Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!

[gnarlylove]

You have made roughly 1000 posts on this forum, I have read a lot more than 20 of them. Like I said earlier, I usually ignore people who put their religious beliefs over evidence, you forced me to confront you in this thread. You probably did that assuming that I, like most people who run into your particular brand of fanaticism, would simply fold in the face of you intransigence. You guessed wrong, I have experience with people like you, and don't lose my cool simply because you pretend that I am crazy.

For the record, I do not think you are crazy. And I want to learn from you. I made the effort to say we have extrinsic differences and I am willing to walk through them to come to an understanding, an agreement. All I see is your systematic attempt to negate everything I said. While that is a method, it does not offer much in the way of bridging my gap of understanding that leads you to fundamentally disagree with even my desire to bridge the gap. We cannot have dialogue whatsoever if this is your attitude. I repeat I sincerely hope you could help me learn from you by answering my question about markets. Should we regulate markets or not? Why or why not? I will only have follow up questions, I will not comment on your answers because I will accept them as facts, as they likely are.

 

[gnarlylove]

When you demand the right to water, -you- demand that everyone be enslaved to -your- conscience. Sorry, but that makes you a wanna-be tyrant.

Since humans do not have the right to water (therefore are denied life), some people get to live and others do not. How do we determine who dies and who lives (how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't)?

By the way, determining who dies and lives is an act of a sincere tyrant.

In addition, the CEO of Nestle in 2005 said the same thing, that water is not a human right. Soon after the statement was retracted because a global boycott was sparked. Nestle still says water is a human right. Personally I do not have a strong opinion on the matter but I am very interested in hearing how we determine who dies?

I'm gonna go backwards because your CEO argument is my fucking -favorite-

The fact that there was a worldwide boycott doesn't affect my opinion in the -slightest-. The fact that you imply that worldwide opinion denotes the probability of correctness leads me to believe that you're probably not possessed of the logical ability to have a substantive conversation regarding abstract subject matter, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to debate this.

Next up, determining who lives and dies -is- in fact the desire of a true tyrant. I desire no such thing.

Saying someone doesn't have the -right- to water is not denying them water. This is one of the worst straw men I've seen on the board -ever-, which makes it quite a fuckin scarecrow! Your implication is that people either have the -right- to water or don't get to have it at all. How fuckin silly are you?

Do I have the right to internet access or a computer? No, I don't. Yet somehow, here I am posting political opinions on an online message board. Weird. You mean I'm able to have a computer even though I don't have the right to a computer? People are able to acquire things that aren't automatically their's by right? WHAT A CONCEPT!

The way we determine who gets to have water and who doesn't? Why, we don't determine that at all. We let everyone determine whether or not they go get their water. The ones who aren't able to acquire it will be the ones who don't have it. That simple. That doesn't require me to be a tyrant, it requires me to leave everyone to their own devices. That's the whole idea of individual freedom, which is my highest standard. By that standard, the only time we force people to behave against their desires is when their desires include the subjugation of anyone else's.

Your highest standard is collective "well-being", and the reason I put it in quotations is because it's based on your opinion of what is "good" for that collective. The problem with that desire, in my opinion, is that it subjugates the will of any individual with a different idea of what is "good". This is roughly the same value as that in the UN document, except that they probably (hopefully, for the sake of my opinion of your cognitive functions) have different opinions on the particulars of what is "good". Even as fellow collectivists, the UN's rule would likely subjugate your will to many standards that aren't your own.

You are very intelligent and I respect your cogent replies. A brief comment about your claim that I "imply" the logical fallacy ad populum: that is, that it's false. I did not imply that. I merely noted how there is universal, cross cultural disagreement with your position. I thought you should know, not that it should influence your belief. Then it is you who nicely and neatly arranges the strawman for I made no such claim or overt implication.

As your my strawman, you misunderstand the issue. I respect your position and given your current understanding of how the world works, you would be accurate. I insist however that your understanding is misguided and false. There is obviously enough water on the planet to sustain 8 billion humans otherwise there cannot exist 8 billion humans. So I want to be extra clear on my logic so let's convert this shit into syllogistic form:

If there are 8 billion humans living, then there must exist sufficient water for their living.
There are 8 billion humans living.
Therefore there must exist sufficient water for their living.

So now that we both understanding there is sufficient water on earth for humans we must ask the vital question why do people become water insecure? Maybe you were unaware that water insecurity even existed let alone is growing throughout the world. The answers are varied but a pattern emerges that people become water insecure because of the bottom line: they cannot afford it. So they loose access to this vital nutrient of life. Why can human A say to B that B can no longer access water which supported B's life? Because A owns the water and therefore is not required to make it available to anyone whatsoever.

