NATION

PASSWORD

Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Do you consider nationalism and patriotism synoymous?

Yes- I am a nationalist and a patriot
115
26%
No- I am a nationalist and a patriot
52
12%
No- I am a nationalist, not a patriot
43
10%
No- I am a patriot, not a nationalist
147
33%
Yes- I am neither a nationalist nor a patriot
18
4%
No- I am neither a nationalist nor a patriot
68
15%
 
Total votes : 443

User avatar
Asherahan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1969
Founded: Dec 08, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Asherahan » Sun May 19, 2019 7:18 am

Novus America wrote:
Asherahan wrote:There was less justification when we did it to austria hungary. And let me remind you they didn't murder millions.


The way we handled the end of WWI was completely wrong.

Fuck no it was absolutely correct at least regarding Austria Hungary we should have done the same for Germany in WW2.
Status: Serial Forum Lurker
Ideologically a Left Statist
Who Likes: Single Party Democracy | Democratic Centralism | State Capitalism | Blanquism | State Atheism | Sex Positive Feminism & Socialist Feminism
Former Resident of NSG CTALNH here since 2011 - Add like 10000 to my post number.
Political Stances

User avatar
Novus America
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26585
Founded: Jun 02, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Novus America » Sun May 19, 2019 7:28 am

Asherahan wrote:
Novus America wrote:
The way we handled the end of WWI was completely wrong.

Fuck no it was absolutely correct at least regarding Austria Hungary we should have done the same for Germany in WW2.


Austria Hungary was a victim of Serbian unconventional warfare.
Austria Hungary was fully justified in going to war. Serbia was the most guilty party by far.

And as much as Germany’s pro Russia stance annoys me at times, they are not particularly dangerous.
So why? To stop what? The militarily weak and virtually defenseless (besides NATO) Germany we have today?
___|_|___ _|__*__|_

Zombie Ike/Teddy Roosevelt 2020.

Novus America represents my vision of an awesome Atompunk near future United States of America expanded to the entire North American continent, Guyana and the Philippines. The population would be around 700 million.
Think something like prewar Fallout, minus the bad stuff.

Politically I am an independent. Pragmatism is my ideology.

User avatar
The Xenopolis Confederation
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7788
Founded: Aug 11, 2017
Anarchy

Postby The Xenopolis Confederation » Sun May 19, 2019 7:38 am

So I just completed the 8 hour audiobook for God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. Forgive me for appearing as a "basic bitch" but I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and found it to be a thorough, entertaining and at times beautiful refutation of religion. I was just wondering as to what all of your thoughts, religious and irreligious, are on the book from those of you who've read it or on Christopher Hitchens in general.
Pro: Liberty, Liberalism, Capitalism, Secularism, Equal opportunity, Direct Democracy, Windows Chauvinism, Psychedelic Rock, LGBT+ Rights, Live and let live tbh.
Against: Authoritarianism, Traditionalism, Non-Market-Socialism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Autocracy, (A)Theocracy, Macs, "The ends justify the means," Collectivism in all its forms.
Economic: 0.5
Social: -8
I'm an 18 year old Australian who tries to think about things but fails, as we all do. I'll regret this in 2 years tops.

I think I have gender dysphoria so I'd prefer you use she/her pronouns on me. If not, he/him'll do.

User avatar
Camelone
Senator
 
Posts: 3572
Founded: Feb 20, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Camelone » Sun May 19, 2019 8:38 am

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:So I just completed the 8 hour audiobook for God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. Forgive me for appearing as a "basic bitch" but I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and found it to be a thorough, entertaining and at times beautiful refutation of religion. I was just wondering as to what all of your thoughts, religious and irreligious, are on the book from those of you who've read it or on Christopher Hitchens in general.

He's a materialist and a self described Marxist who's own lazy philosophical razor "that which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" destroys his own positions except for soulless materialism because it eradicates all of philosophy. Hitchens was just an antitheist with an axe to grind and he never appeared all that impressive to me. His adherents, at least the ones in my friend group, were so annoying and arrogant despite getting tongue tied by me each time we talked philosophy or religion. Thankfully my friends left New Atheism behind and either became Christians or a more philosophically sophisticated irreligious that is pleasant to debate, or they just became apatheists.
Dissenting High Church Episcopalian, American Jacobite with a Byzantine flair for extra spice
I am... the lurker!
Ave Rex Christus!

