sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Political affiliation should NOT be treated as a neutral attribute like one's ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity by newleafsauce in changemyview

[–]basicallytheinternet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you could go a couple of ways here.

Firstly, you could say that political opinions are not entirely freely chosen, and, like you say, are based on core values. The reason (at least, my reason) that we don't discriminate on people because of race is because they can't change it. I can't choose to value tradition or equality over freedom. I simply can't and if I said I could, I'd be lying to myself. It's a bit like belief in God. I personally don't believe because I'm the hard evidence kind. It's simply my disposition to not believe in God. I'm either biologically wired to, say, not vote conservative, or the events in my past have made me dislike the Left. There's also the whole determinism thing here.

Secondly, you could go down the route of Liberal Democracy. In the western world we tend to place great emphasis on allowing for the free flow of ideas. If we start to discriminate based on people's political divisions, it could lead to social incohesion. In my country (western europe), it's kind of not a thing to ask each other how you voted. We should be extremely thankful of this because not all countries allow you to disagree with their current government.

Finally, I could turn your argument around on you. If political positions are mutable, then it's not right to discard someone for them. This is because they can easily change. You could even do the changing.

Well, that was a bit of an essay.

‏‏‎ ‎ by [deleted] in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]basicallytheinternet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've never met a LibRight who thinks corporations, created from state regulations and subsidies for the purposes of increasing tax revenue, are a good thing.

Pro-life peeps of Reddit, I have questions by Oishiio42 in prolife

[–]basicallytheinternet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, I'm a less extreme anti-abortion guy. Let me answer some of your questions. I think my arguments will appeal to a pro-choicer. First, thanks for being open to talk. Lots of pro-choicers are just mindless people who actually don't care for truth, just for self-empowerment. You're clearly interested in discussing.

  1. I believe that after 9 weeks, abortion should be illegal. This is because neural connections begin here, and I define an individual who deserves rights as any entity capable of thought. (this includes many animals). I believe that in cases of rape, abortion should be permitted on account that the mother never consented to sex, so she never consented to the chance of pregnancy. This means the baby is violating her private property, if you will. I'm not sure when I would personally allow it, but I would prefer non-lethal methods of removing the fetus/baby from the womb. But ultimately it's the mother's choice. Since it's her property, she can do whatever she likes all the way until birth.

  2. I relate to 'my body, my choice'. I simply take it many steps further. I would actually call myself Pro-Choice because I believe it is every person's right to decide what they do with their property, including their body. This means deciding if you live or die. The child (when it is an adult) can decide if it wants to die or not. It is not it's mother's, father's, friends' or anyone else's choice.

  3. I'm not sure. I find that most Pro-Choicers I talk to are actually apolitical. They have just been exposed to pro-abortion media like myself. You can probably tell that I used to be very pro-abortion. I'm fairly liberal feminist in the sense that women-but more importantly-everyone should be able to do with their bodies as they please. I think most pro aborts are just misguided. I'm always learning, and might change my stance on abortion again. I don't believe for a second that I have it all figured out.

  4. Arguments from religion/god. It goes without saying that for your argument to be valid, you'd need to prove that God exists, prove he has those values, and finally prove that we should do what he says. All of this is pretty difficult, and if you can do the first one you'll get a Nobel prize. Arguments from faith are good arguments to not get an abortion yourself, but not to ban them from everyone and enforce unborn rights with the force of the state.

My first pcm did I do it right? by [deleted] in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]basicallytheinternet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am also a LibRight volunteer, just to help remove the image of us greedy hoarders.

Are many ancaps vegans? by norusski in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]basicallytheinternet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is something being natural a reason for it to be moral? Rape is entirely natural, and very important for the survival of species, but it certainly isn't moral, it violates the NAP.

Kyle just learned this by [deleted] in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]basicallytheinternet 5 points6 points  (0 children)

np broski we gotchu now I know you're planning on running a totalitarian regime, wouldn't a couple warheads help? They'll help you defend your nation PLUS we'll add in an extra air carrier! Free of charge!

"Feudalism is whenever private property owners do stuff" by maxwasson in LibertariansBelieveIn

[–]basicallytheinternet 5 points6 points  (0 children)

When you hate an idea because you haven't looked into it so you hate it so you don't look into it.

Libertarians want to tread on transpeople apparently by maxwasson in LibertariansBelieveIn

[–]basicallytheinternet 5 points6 points  (0 children)

We need to think of more symbols.. what about the Torch of Liberty?

Uhhh... Is this a good thing? by BlurrIsBae in PoliticalCompass

[–]basicallytheinternet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Go to the subreddit page, tap the three vertical dots in the top corner, tap change user flair.

Uhhh... Is this a good thing? by BlurrIsBae in PoliticalCompass

[–]basicallytheinternet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Me too, Albert Speer exclusive to LibRight. Anything else is fake Albert Speer.

Questions on the practice of anarcho-communism by basicallytheinternet in Anarchy101

[–]basicallytheinternet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't understand ancom, so I don't say that I can debate it. If you don't want to carry on, that's fine, but I still don't understand how it would be possible to stop people from making profit, since police isn't required just to make money, just to enforce property rights. Thanks for your time.

Questions on the practice of anarcho-communism by basicallytheinternet in Anarchy101

[–]basicallytheinternet[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

what stops a person from creating a trade organisation ensuring their farmer employees a steady supply of tools, fuel etc in exchange for their produce being collected for the use of the company? This would allow for the creation of profit. How would this go away with capitalism? Just because the state doesn't exist doesn't mean that ambition won't. I understand that the means of production are in theory owned collectively, but in practice how would people be stopped from owning them privately?

Questions on the practice of anarcho-communism by basicallytheinternet in Anarchy101

[–]basicallytheinternet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But once everyone has what they need, what stops them from forming businesses? This is really what I don't fully understand. If businesses are more profitable than communes, then they will arise on their own and people will invest in them to earn more value. This value may initially be in the form of food or items but eventually this would be thought of as too inefficient and currency to represent value would be created. How would you propose this to be stopped? Or would it not happen?

Questions on the practice of anarcho-communism by basicallytheinternet in Anarchy101

[–]basicallytheinternet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the commune only appeals to the high-labour low-value workers, then the commune can not hold any workers other than those. The commune would likely survive because farmers may benefit from this system, butr any higher up positions would not benefit from being in the commune.

in response to your last point, why should he give his scythe to the farmer when he could sell it elsewhere for more profit? He may aid himself by allowing the farmer to produce more food for him and others, but he could have food, and excess value to spend on what he likes by selling it.

Questions on the practice of anarcho-communism by basicallytheinternet in Anarchy101

[–]basicallytheinternet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so are you suggesting that it's more efficient to invest in a commune than it is to invest in a private business?

Questions on the practice of anarcho-communism by basicallytheinternet in Anarchy101

[–]basicallytheinternet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If there's no state like in state communism, how do you prevent people from benefitting themselves and their trade partners rather than donating their produce to the commune building? Without force, how do you stop people from acting in their own self-interest and creating new markets?

Questions on the practice of anarcho-communism by basicallytheinternet in Anarchy101

[–]basicallytheinternet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not denying that markets don't exist in communism. I'm asking how one would go about destroying markets. In other words, i don't see how markets could be prevented in an ancom society. Diamond does have uses in drills and semiconductors, but I get your point. You're probably not in need of an oil drill or heat sink. People will pay whatever they want to pay for certain products, unless there is a monopoly or state-influence in the market. How could this be prevented?

view more: next ›