Did The Tuck get Cucked here?

[Greoric]

Your approach here is wrong. We could get into the reasons for the painfully obvious superiority of liberal democracy some time, but what I'm pointing out here is the existence of that superiority. If you disagree with the general point, can you explain *why* a monarchy or dictatorship or mob rule or whatever you prefer would be better than previous ones were?

Are those the only options, and what distinction are you making between a democracy and mob rule?

Same issue here. Do you think the U.S. military would be more successful if they just gave you guys guns and dropped you somewhere around the location of the battle zone at let you de-centrally figure out how to win?

That's not the same thing at all. But in any event, ODA's @sub_thug do that all the time with great effect.

 

[Greoric]

<{cruzshake}>

But laws certainly do have observably "better" or "worse" (relative to an agreed upon up/down metric) outcomes for each of the individuals within the group.

I'm not talking about laws. Is a group that thinks murder is an acceptable form of behavior objectively better or worse than a group that thinks it isn't?

 

[Greoric]

There is no reason to argue against you. You simply ignore facts and history and continue to make the same refuted arguments over and over again. In may ways you and a fantastic novel have a lot in common.

However you like to rationalize...

 

[m52nickerson]

However you like to rationalize...

Personally I like to imagine your temper tantrum every time you file your income taxes. Puts a smile on my face each time.

 

[Greoric]

Personally I like to imagine your temper tantrum every time you file your income taxes. Puts a smile on my face each time.

I'm sure it does. You're a sociopath.

 

[Jack V Savage]

He's disagreeing with it. His contention is centered around saying that no rule set is objectively preferable for any group of people, i.e. no standard for behavior and no ethical standard exists. (if we just want to approach it from a utilitarian approach).

So when he says "who disagrees with this," which is naturally interpreted as "everyone agrees with this," you read it as "I disagree with this." What is your first language?

Are those the only options, and what distinction are you making between a democracy and mob rule?

I said liberal democracy. Do I have to explain that to you? You can see why people who know what they're talking about might find you to be a waste of time, right?

And don't play dumb. "Not an argument" is one of Molyneux's catchphrases. You also got your schtick of calling everyone who disagrees with you a sociopath from him.

 

[Greoric]

So when he says "who disagrees with this," which is naturally interpreted as "everyone agrees with this," but you read it as "I disagree with this." What is your first language?

Then he's writing nonsense if he's still supposing that no ethical standard exists, in this case defined as a rule set of behaviors for everyone that maximizes a group's outcome (which isn't subjective).

We'll see!

 

[Greoric]

I said liberal democracy. Do I have to explain that to you? You can see why people who know what they're talking about might find you to be a waste of time, right?

And don't play dumb. "Not an argument" is one of Molyneux's catchphrases. You also got your schtick of calling everyone who disagrees with you a sociopath from him.

That didn't answer my question, and never heard of her.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I'm not talking about laws. Is a group that thinks murder is an acceptable form of behavior objectively better or worse than a group that thinks it isn't?

The whole issue revolves around how a society defines a concept like "murder". That's always the rub in any discussion of human morality.

For example, imagine some woman comes up to me and asks, "Do you believe rape is always wrong?"

I am hearing that question through the filter of my own, subjective definition of rape. So I proclaim, boldly and without hesitation, "Of course it is."

She then says, "So why are you a rapist?"

I say, "What are you talking about?"

She says, "You're married, right?"

And then I find out this woman is a feminist who has concluded that marital sex is a form of rape.

Honestly, I think this entire topic is beyond your scope.

 

[sub_thug]

Are those the only options, and what distinction are you making between a democracy and mob rule?

That's not the same thing at all. But in any event, ODA's @sub_thug do that all the time with great effect.

This is a really nuanced thing. I wouldn't say that Special Forces teams are given total autonomy to figure out how to win, but teams are given a tremendous amount of latitude to make up for deficits in intelligence, abilities to communicate regularly with higher levels of command, and due to rapidly changing situations. But yeah, if a team determines that one group is the enemy, while another is an ally, that can definitely influence policy at the national level.

 

[kpt018]

No. I think you should improve your reading comprehension. Also you rule out conclusions before you arrive at a specific one.

Is that a "no" you don't have a definition? I didn't conclude anything just asked a question, but like in the past you refuse to support your own posts.