But how did person A come to own the property of a specific source of water? He drew up a document and international courts, set up and configured by those who have interests in property, granted him legal protection upon his drawing up of this document. So now person B can be legally denied access to water that he could access hours before the document was written up.

So your whole basis for saying water is not a right is because, though there is enough water on this planet to sustain 8 billion humans, they may be denied access due to a arbitrary document that alters nothing whatsoever in the physical or natural world. This sounds to be a really specious way of denying water.

What if B instead had written the document first and had it made official? Well, it would never happen because B is not among the class of people who can do that. Thus, the distribution of water is not determined by human need but by profits. So yep, people are de facto denied water and we determine that they are denied because they cannot afford it.

Let's turn to another vital question: why is B not among the class of people who can do claim property? Because B lacks the money. But why does B lack money? B was simply born in the wrong family and the wrong place. So according to geographic happenstance of where B was born B can be denied access to water, not because there is insufficient water to supply B, but because B has been dealt a bad hand.

I'd understand if you said B should make something of himself but you need to realize capitalism does not operate that way. Capitalism keeps wages low by having a reserve army of unemployed laborers so that when someone demands better conditions, they can fire them and hire someone who will not make that complaint. There must be a mass of people who are not doing well in order for those few, 5% can do exceptional. If you lived under a different system of distribution, I can understand you'd say water is not denied but in this system of capitalism, it must be denied because it's what the market will bear. But we know the market is an artificial creation of private property (a written deed is an artificial claim that has been made institutional) and therefore necessitates that some people will have abundantly and others will not to the point of lacking vital access to water. But being an artificial institution, it is preventing access and is made by human decision.

And the facts of the world about water back me up here in that there are indeed lots of people in the world that, though sufficient water exists, it is not supplied and therefore is denied.

"By 2025, 800 million people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity, and two-thirds of the world population could be under stress conditions."

"According to Nature (2010), about 80% of the world's population (5.6 billion in 2011) live in areas with threats to water security."
Water security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So my premise that water is denied because it is not a right is true. So how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't? The answer is already obvious: corporations.

So lets ask why corporations get to be the tyrants? No one can vote for corporations so this was obviously not a political act on the part of the public. So why are corporations the tyrants?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have made roughly 1000 posts on this forum, I have read a lot more than 20 of them. Like I said earlier, I usually ignore people who put their religious beliefs over evidence, you forced me to confront you in this thread. You probably did that assuming that I, like most people who run into your particular brand of fanaticism, would simply fold in the face of you intransigence. You guessed wrong, I have experience with people like you, and don't lose my cool simply because you pretend that I am crazy.

For the record, I do not think you are crazy. And I want to learn from you. I made the effort to say we have extrinsic differences and I am willing to walk through them to come to an understanding, an agreement. All I see is your systematic attempt to negate everything I said. While that is a method, it does not offer much in the way of bridging my gap of understanding that leads you to fundamentally disagree with even my desire to bridge the gap. We cannot have dialogue whatsoever if this is your attitude. I repeat I sincerely hope you could help me learn from you by answering my question about markets. Should we regulate markets or not? Why or why not? I will only have follow up questions, I will not comment on your answers because I will accept them as facts, as they likely are.

For the record, I did not say you think I am crazy, I said you pretend that I am, just like you did in this post.

By the way, is there a reason you didn't actually prove me wrong when I argued that you are not the reasonable person you claim?

 

[gnarlylove]

Can you please explain what it means for me to pretend you are crazy? How does it show up in my language?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do I pretend you are crazy? By asking questions? Calling you names? Trying to carry a conversation?

Go read the example I cited.

 

[gnarlylove]

If I want to genuinely treat you like a sane person, how do I do that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If I want to genuinely treat you like a sane person, how do I do that?

First you need to admit that you are deliberately ignoring reality in favor of your beliefs.

In other words, to treat me like a sane person you have to accept that you are wrong. Until you do that, you have to pretend that I am crazy.

 

[gnarlylove]

I have admitted a few times in the last few posts that I am entirely open to my many flaws that I admit to having forthrightly. But since this message has not been fully absorbed, let me repeat with exact clarity: I am ignorant of the facts so will you please tell me what they are. Here's just two examples where I have repeated this:

I have given up any "wits," and just like you said I do not have any to begin with...I am very ignorant...I respect your passion for freedom and America and capitalism. I too want to understand why you are so passionate.

If I am ignorant, I am very willing to hear what you have to say.

I try to respect your positions by asking sincere questions so that I may come out of my ignorance and into the light.