Pro: The Social Kingship of Christ, Society of King Charles the Martyr, Corporatism, Distributism, Tradition based Christianity, High Tory, Hierarchy, vanguard republicanism, Official Nationality
Neutral: Constitutions, Guild Socialism, Libertarianism, Constitution Party, monarchism
Against: Communism, socialism, SJWs, materialism, the Democratic Republican Uniparty, material Egalitarianism
Family, Fatherland, Work
Results

User avatar
The Xenopolis Confederation
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7788
Founded: Aug 11, 2017
Anarchy

Postby The Xenopolis Confederation » Sun May 19, 2019 9:04 am

Camelone wrote:
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:So I just completed the 8 hour audiobook for God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. Forgive me for appearing as a "basic bitch" but I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and found it to be a thorough, entertaining and at times beautiful refutation of religion. I was just wondering as to what all of your thoughts, religious and irreligious, are on the book from those of you who've read it or on Christopher Hitchens in general.

He's a materialist and a self described Marxist who's own lazy philosophical razor "that which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" destroys his own positions except for soulless materialism because it eradicates all of philosophy. Hitchens was just an antitheist with an axe to grind and he never appeared all that impressive to me. His adherents, at least the ones in my friend group, were so annoying and arrogant despite getting tongue tied by me each time we talked philosophy or religion. Thankfully my friends left New Atheism behind and either became Christians or a more philosophically sophisticated irreligious that is pleasant to debate, or they just became apatheists.

He had for the most part discarded Marxism by the time he wrote God Is Not Great, and there's nothing wrong with a little materialism. The razor, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dissmissed without evidence" is not lazy, it's just efficient, and only erradicated philosophy submitted without explanation or justification. I will however agree that his attitude toward religion can sometimes dip into a smug, slightly bigoted form of anti-theism, but he was often capable of avoiding complete anti-theism, at least more than his kin.
Pro: Liberty, Liberalism, Capitalism, Secularism, Equal opportunity, Direct Democracy, Windows Chauvinism, Psychedelic Rock, LGBT+ Rights, Live and let live tbh.
Against: Authoritarianism, Traditionalism, Non-Market-Socialism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Autocracy, (A)Theocracy, Macs, "The ends justify the means," Collectivism in all its forms.
Economic: 0.5
Social: -8
I'm an 18 year old Australian who tries to think about things but fails, as we all do. I'll regret this in 2 years tops.

I think I have gender dysphoria so I'd prefer you use she/her pronouns on me. If not, he/him'll do.

User avatar
Torrocca
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25919
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Torrocca » Sun May 19, 2019 9:09 am

Totally Not OEP wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
Took a minute, tops.

See how that post OEP quoted says nothing about shooting and killing Nazis? :3


You conveniently left out the post where I point blank asked you how else you expected to kill them, to which you completely side stepped. It's also incredibly funny that, for someone who always attempts to subscribe motives to my own posts, yours are somehow immune to that.


Nah, I didn't conveniently sidestep anything. You kept insinuating that that post was suggesting to kill all Nazis, which it clearly didn't say at all to anyone with a reading comprehension greater than a rock's. :3
Libertarian Democratic Socialist. RAINBOW! Revolutionary Catalonia and Revolutionary Rojava Forever! ^_^
I am Her Majesty, Torra I, of the House Anarkittismo, NS's self-anointed Anarcho-Monarchist Queen. Now known as God-Empress Torra.
"Fascism is not debated, it is destroyed." - Buenaventura Durruti
"When the people are being hit with a stick, they are not happier if the stick is called “the stick of the people”. The State is an oppression that must be abolished."
I go by Torra and feminine pronouns! They/Them/Their are perfectly acceptable alternatives as well :3
Suggestions welcome!