I've never seen a poster as hostile as you when it comes to clarifying posts.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The whole issue revolves around how a society defines a concept like "murder". That's always the rub in any discussion of human morality.

For example, imagine some woman comes up to me and asks, "Do you believe rape is always wrong?"

I am hearing that question through the filter of my own, subjective definition of rape. So I proclaim, boldly and without hesitation, "Of course it is."

She then says, "So why are you a rapist?"

I say, "What are you talking about?"

She says, "You're married, right?"

And then I find out this woman is a feminist who has concluded that marital sex is a form of rape.

Honestly, I think this entire topic is beyond your scope.

I don't know why, but the equivocation fallacy is one of the most popular among right-wing "libertarians." Far out of proportion to how often the general public makes that mistake from my observation. Might be because they have a history of redefining terms.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Then he's writing nonsense if he's still supposing that no ethical standard exists, in this case defined as a rule set of behaviors for everyone that maximizes a group's outcome (which isn't subjective).

We'll see!

Kind of bored with your approach, but this is kind of interesting. If you're going with "policy that has the best results is the best" now, doesn't that require you to drop your silly "taxation is theft" claim?

 

[Islam Imamate]

And don't play dumb. "Not an argument" is one of Molyneux's catchphrases. You also got your schtick of calling everyone who disagrees with you a sociopath from him.

Well Molyneux is not that bright or original so it could very well be that he and Greoric are independently reading the same or similar sources which would account for similarities in their arguments.

That didn't answer my question, and never heard of her.

Now this I don't believe. The guy is a bit of an internet celebrity, especially among among right wing libertarians, and even gets posted here from time to time. I can't stand him and yet even I'm subjected to his smug fucking face just for browsing political content on sites like this and YT.

EDIT: Also referring to Molyneux as "her" when JVS clearly posted an image of a man might seem to some like you're trying too hard to feign ignorance here.

 

[Greoric]

The whole issue revolves around how a society defines a concept like "murder". That's always the rub in any discussion of human morality.

For example, imagine some woman comes up to me and asks, "Do you believe rape is always wrong?"

I am hearing that question through the filter of my own, subjective definition of rape. So I proclaim, boldly and without hesitation, "Of course it is."

She then says, "So why are you a rapist?"

I say, "What are you talking about?"

She says, "You're married, right?"

And then I find out this woman is a feminist who has concluded that marital sex is a form of rape.

Honestly, I think this entire topic is beyond your scope.

OK, if we take the feminist's definition of rape can we say it's adoption by a group will produce an objectively better or worse outcome than if a group adopted yours?

 

[Sir Galahad]

No you didn't, you simply avoided the guy's point just like Tuck the Cuck.

Ain't got time to debate your nonsense. Enjoy your July 4th weekend.

 

[Greoric]

Kind of bored with your approach, but this is kind of interesting. If you're going with "policy that has the best results is the best" now, doesn't that require you to drop your silly "taxation is theft" claim?

Why would it? Less resources are being consumed by a grossly inefficient institution.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well Molyneux is not that bright or original so it could very well be that he and Greoric are independently reading the same or similar sources which would account for similarities in their arguments.

Now this I don't believe. The guy is a bit of an internet celebrity, especially among among right wing libertarians, and even gets posted here from time to time. I can't stand him and yet even I'm subjected to his smug fucking face just for browsing political content on sites like this and YT.

It's possible, but it's not just the arguments that are similar; it's the word and phrase choices and even some little things (again, like diagnosing non-libertarians as sociopaths). Plus, as you note, the denial that he even knows who Molyneux is (emphasized with the obviously fake gender confusion) is wildly implausible. I think there's a reason he chose to be deceptive there.

 

[Greoric]

Is that a "no" you don't have a definition? I didn't conclude anything just asked a question, but like in the past you refuse to support your own posts.

I've never seen a poster as hostile as you when it comes to clarifying posts.

You can read the thread if you like.

 

[Greoric]

It's possible, but it's not just the arguments that are similar; it's the word and phrase choices and even some little things (again, like diagnosing non-libertarians as sociopaths). Plus, as you note, the denial that he even knows who Molyneux is (emphasized with the obviously fake gender confusion) is wildly implausible. I think there's a reason he chose to be deceptive there.

Why do you keep bringing up this bitch Molyneux for? Stay focused.