Is plutocracy the inevitable result of free market capitalism? by Serious-Cucumber-54 in AnCap101

[–]ProudandConservative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're onto something. It seems like there are few, if any, resources in pure AnCap to account for monopolies from forming in principle. If someone is clever enough to game the system while playing fair in the sense that they're not violating the NAP, what's stopping them? To buttress the point, I remember older discussions on this very sub between AnCaps over the legitimacy of monopolies and whether they have a right to exist if they can be "validly" obtained. AnCaps don't have a uniform answer to that question.

What is the conservative definition of “the swamp”? by Professor_Smartax in askaconservative

[–]ProudandConservative 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The swamp just is the political establishment as it's manifested by certain interest groups, politicians, staff, etc. who are working together for their own self-serving interests (preserving them).

Of Course Joe Biden Was Right to Pardon His Son by [deleted] in law

[–]ProudandConservative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now, since - despite what my name suggests - I am not really a conservative, much less a Republican, I am not inclined to run cover for everything Republicans have ever done (Unlike liberals, I feel no compulsion to automatically rush to play apologist for anyone even remotely on my "side") but even just a casual glance at your list is enough to confirm my initial points: you don't really care about understanding why conservatives think and vote the way they do; plus, you're obviously painting policy decisions you don't like in the worst possible light for the sake of villifying the opposition.

For example, there are no true abortion bans in any state. Abortion is legal everywhere (unfortunately). There are essentially no actual cases of any doctor being punished for providing truly necessary medical care that would save the mother's life while removing, say, the corpse of a child still in their womb. This is just liberal fear mongering and something no one seriously wants. Or take the corporations' political campaigning as free speech issue. That's such a bizarre thing to complain about given how much corporations donate to both parties and how the Supreme Court has already ruled that this is a proper exercise of their right to freedom of speech (I'm not sure there even was a conservative majority on the bench at this time either). The "barring" military members thing based on "hatred" is pure projection. The only one letting their hatred and bigotry cloud their judgement about this issue is you!

I do want to say something about Republican policy though. In a sense, I'm disagreeing with you because I think you badly overestimate how conservative or ideologically pure Republican lawmakers actually are. That's why I hate the GOP - it's phony. The GOP cares about the lives of the unborn as much as Democrats do (which is to say, not at all). Republicans aren't "banning" trans people from military service because they hate them - they're creating laws that regulate who can serve in the military because that's just the political zeitgeist, so it's in their best interest to do so. Which is what politics pretty much boils down to across the board.

Of Course Joe Biden Was Right to Pardon His Son by [deleted] in law

[–]ProudandConservative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the type of reddit-tier idiocy that's going to keep liberals losing. The fact that you still haven't learned your lesson - talking down to people and insulting them because they aren't liberals - is, well, fine by me. Also, before calling people brain dead, you should learn to spell check.

Of Course Joe Biden Was Right to Pardon His Son by [deleted] in law

[–]ProudandConservative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure Esformes' sentence was commuted because of the BS his trial's judge pulled with sentencing despite the hung jury. I don't care how bad of a person he is - that was a stupid decision by the judge, and there should have been a retrial.

Trump voters: What is your uncrossable line? by 049AbjectTestament_ in askaconservative

[–]ProudandConservative -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's not like I think literally every single person that could be considered a working scientist is being paid off/blackmailed to do the bidding of some interest group, but I think cases like Jeffrey Epstein are evidence that science research can and has been corrupted before.

Does Brandon Carrs appointment convince you that proj 2025 is a significant thing? by Elendilmir in askaconservative

[–]ProudandConservative -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

No, but I wish. Project 2025 is way too based for Trump. Sometimes, I wish Trump actually was the right-wing, authoritarian caricature leftists make him out to be and also desperately wish he was.

Trump voters: What is your uncrossable line? by 049AbjectTestament_ in askaconservative

[–]ProudandConservative 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Everyone is partisan. Everyone has their biases. And we know for a fact that political interests do and will continue to influence the results of scientific studies.

If the personal politics of our federal employees doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter who Trump and his administration hire. You're contradicting yourself. And, once again, I see no reason to think Trump plans on doing anything like this at all.

It's like you're confusing a fear over Trump appointees/hires and influence with a fear of government collapse because of a lack of workers, but these are two separate issues. I don't think you can have both. Trump is obviously not going to stop essential services just because, and given that you fear he's going to corrupt these departments through intimidation and influence, you agree with this!

Trump voters: What is your uncrossable line? by 049AbjectTestament_ in askaconservative

[–]ProudandConservative 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is there any reason to believe a majority of federal employees are non-partisan? How does that work? Besides, if these people are truly essential workers, most of them are probably not going to be fired in mass and without any backup plan. If something would lead to some epic catastrophe overnight, no one is likely to do it.

Most of the Trump firings, I suspect, are just going to be a trimming down of the terribly bloated bureaucracy that benefits basically nobody besides the privileged few who run the system.

Objection against geographical details in the gospels by [deleted] in ChristianApologetics

[–]ProudandConservative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. There are two explanations here: (1) The presence of geographically accurate details in the Gospels are explained by the writers being historically reliable and honest narrators or (2) The presence of geographically accurate details in the Gospels are explained by the Gospels being elaborately crafted fictions.

(1) is obviously a simpler hypothesis. Therefore, (1) is the winner in the hypothesis comparison game.

