin wrote

My anecdotal evidence is all I need to continue because of my goals.

Good thing you're not setting the bar very high for yourself.

Davin wrote

You claimed to have empirical evidence that favors libertarianism but failed to provide it.

Really?

There's this...

Victus wrote

Broadly, you can go check out LearnLiberty, which has videos that explain some basic economics (search under 'economics') and EconLog (and affiliated sites) which is often data-driven (or argument-driven, as the case may be). Otherwise, it's a broad request. I could more easily respond if you narrow it down to a specific policy point (e.g., minimum wage, regulation, etc). Otherwise, I'm not sure where to start.

And another...

Victus wrote

If that were true, I wouldn't be able to go to the EconLib mainsite, do a search on 'minimum wage', find a great big encyclopedia article on the topic, skip to the bottom and see about two pages of citations, many of them studies in peer reviewed journals.

And some more...

Victus wrote

Who said there's an absence of evidence? Here are a few peer-reviewed papers for you.

In fact, the citation of peer-reviewed studies (or aggregation/reviews thereof) is noticeably one-sided in this thread, isn't it?

Davin wrote

Because of your obvious mental impairment I'll try to explain it as simply as I can: the difference is that I didn't claim something without providing what I claimed existed while you had.

You're claiming that conformity underlies non-libertarian political affiliation (otherwise your pseudo-citation of Asch is non-nonsensical). You haven't provided evidence to that effect. This statement indicates either that your beliefs aren't based in evidence, or that you simply haven't cited it. If it exists, now's the time to cite it.

Davin wrote

I never claimed that it did either.

If you don't have any evidence linking Asch's studies on conformity to the current topic, then your use of them as your impetus for espousing libertarianism to your friends/others (for the purposes of breaking or diminishing their conformity) falls apart. Barring another explanation for your advocacy or evidence linking the studies, you have to concede that advocating libertarianism isn't pragmatic, which was my original point.

Davin wrote

You merely stated something without backing it up. Now how does this evidence back up what you stated?

They demonstrate voter irrationality (e.g., blaming incumbents for bad weather). There are better examples for these purposes, but I just moved and my copy of Myth of the Rational Voter is in storage.

Davin wrote

You do have the same kind of mindset of a theist.

I was just about to say the exact same thing.

Davin wrote

I also cited the Asch experiments

The relevance of which has yet to be determined.

Davin wrote

Also your counting is off: I cited one personal anecdote, which wouldn't require a plural.

Ok.

Davin, previously wrote

However I have seen the changes in the people I know personally which means it is pragmatic.

People is a plural, isn't it? Meaning that you've seen this happen multiple times? As in, your experiences have generated multiple anecdotes which you used to create a faulty argument?

Davin wrote

Wow, it's on the wikipedia, that must be correct then!

Actually, it appears to be based on a direct quote from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see citations). But if that's not enough, we can just ask the dictionary...

Dictionary wrote

Atheism:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This might be another point you want to concede.

Davin wrote

I have an idea, let's get as many links as we can, whomever has the most is the winner!

Getting smacked around with evidence and citations is what happens when you say something inaccurate around someone who knows better.

Davin wrote

Why should I narrow down the parameters for your claims?

Because to provide evidence on such a broad array of topics, I have to narrow it down (or write a book). I'm giving you the chance to pick whichever one(s) you want.