Capital - Karl Marx and Frederich Engels
Wage Labor and Capital - Karl Marx
The Conquest of Bread - Peter Kropotkin
Mutual Aid - Peter Kropotkin
Statism and Anarchy - Mikhail Bakunin

User avatar
Camelone
Senator
 
Posts: 3572
Founded: Feb 20, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Camelone » Sun May 19, 2019 9:21 am

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Camelone wrote:He's a materialist and a self described Marxist who's own lazy philosophical razor "that which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" destroys his own positions except for soulless materialism because it eradicates all of philosophy. Hitchens was just an antitheist with an axe to grind and he never appeared all that impressive to me. His adherents, at least the ones in my friend group, were so annoying and arrogant despite getting tongue tied by me each time we talked philosophy or religion. Thankfully my friends left New Atheism behind and either became Christians or a more philosophically sophisticated irreligious that is pleasant to debate, or they just became apatheists.

He had for the most part discarded Marxism by the time he wrote God Is Not Great, and there's nothing wrong with a little materialism. The razor, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dissmissed without evidence" is not lazy, it's just efficient, and only erradicated philosophy submitted without explanation or justification. I will however agree that his attitude toward religion can sometimes dip into a smug, slightly bigoted form of anti-theism, but he was often capable of avoiding complete anti-theism, at least more than his kin.

I'll have to take your word on that because I am unaware of that so I'll concede the point about Marxism.

The key word is a little, yes materialism at times can be beneficial but for the creation of a worldview in of itself not so much especially when it is taken to its logical conclusion. Focusing on the material world to discover how it works yes that is good but reducing all of human existence to the purely material and creature mind is not.

For the most part it is used as a lazy excuse to not engage with believers but continue to belittle them, very rarely have I seen it used with anything approaching wisdom. Most of the time I've just seen it used for anything that exists purely in the realm of philosophy, except coincidentally the fact that humans have inherent rights or dignity. Most of the time this disconnect probably stems from the different forms of evidence being used.

Sometimes is an understatement with Christopher Hitchens as he even self described himself as an antitheist. He had a good grasp of rhetoric and public speaking skills but it seemed his philosophy was rather hollow and didn't actually bring anything to the table, even seemed incoherent at times to me. As a thinker I have little respect for him, as a public speaker and rhetorician I have a lot of respect for him because well to say otherwise would just be a lie.
Last edited by Camelone on Sun May 19, 2019 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dissenting High Church Episcopalian, American Jacobite with a Byzantine flair for extra spice
I am... the lurker!
Ave Rex Christus!

Pro: The Social Kingship of Christ, Society of King Charles the Martyr, Corporatism, Distributism, Tradition based Christianity, High Tory, Hierarchy, vanguard republicanism, Official Nationality
Neutral: Constitutions, Guild Socialism, Libertarianism, Constitution Party, monarchism
Against: Communism, socialism, SJWs, materialism, the Democratic Republican Uniparty, material Egalitarianism
Family, Fatherland, Work
Results

User avatar
The Xenopolis Confederation
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7788
Founded: Aug 11, 2017
Anarchy

Postby The Xenopolis Confederation » Sun May 19, 2019 9:59 am

Camelone wrote:
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:He had for the most part discarded Marxism by the time he wrote God Is Not Great, and there's nothing wrong with a little materialism. The razor, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dissmissed without evidence" is not lazy, it's just efficient, and only erradicated philosophy submitted without explanation or justification. I will however agree that his attitude toward religion can sometimes dip into a smug, slightly bigoted form of anti-theism, but he was often capable of avoiding complete anti-theism, at least more than his kin.

I'll have to take your word on that because I am unaware of that so I'll concede the point about Marxism.

The key word is a little, yes materialism at times can be beneficial but for the creation of a worldview in of itself not so much especially when it is taken to its logical conclusion. Focusing on the material world to discover how it works yes that is good but reducing all of human existence to the purely material and creature mind is not.

For the most part it is used as a lazy excuse to not engage with believers but continue to belittle them, very rarely have I seen it used with anything approaching wisdom. Most of the time I've just seen it used for anything that exists purely in the realm of philosophy, except coincidentally the fact that humans have inherent rights or dignity. Most of the time this disconnect probably stems from the different forms of evidence being used.

Sometimes is an understatement with Christopher Hitchens as he even self described himself as an antitheist. He had a good grasp of rhetoric and public speaking skills but it seemed his philosophy was rather hollow and didn't actually bring anything to the table, even seemed incoherent at times to me. As a thinker I have little respect for him, as a public speaker and rhetorician I have a lot of respect for him because well to say otherwise would just be a lie.