You claim it is because I do not respond to facts. I agreed several times and yet for some reason I have to repeat myself. It doesn't matter. At least we are on the same page now:

I understand virtually nothing and you possess a repository of facts.

Now our only trouble is closing my gap of understanding, which was the phrase I used in my last post. So I will ask again if you would be so kind as to offer a few sentences of facts.

To get things going, if I may ask for a specific comment on whether or not we should regulate markets or have free markets, according to facts? If you do not wish to answer, that is fine. I thought I'd suggest a topic that could reveal important facts for me to know. If you prefer to skip it and mention other facts, please do so at your liberty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have admitted a few times in the last few posts that I am entirely open to my many flaws that I admit to having forthrightly. But since this message has not been fully absorbed, let me repeat with exact clarity: I am ignorant of the facts so will you please tell me what they are. Here's just two examples where I have repeated this:

I have given up any "wits," and just like you said I do not have any to begin with...I am very ignorant...I respect your passion for freedom and America and capitalism. I too want to understand why you are so passionate.

If I am ignorant, I am very willing to hear what you have to say.

I try to respect your positions by asking sincere questions so that I may come out of my ignorance and into the light.

You claim it is because I do not respond to facts. I agreed several times and yet for some reason I have to repeat myself. It doesn't matter. At least we are on the same page now:

I understand virtually nothing and you possess a repository of facts.

Now our only trouble is closing my gap of understanding, which was the phrase I used in my last post. So I will ask again if you would be so kind as to offer a few sentences of facts.

To get things going, if I may ask for a specific comment on whether or not we should regulate markets or have free markets, according to facts? If you do not wish to answer, that is fine. I thought I'd suggest a topic that could reveal important facts for me to know. If you prefer to skip it and mention other facts, please do so at your liberty.

Condescension is not admitting you are wrong, saying that you were wrong about socialism not causing a food shortage in Venezual is. After we do that we can deal with all the other things you routinely pretend don't exist because you want to pretend that the world revolves around your belief system.

 

[KissMy]

Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today.

The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.

Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.

I always value informed voters over partisan hacks.

 

[gnarlylove]

Quantum, I mean what I say. I'm sorry you think I am condescending towards you. I am speaking as precisely and sincerely as I know how. Since I have repeatedly told you this fact, I am sorry that you literally are incapable of believing me. Maybe your belief system does not allow you to take my repeated gesture of sincerity and openness and so you must believe insistently that I am somehow back-handedly deceiving you. Like I said, sorry if we got off on the wrong foot months back but I am over petty immaturity. Let's discuss your beliefs and not mine. Mine are boring and wrong anyway, I already know them. What's interesting and supposedly factual are your beliefs. So let's focus on that. I just hope from here on out we engage in clean interchange.

So far the only elaboration of your beliefs has been about socialism. I find it an odd starting point but let's role with it. You say Venezuela has failed to feed a portion of its people.

That is a fact. I never denied this fact and if I have, please show me where. The important question is has socialism caused this?

Here I would like to see if I understand what you mean by "socialism." You say socialism was the cause of food shortage. Surely you do not mean the idea of socialism because ideas can only become manifest through human action. So if I understand you correctly, "socialism" is another word for the "actions of the people based in socialist ideals." So the root subject is human socialist action or policies.

The question then becomes, what particular (socialist) action/policies in Venezuela caused food shortage? Here I will remain silent for I am ignorant. As a point of logic, if you cannot identify specifically socialist actions that caused food shortages (in what year?), why would you think socialist action caused it? I have no trouble agreeing with you because in point of fact, Venezuela may claim to be socialist and by definition then if Venezuela fails to feed a portion of its people, so does socialism since Venezuela and socialism become synonymous. Again, I agree with this, but would prefer to see exactly what socialist action(s) caused food shortages. If you care to elaborate on what socialist policies caused the food shortage then please do so. If you want to discuss other things, we can move on as I agree with you. If you want to move on, again, I would suggest helping me understand economics: how do free markets work?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum, I mean what I say. I'm sorry you think I am condescending towards you. I am speaking as precisely and sincerely as I know how. Since I have repeatedly told you this fact, I am sorry that you literally are incapable of believing me. Maybe your belief system does not allow you to take my repeated gesture of sincerity and openness and so you must believe insistently that I am somehow back-handedly deceiving you. Like I said, sorry if we got off on the wrong foot months back but I am over petty immaturity. Let's discuss your beliefs and not mine. Mine are boring and wrong anyway, I already know them. What's interesting and supposedly factual are your beliefs. So let's focus on that. I just hope from here on out we engage in clean interchange.

