Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since you can't or won't acknowledge the color red, or can't or won't hear frequencies above 20kHz. Your trotting out of your pop psych list of distortions is entirely useless don't you? It's an appeal to authority which is always a poor debate strategy, and is dependent on your perception being the correct perception, which I believe is on your list of distorted thinking is it not?
We all perceive things through our lenses of perception, the trick is to determine whose lens is less distorted from actual. Majority plays no part in that determination, because majority is most frequently wrong, fools seldom differing is the almost ubiquitous outcome, NOT, great minds thinking alike.
Exactly, and the methodology for doing so is philosophy (and science, which stems from philosophy) - logic and reason. That's how to determine the objective from the subjective.
Chi has accused us in the past of adhering to religious dogma, but logic and reason is not that. Looking at your own beliefs and removing the logical fallacies and contradictions, you end up an anarchist, plain and simple. That's the foundational reason that I am one.
I used to be a creationist. I remember watching debates where the creationist would argue that "the science, logic, and reason of earthly men" was a religion itself, and the crowd would applaud. I thought it was a great argument at the time.
Fast forward to after I'd learned HOW to think rationally and recognize fallacies, and now I can point out multiple reasons why that's wrong. People have to learn how to think. It's not automatic, unfortunately, and leads to frustrating conversations.
Endless brands of Libertarianism, no diff than Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, nationalists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, whites, blacks, Browns and so on.
Broad labels don’t define.
Exactly. I really prefer to label myself a classical liberal. Separates me from the anarchist and minarchists.
Influences, Locke, Smith, Ricardo, Hobbes, Jefferson, Madison, the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics amongst others.
Exactly, and the methodology for doing so is philosophy (and science, which stems from philosophy) - logic and reason. That's how to determine the objective from the subjective.
Chi has accused us in the past of adhering to religious dogma, but logic and reason is not that. Looking at your own beliefs and removing the logical fallacies and contradictions, you end up an anarchist, plain and simple. That's the foundational reason that I am one.
I used to be a creationist. I remember watching debates where the creationist would argue that "the science, logic, and reason of earthly men" was a religion itself, and the crowd would applaud. I thought it was a great argument at the time.
Fast forward to after I'd learned HOW to think rationally and recognize fallacies, and now I can point out multiple reasons why that's wrong. People have to learn how to think. It's not automatic, unfortunately, and leads to frustrating conversations.
Exactly, and the methodology for doing so is philosophy (and science, which stems from philosophy) - logic and reason. That's how to determine the objective from the subjective.
Chi has accused us in the past of adhering to religious dogma, but logic and reason is not that. Looking at your own beliefs and removing the logical fallacies and contradictions, you end up an anarchist, plain and simple. That's the foundational reason that I am one.
I used to be a creationist. I remember watching debates where the creationist would argue that "the science, logic, and reason of earthly men" was a religion itself, and the crowd would applaud. I thought it was a great argument at the time.
Fast forward to after I'd learned HOW to think rationally and recognize fallacies, and now I can point out multiple reasons why that's wrong. People have to learn how to think. It's not automatic, unfortunately, and leads to frustrating conversations.
according to Newman Philosophy was the study of all the special sciences.
Exactly, and the methodology for doing so is philosophy (and science, which stems from philosophy) - logic and reason. That's how to determine the objective from the subjective.
Chi has accused us in the past of adhering to religious dogma, but logic and reason is not that. Looking at your own beliefs and removing the logical fallacies and contradictions, you end up an anarchist, plain and simple. That's the foundational reason that I am one.
I used to be a creationist. I remember watching debates where the creationist would argue that "the science, logic, and reason of earthly men" was a religion itself, and the crowd would applaud. I thought it was a great argument at the time.
Fast forward to after I'd learned HOW to think rationally and recognize fallacies, and now I can point out multiple reasons why that's wrong. People have to learn how to think. It's not automatic, unfortunately, and leads to frustrating conversations.
In both moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler (or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.
It's been noted that Libertarians believe it's OK for the government to protect property rights. You are restricting my ability to expand my empire and using the government to do that.
The real question should be “Is there property right or not? Does your property belong to you or to the ‘society’, and the ‘society’ can take/rob from you without just compensation?”
The real question should be “Is there property right or not? Does your property belong to you or to the ‘society’, and the ‘society’ can take/rob from you without just compensation?”
So what’s your answer?
What is property?
Something you use, something you store, or something you lay claim to?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