If the razor has been used in a way which is stupid, I would say that that is because it has been misapplied rather than that the razor itself is at fault. It need not be profound or wise, it need only be logical, and as far as I can tell, it is. The razor is simply the idea that if you provide no reasoning or evidence to back up a claim, that claim can be discarded with an equivalent lack of effort. I've yet to see a claim provided with no evidence that I would disapprove of someone discarding without evidence, and I would be glad to offer my reasoning for human rights if need be.

If he self-describes himself as an anti-theist, I won't defend that. I find anti-theism to be smug, bigoted and all-round cringy just as much as anti-atheism. I would definitely appreciate him being a bit more clear on what his philosophy was, but I never found it necessary for him to explain his own beliefs during God Is Not Great, as I never found any of his moral assumptions i.e "'murder is wrong" to be controversial. Arguing why murder is wrong would in my mind have detracted from the book.
Pro: Liberty, Liberalism, Capitalism, Secularism, Equal opportunity, Direct Democracy, Windows Chauvinism, Psychedelic Rock, LGBT+ Rights, Live and let live tbh.
Against: Authoritarianism, Traditionalism, Non-Market-Socialism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Autocracy, (A)Theocracy, Macs, "The ends justify the means," Collectivism in all its forms.
Economic: 0.5
Social: -8
I'm an 18 year old Australian who tries to think about things but fails, as we all do. I'll regret this in 2 years tops.

I think I have gender dysphoria so I'd prefer you use she/her pronouns on me. If not, he/him'll do.

User avatar
Proctopeo
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9985
Founded: Sep 26, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Proctopeo » Sun May 19, 2019 10:34 am

Hitchen's razor, much like most other philosophical razors, are usually only derided by those who frequently are met by its business end.

If something is presented without evidence, it is indeed valid to reject it without any.
Center-right libertarian LockeabooEconomic: 5.25
Meme addict :^)Social: -3.74
Manga is literatureWill probably retake once every month or so, last updated 3/8/2019
RIP Balk
Crockerland wrote:Yes, we are aware, the Israelis protect their civilians with weapons while the Palestinians protect their weapons with civilians.

User avatar
Camelone
Senator
 
Posts: 3572
Founded: Feb 20, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Camelone » Sun May 19, 2019 10:44 am

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Camelone wrote:I'll have to take your word on that because I am unaware of that so I'll concede the point about Marxism.

The key word is a little, yes materialism at times can be beneficial but for the creation of a worldview in of itself not so much especially when it is taken to its logical conclusion. Focusing on the material world to discover how it works yes that is good but reducing all of human existence to the purely material and creature mind is not.

For the most part it is used as a lazy excuse to not engage with believers but continue to belittle them, very rarely have I seen it used with anything approaching wisdom. Most of the time I've just seen it used for anything that exists purely in the realm of philosophy, except coincidentally the fact that humans have inherent rights or dignity. Most of the time this disconnect probably stems from the different forms of evidence being used.

Sometimes is an understatement with Christopher Hitchens as he even self described himself as an antitheist. He had a good grasp of rhetoric and public speaking skills but it seemed his philosophy was rather hollow and didn't actually bring anything to the table, even seemed incoherent at times to me. As a thinker I have little respect for him, as a public speaker and rhetorician I have a lot of respect for him because well to say otherwise would just be a lie.

If the razor has been used in a way which is stupid, I would say that that is because it has been misapplied rather than that the razor itself is at fault. It need not be profound or wise, it need only be logical, and as far as I can tell, it is. The razor is simply the idea that if you provide no reasoning or evidence to back up a claim, that claim can be discarded with an equivalent lack of effort. I've yet to see a claim provided with no evidence that I would disapprove of someone discarding without evidence, and I would be glad to offer my reasoning for human rights if need be.

If he self-describes himself as an anti-theist, I won't defend that. I find anti-theism to be smug, bigoted and all-round cringy just as much as anti-atheism. I would definitely appreciate him being a bit more clear on what his philosophy was, but I never found it necessary for him to explain his own beliefs during God Is Not Great, as I never found any of his moral assumptions i.e "'murder is wrong" to be controversial. Arguing why murder is wrong would in my mind have detracted from the book.