So far the only elaboration of your beliefs has been about socialism. I find it an odd starting point but let's role with it. You say Venezuela has failed to feed a portion of its people.

That is a fact. I never denied this fact and if I have, please show me where. The important question is has socialism caused this?

Here I would like to see if I understand what you mean by "socialism." You say socialism was the cause of food shortage. Surely you do not mean the idea of socialism because ideas can only become manifest through human action. So if I understand you correctly, "socialism" is another word for the "actions of the people based in socialist ideals." So the root subject is human socialist action or policies.

The question then becomes, what particular (socialist) action/policies in Venezuela caused food shortage? Here I will remain silent for I am ignorant. As a point of logic, if you cannot identify specifically socialist actions that caused food shortages (in what year?), why would you think socialist action caused it? I have no trouble agreeing with you because in point of fact, Venezuela may claim to be socialist and by definition then if Venezuela fails to feed a portion of its people, so does socialism since Venezuela and socialism become synonymous. Again, I agree with this, but would prefer to see exactly what socialist action(s) caused food shortages. If you care to elaborate on what socialist policies caused the food shortage then please do so. If you want to discuss other things, we can move on as I agree with you. If you want to move on, again, I would suggest helping me understand economics: how do free markets work?

Want to tell me again how you are being reasonable?

 

[Avatar4321]

Ill pass. I'd prefer to work with likeminded people to do good in the world.

 

[AntiParty]

Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!

You can be anti-party, but everyone will still have left and right bias. I lean left on some things, right on others. i.e. I have guns, but I also believe in taking care of the elderly. I believe in a balanced budget, but not a war based economy.
But the thing about anti-party, is the game is rigged for the two parties. So not voting only allows the idiots to run the government. Well, they do anyway, but one is wimpy and spineless, the other is cruel and evil. It's a sad choice, I know.

I've seen you in multiple forums and know that you have lot's of political knowledge.

My stance isn't anti-vote, it's anti-party platform.

This means YOUR OPINION can be 99.9% agreed with one platform. But that platform will not dictate your decision on the .1%. You will fight against your parties .1% topic if you disagree with it.

This isn't happening today. People repeat what they need to repeat to get their party in office.

Free your mind. Think for YOU. Not for an organization.

 

[AntiParty]

If you study what the term "Conservative" actually means it means "unwilling to change".

What we see today is lot's of people unwilling to research anything . The Left tends to research their topics so I follow more topics of the Left than from the Right. That's no secret. What you missed is that I don't follow the Left into their bad sides like no voter ID and Abortion and others.

You did what I stated earlier. You shunned me the instant I didn't believe in everything you believe in. Basic cult style behavior.

Learn more man/ or woman. (Did saying man or woman make me a liberal, because I almost typed "man" by default but thought it though and guessed you could be a female)

So basically, you're an OWS shitter who WOULD vote 100% democrat, IF you ever managed to get out and vote.

You're "anti-party" because you're really pissed that Obama didn't confiscate the wealth of the top 1% and give it to you, as you were convinced he would when you were worshiping him on TV when he was in Denver, in '08...

Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^

 

[BobPlumb]

I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you study what the term "Conservative" actually means it means "unwilling to change".

What we see today is lot's of people unwilling to research anything . The Left tends to research their topics so I follow more topics of the Left than from the Right. That's no secret. What you missed is that I don't follow the Left into their bad sides like no voter ID and Abortion and others.

You did what I stated earlier. You shunned me the instant I didn't believe in everything you believe in. Basic cult style behavior.

Learn more man/ or woman. (Did saying man or woman make me a liberal, because I almost typed "man" by default but thought it though and guessed you could be a female)

So basically, you're an OWS shitter who WOULD vote 100% democrat, IF you ever managed to get out and vote.

You're "anti-party" because you're really pissed that Obama didn't confiscate the wealth of the top 1% and give it to you, as you were convinced he would when you were worshiping him on TV when he was in Denver, in '08...

Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^

You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.

Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?

 

[Asclepias]

So basically, you're an OWS shitter who WOULD vote 100% democrat, IF you ever managed to get out and vote.

You're "anti-party" because you're really pissed that Obama didn't confiscate the wealth of the top 1% and give it to you, as you were convinced he would when you were worshiping him on TV when he was in Denver, in '08...

Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^

You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.

Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?

You sound extremely butthurt. Could it be that on most issues he disagrees with Reps? I know I am like that. Reps have some good ideas about some fiscal matters but they suck butt on almost everything else.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can you please explain what it means for me to pretend you are crazy? How does it show up in my language?

I think the most you can do is pretend you're sane...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I always value informed voters over partisan hacks.

So, you're saying that you hate democrats, then?