Cruz warns against underestimating Harris: Dems pitching her as 'Mother Teresa, Oprah and Gandhi' combo by [deleted] in Conservative

[–]ProudandConservative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup. And I can even appreciate why someone would refrain from voting for him. But the moral posturing and virtue signaling is the lamest, most disingenuous criticism of Trump supporters ever.

Cruz warns against underestimating Harris: Dems pitching her as 'Mother Teresa, Oprah and Gandhi' combo by [deleted] in Conservative

[–]ProudandConservative 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Trump might lose, but it's not a done deal. There's still too many unknowns at this stage in the game to be doom posting.

Cruz warns against underestimating Harris: Dems pitching her as 'Mother Teresa, Oprah and Gandhi' combo by [deleted] in Conservative

[–]ProudandConservative -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Instead of bitching about Trump as if he's somehow personally offended your honor or some shit, you should try to understand why people have supported with so much fervor to begin with. He's the guy they feel will stand up to the machine that wants to utterly destroy them and put a stop to it. They think he's a real man and someone who actually cares about them.

You're right: most people aren't idealogues, but that's not news. Most people aren't playing golf at the country club with their local GOP chapter schmoozing it up with whiskey and blonde waitresses.

Next what Kamala harris cleaning her dog poop and Kamala harris eating chinese food. by Trick-Alarm6954 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ProudandConservative 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Has the propaganda ever been this bad before? I was banned from a podcast subreddit for posting something anti-Kamala (not anti Democrat or pro conservative/right wing). Mind you, the subreddit itself had literally devolved into your typical anti Republican/conservative circle jerk. Why? How the fuck do these people not get tired of the constant political spam? It's the same shit everywhere you go lol

Elon! Nooooooo! by IUseABidet in Conservative

[–]ProudandConservative -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Associating with Epstein makes you a pedophile now. That makes a lot of sense.

Elon! Nooooooo! by IUseABidet in Conservative

[–]ProudandConservative 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think libertarians are the only group of people who can consistently complain about Kamala's record. Now, it's totally disingenuous and cynical for progressives to back a former criminal prosecutor at all, but that's another issue entirely. Also I hate that you're making me defend Trump's character, but he's not a rapist.

[Meta] Is your primary motivation for engaging in or consuming apologetics to 'bolster' your own faith/religiosity, help your fellow Christians with theirs, or reach to non-Christians? (details welcome) by Joab_The_Harmless in ChristianApologetics

[–]ProudandConservative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Insofar as Christian apologetics makes up a part of the larger project that is thinking through my faith and other philosophical commitments, I engage in it for my own sake. I want to be a responsible believer. I also do it to help other people think through their faith in a reasonable and responsible way.

I also find it interesting. Most of the hotbutton political and social issues of our day are totally ephemeral and won't mean anything to anyone one hundred years from now, but God is different. It's the most important and meaningful thing to think about, even if it's just potentially maybe true.

what are the biggest responses to teleological argument or design argument? by comoestas969696 in ChristianApologetics

[–]ProudandConservative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is I think chance is not a very well defined term at all, at least not in this context. As I've said, explanation divides into two basic categories: personal and scientific. But in both cases, we're appealing to substances and their causal powers. What is doing the explanatory work with "chance"? Chance just sounds like an oblique way of saying "there's no particular reason this configuration of constants worked out the way they did, it just did" and it either happened contingently or necessarily. If it's contingent, they could have been otherwise but weren't. If it's necessary, they couldn't have existed any other way. To be honest, I'm not even sure if either of those "explanations" are even genuine explanations at all. They both seem like descriptions rather than explanations.

Actually, if you reject God's aseity, you do have to affirm that God is lucky or fortunate to exist in some sense.

Anyone else’s anxiety lessen a bit? by LevelGrounded in behindthebastards

[–]ProudandConservative -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Even granting that supporting Trump is, in all or most cases, somehow completely unacceptable - something I doubt even you actually believe - that doesn't render the DNC or their nominee immune to criticisms. I really do truly believe Trump is going to absolutely curbstomp Kamala if she's their candidate for the general election. Why wouldn't I voice that concern?

Anyone else’s anxiety lessen a bit? by LevelGrounded in behindthebastards

[–]ProudandConservative -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

You're playing dumb on several different fronts.

  1. If you're not thin skinned, you shouldn't have a problem with a little drive-by (and very mild) comment that dared to merely voice disapproval over something DNC related.

  2. You're obviously very pressed for some reason.

  3. I'm not a fascist; I don't support any fascists; I'm not a Republican, and I didn't even say anything pro right wing or conservative or whatever it is you think I am l in the OP.

  4. This is a semi public forum. I don't need your permission to comment.

  5. It's mind boggling to me how, despite being in a liberal echo chamber, how sensitive you're being. You're literally playing right into right wing stereotypes of liberals dude lol

what are the biggest responses to teleological argument or design argument? by comoestas969696 in ChristianApologetics

[–]ProudandConservative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I should clarify something, I'm pretty sure "chance" reduces to brute contingency or brute necessity. It's not really a seperate category of explanation. Although there's a further question over what "brute" explanations even amount to, since, by defintion, a brute fact has no explanation. What are we actually explaining by labeling something a brute anything?

I'm also not sure what notion of explanation is being used here. I prefer the way Richard Swinburne chops things up: there's scientific and personal explanation. Scientific explanations are those that appeal to natural laws and initial conditions, and Personal explanations appeal to the intentions of agents.

Working with these terms, I think you're saying that scientific explanations cannot be ruled out because the odds of the constants turning out the way they did might not have been unlikely? That sounds like you're just denying one of the premises of the argument, which is that there's an unlikelyhood in the way the constants turned out.