What is evidence though? Everyone has evidence for their points of view, if they think about it that is, but what evidence should be considered worthy of consideration and what evidence should be thrown out. Plus it is merely a redundancy of previously stated logical razors, so perhaps I should change my take on it. Christopher Hitchenson did not create anything but repackaged old logical razors without any good additions. I have no doubt you have decent reasoning for human rights.

I can agree to that with anti-theism and anti-atheism being both rather annoying ideologies, that doesn’t mean that I as a Christian won’t try to convert someone because well if I truly believe my faith than it would be cruel not to at least open the dialogue. I’m taking it that you mean anti-atheism in the sense of looking down on atheists?

By the way do you think it would be interesting to read Rage Against God by his brother Peter Hitchenson who is a Christian? I’ve actually not read the book in its entirety but comparing the two brothers might be interesting.
Dissenting High Church Episcopalian, American Jacobite with a Byzantine flair for extra spice
I am... the lurker!
Ave Rex Christus!

Pro: The Social Kingship of Christ, Society of King Charles the Martyr, Corporatism, Distributism, Tradition based Christianity, High Tory, Hierarchy, vanguard republicanism, Official Nationality
Neutral: Constitutions, Guild Socialism, Libertarianism, Constitution Party, monarchism
Against: Communism, socialism, SJWs, materialism, the Democratic Republican Uniparty, material Egalitarianism
Family, Fatherland, Work
Results

User avatar
Camelone
Senator
 
Posts: 3572
Founded: Feb 20, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Camelone » Sun May 19, 2019 10:48 am

Proctopeo wrote:Hitchen's razor, much like most other philosophical razors, are usually only derided by those who frequently are met by its business end.

If something is presented without evidence, it is indeed valid to reject it without any.

Well the thing is when the other person rejects the validity of the evidence provided due to a completely different conception and view of the world all it does is shut down discussion. It’s become more of a mantra instead of a razor to discover the truth.
Last edited by Camelone on Sun May 19, 2019 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dissenting High Church Episcopalian, American Jacobite with a Byzantine flair for extra spice
I am... the lurker!
Ave Rex Christus!

Pro: The Social Kingship of Christ, Society of King Charles the Martyr, Corporatism, Distributism, Tradition based Christianity, High Tory, Hierarchy, vanguard republicanism, Official Nationality
Neutral: Constitutions, Guild Socialism, Libertarianism, Constitution Party, monarchism
Against: Communism, socialism, SJWs, materialism, the Democratic Republican Uniparty, material Egalitarianism
Family, Fatherland, Work
Results

User avatar
The Columbia-Republic
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Mar 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby The Columbia-Republic » Sun May 19, 2019 10:58 am

North German Realm wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:Continuing from the last thread, Wilson was legitimately awful all things considered, he even screwed the peace negotiations to grandstand about his dream, which would become the... League of Nations.

While I'm salty about Wilson for obvious reasons, I honestly think that even as a US president, he was nowhere as bad as, say, Andrew Jackson (Especially for his trail of tears) in my personal opinion.


Andrew Jackson was a great man, and a fantastic President. If there was a Andrew Jackson 2.0, I'd vote for him LITERALLY. Even though there is already a Jackson Lookalike named John Kerry.
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF COLUMBIA REPUBLIC

Original Country: Columbia-Washingtonia

User avatar
The South Falls
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12575
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The South Falls » Sun May 19, 2019 11:01 am

The Columbia-Republic wrote:
North German Realm wrote:While I'm salty about Wilson for obvious reasons, I honestly think that even as a US president, he was nowhere as bad as, say, Andrew Jackson (Especially for his trail of tears) in my personal opinion.


Andrew Jackson was a great man, and a fantastic President. If there was a Andrew Jackson 2.0, I'd vote for him LITERALLY. Even though there is already a Jackson Lookalike named John Kerry.

He shot up people when he didn't like them. He caned a man half to death on multiple occasions. He passed policies that led to the panic of 1837 and the trail of tears. His stances on justice were nothing if they didn't focus on bloody retribution. He was a man who drove headfirst into items he had very little knowledge about, and little foresight with which to predict their consequences.
This is an MT nation that reflects some of my beliefs, trade deals and debate always welcome! Call me TeaSF. A level 8, according to This Index.


Political Compass Results:

Economic: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28
I make dumb jokes. I'm really serious about that.

User avatar
The Columbia-Republic
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Mar 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby The Columbia-Republic » Sun May 19, 2019 11:04 am

The South Falls wrote:
The Columbia-Republic wrote:
Andrew Jackson was a great man, and a fantastic President. If there was a Andrew Jackson 2.0, I'd vote for him LITERALLY. Even though there is already a Jackson Lookalike named John Kerry.

He shot up people when he didn't like them. He caned a man half to death on multiple occasions. He passed policies that led to the panic of 1837 and the trail of tears. His stances on justice were nothing if they didn't focus on bloody retribution. He was a man who drove headfirst into items he had very little knowledge about, and little foresight with which to predict their consequences.


So what are you saying No American President has been even better since George Washington?
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF COLUMBIA REPUBLIC

Original Country: Columbia-Washingtonia

User avatar
The South Falls
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12575
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The South Falls » Sun May 19, 2019 11:06 am

The Columbia-Republic wrote:
The South Falls wrote:He shot up people when he didn't like them. He caned a man half to death on multiple occasions. He passed policies that led to the panic of 1837 and the trail of tears. His stances on justice were nothing if they didn't focus on bloody retribution. He was a man who drove headfirst into items he had very little knowledge about, and little foresight with which to predict their consequences.


So what are you saying No American President has been even better since George Washington?

I'm saying by far, he was probably the worst president, in terms of negative impact. The best president, for me, was FDR.
This is an MT nation that reflects some of my beliefs, trade deals and debate always welcome! Call me TeaSF. A level 8, according to This Index.


Political Compass Results:

Economic: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28
I make dumb jokes. I'm really serious about that.

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41689
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Sun May 19, 2019 11:08 am

The South Falls wrote:
The Columbia-Republic wrote:
So what are you saying No American President has been even better since George Washington?

I'm saying by far, he was probably the worst president, in terms of negative impact. The best president, for me, was FDR.


You need to read some history on FDR lol

User avatar
Epicurustan
Secretary
 
Posts: 33
Founded: May 17, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Epicurustan » Sun May 19, 2019 11:12 am

Camelone wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:Hitchen's razor, much like most other philosophical razors, are usually only derided by those who frequently are met by its business end.

If something is presented without evidence, it is indeed valid to reject it without any.

Well the thing is when the other person rejects the validity of the evidence provided due to a completely different conception and view of the world all it does is shut down discussion. It’s become more of a mantra instead of a razor to discover the truth.

Scientific inquiry cares little about subjective interpretations of an event.

I could say the same of theists who argue that X is more than material things because reasons.
Last edited by Epicurustan on Sun May 19, 2019 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
LEGALIZED MARIJUANA 2020
Philosophy and Religion student. Epicurean, Taoist.
Economic Left/Right: -6.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05

User avatar
Nova Cyberia
Senator
 
Posts: 4456
Founded: May 06, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Nova Cyberia » Sun May 19, 2019 11:17 am

The South Falls wrote:
The Columbia-Republic wrote:
So what are you saying No American President has been even better since George Washington?

I'm saying by far, he was probably the worst president, in terms of negative impact. The best president, for me, was FDR.

Image
Yes, yes, I get it. I'm racist and fascist because I disagree with you. Can we skip that part? I've heard it a million times before and I guarantee it won't be any different when you do it
##############
American Nationalist
Third Positionist Gang

User avatar
Epicurustan
Secretary
 
Posts: 33
Founded: May 17, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Epicurustan » Sun May 19, 2019 11:18 am

Nova Cyberia wrote:
The South Falls wrote:I'm saying by far, he was probably the worst president, in terms of negative impact. The best president, for me, was FDR.

Image

Best=/=flawless
LEGALIZED MARIJUANA 2020
Philosophy and Religion student. Epicurean, Taoist.
Economic Left/Right: -6.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05

User avatar
Camelone
Senator
 
Posts: 3572
Founded: Feb 20, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Camelone » Sun May 19, 2019 11:20 am

Epicurustan wrote:
Camelone wrote:Well the thing is when the other person rejects the validity of the evidence provided due to a completely different conception and view of the world all it does is shut down discussion. It’s become more of a mantra instead of a razor to discover the truth.

Scientific inquiry cares little about subjective interpretations of an event.

I could say the same of theists who argue that X is more than material things because reasons.

I was talking about philosophy and theology not the material sciences which while noble in discovering the workings of the creation of God are not in need of any logical razors except for Occam’s.

That wasn’t my point at all, my point was that it doesn’t take into account what evidence is within the philosophical, and by extension theological, fields.
Dissenting High Church Episcopalian, American Jacobite with a Byzantine flair for extra spice
I am... the lurker!
Ave Rex Christus!

Pro: The Social Kingship of Christ, Society of King Charles the Martyr, Corporatism, Distributism, Tradition based Christianity, High Tory, Hierarchy, vanguard republicanism, Official Nationality
Neutral: Constitutions, Guild Socialism, Libertarianism, Constitution Party, monarchism
Against: Communism, socialism, SJWs, materialism, the Democratic Republican Uniparty, material Egalitarianism
Family, Fatherland, Work
Results

User avatar
Nova Cyberia
Senator
 
Posts: 4456
Founded: May 06, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Nova Cyberia » Sun May 19, 2019 11:20 am

Epicurustan wrote:
Nova Cyberia wrote:
Image

Best=/=flawless

Ideologically he was garbage.

He was a good wartime president. That much can't be denied, and I have a lasting respect for him for that reason. But he had too many failings in my eyes.
Yes, yes, I get it. I'm racist and fascist because I disagree with you. Can we skip that part? I've heard it a million times before and I guarantee it won't be any different when you do it
##############
American Nationalist
Third Positionist Gang

User avatar
The South Falls
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12575
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The South Falls » Sun May 19, 2019 11:21 am

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
The South Falls wrote:I'm saying by far, he was probably the worst president, in terms of negative impact. The best president, for me, was FDR.


You need to read some history on FDR lol

Internment camps... yea. Racism... yea. I think I should have thought before saying that.
This is an MT nation that reflects some of my beliefs, trade deals and debate always welcome! Call me TeaSF. A level 8, according to This Index.


Political Compass Results:

Economic: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28
I make dumb jokes. I'm really serious about that.

User avatar
The South Falls
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12575
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The South Falls » Sun May 19, 2019 11:22 am

Best president was cory from cory in the house
This is an MT nation that reflects some of my beliefs, trade deals and debate always welcome! Call me TeaSF. A level 8, according to This Index.


Political Compass Results:

Economic: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28
I make dumb jokes. I'm really serious about that.

User avatar
Epicurustan
Secretary
 
Posts: 33
Founded: May 17, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Epicurustan » Sun May 19, 2019 11:23 am

Nova Cyberia wrote:
Epicurustan wrote:Best=/=flawless

Ideologically he was garbage.

He was a good wartime president. That much can't be denied, and I have a lasting respect for him for that reason. But he had too many failings in my eyes.

Good thing ideology's don't matter much when politics gets practical.

Camelone wrote:I was talking about philosophy and theology not the material sciences which while noble in discovering the workings of the creation of God are not in need of any logical razors except for Occam’s.

That wasn’t my point at all, my point was that it doesn’t take into account what evidence is within the philosophical, and by extension theological, fields.

Again my point stands, the reason is that science doesn't care about that which is not empirical by scientific objective standards. A scientist who respond with ''yeah no'' is completely logical.
LEGALIZED MARIJUANA 2020
Philosophy and Religion student. Epicurean, Taoist.
Economic Left/Right: -6.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41689
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Sun May 19, 2019 11:24 am

The South Falls wrote:
Washington Resistance Army wrote:
You need to read some history on FDR lol

Internment camps... yea. Racism... yea. I think I should have thought before saying that.


Failed economic policies that literally caused a recession during the depression, taking a shredder to the constitution and bill of rights, using the outbreak of WW2 to immediately go after and imprison his critics and political opponents, willfully and purposefully throwing out established precedent for his office, bullying the judicial system to uphold unconstitutional ideas etc etc. He did a whole lot more wrong than just internment.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Bear Stearns, Diopolis, Dresderstan, Estanglia, Fartsniffage, Google [Bot], Gormwood, Grinning Dragon, Heloin, Ifreann, Loben The 2nd, Necroghastia, Philjia, Samadhi, Shrillland, Telconi, The Blaatschapen, The Isles of the Grey, The New California Republic, Thermodolia, United Muscovite Nations, Vassenor, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads