• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is This a Libertarian Statement?

How libertarian is it? 10 = a lot, 1 = not much.

  • 10

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 9

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 8

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 2 50.0%
  • 1

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Total voters
    4

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
On a scale of 1-10, 1 being, "Not at all" 10 being, "Completely" how would you rate this passage?


Yes? But that's ...just life. It says nothing at all to the question of whether one should be peaceful; it only says anything to the question of whether being peaceful will, in a given case, pay Standard Oil dividends this side of the grave. It's been a commonplace of ethics for as long as men have wondered about decent behavior that sometimes doing the right thing will get you killed; that strongly suggests that on a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone decent drops to zero; but what of it? It's one thing to be realistic about the long-term prognosis; it's quite another to abandon the project - which really means abandoning it in favor of another project with no better long-term prognosis - on those grounds.​


If you need to, ask yourself what sorts of topics would convince you to respond "That's just life," to. For example, some people might consider learning by trial and error as "just life".

This passage didn't come from a "trial and error" conversation, but I'm just asking you guys to think on your own instead of having me tell all the details.
 
Last edited:
How does this get 30 views, 0 votes, and a 1 star rating?
 
Because it makes no sense.
Removed content seldom makes sense.
Try this with the Bible or our Constitution.
Of course, the "content extractor" must do this to create confusion, intentionally.
And, again, no vote!
 
Last edited:
I understand the 'statement'; but, it's a common thought of many. It indicates a process people that think some go through, esp., when they are young. It's not in particular libertarian, so a 1.
 
Add context, then I will answer. Also provide a link to the source of the comment. We have seen, time and again, that people can pull sometimes extended phrases out of context and create an entirely inaccurate view.
 
I have to say this is rather disappointing. It implies people can only read for context and not for structure. What the topic was isn't really relevant. The tone still comes across.

The quote comes from another political forum, so I'd rather not link it. That said, the topic at hand was cultural imperialism. We were discussing where the line is drawn on aggression and why freedom of speech is tolerated. Freedom of speech is supposedly tolerated because while it is ever so marginally aggressive, the overwhelming majority of society is rugged enough to deal with it.

Those who are sensitive are condemned for the sake of letting things happen. Besides, the sensitive can't stand up for themselves anyway, so nobody sees a reason to care.

That's just life.

In referring to survival rate, this libertarian was talking about how considerate people who refrain from public communication become extinct.

Likewise, in referring to projects, he was talking about how society might sacrifice the long term in refusing to accommodate/assimilate the sensitive, but how that long term sacrifice doesn't mean inconsiderate people can't live for the moment in ignoring the sensitive.

Frankly, I didn't find this pragmatism to be libertarian at all because it implies that boundaries can be violated if society doesn't care about them being too weak. It begs the question on the non-aggression principle.
 
Last edited:
I have to say this is rather disappointing. It implies people can only read for context and not for structure. What the topic was isn't really relevant. The tone still comes across.

The quote comes from another political forum, so I'd rather not link it. That said, the topic at hand was cultural imperialism. We were discussing where the line is drawn on aggression and why freedom of speech is tolerated. Freedom of speech is supposedly tolerated because while it is ever so marginally aggressive, the overwhelming majority of society is rugged enough to deal with it.

Those who are sensitive are condemned for the sake of letting things happen. Besides, the sensitive can't stand up for themselves anyway, so nobody sees a reason to care.

That's just life.

In referring to survival rate, this libertarian was talking about how considerate people who refrain from public communication become extinct.

Likewise, in referring to projects, he was talking about how society might sacrifice the long term in refusing to accommodate/assimilate the sensitive, but how that long term sacrifice doesn't mean inconsiderate people can't live for the moment in ignoring the sensitive.

Frankly, I didn't find this pragmatism to be libertarian at all because it implies that boundaries can be violated if society doesn't care about them being too weak. It begs the question on the non-aggression principle.

Either you're saying something so far above me that it's blowing through my ears like the breeze or it's disjointed nonsense. Can you put this in layman terms or extrapolate the conclusion?

It sounds like something with no answer, until a solution is given like, "we know the sound of two hands clapping but what is the sound of one hand clapping"? Then someone slaps you in the face and you realize that's the sound of one hand clapping. :2razz:
 
Either you're saying something so far above me that it's blowing through my ears like the breeze or it's disjointed nonsense. Can you put this in layman terms or extrapolate the conclusion?

Define: violence.

The only difference between having a rock thrown at you versus having air molecules vibrated against your eardrums is one is a lot weaker than the other.

Furthermore, sensitive people can't help but interpret every sound they hear. These people are condemned into a society of distraction where they're never entitled to freedom of association because their peace of mind is always violated.

The same thing can apply to sight, smell, or touch. People don't consent to be stimulated, so even free speech can be interpreted as aggression.
 
How does this get 30 views, 0 votes, and a 1 star rating?

The grammar relays no interrogatives worthy of response.

In other words, what's the point?
 
Define: violence.

The only difference between having a rock thrown at you versus having air molecules vibrated against your eardrums is one is a lot weaker than the other.

Furthermore, sensitive people can't help but interpret every sound they hear. These people are condemned into a society of distraction where they're never entitled to freedom of association because their peace of mind is always violated.

The same thing can apply to sight, smell, or touch. People don't consent to be stimulated, so even free speech can be interpreted as aggression.

Alright I'll give that some credence.

Unfortunately, I've actually become over sensitive to certain harsh realities of everyday life, like the slaughter of animals for food, people physically and mentally suffering, the losses we all anguish over. I have to live with the bombardment of these certainties everyday and still find purpose and joy in daily living because "that's life". There is a methodology that allows some peace for those who are over sensitive to aggressive speech. "Keep it simple" and "focus on the positive" are the one, two punch for a complicated mind that finds the free activity of life and others over stimulating. There will always be effort in life for as long as we strive to exist. People must be allowed the freedom to expand and grow beyond our ignorance, such is the very nature of the universe. You can become a monk at some distant monastery to contemplate the meaning of stillness or dirt, BORING.

I would rather look for solutions rather than dwelling on the endless possibilities, which is "Non Gradus Anus Rodentum".
 
I think this is in the same league as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"





43,152 is the correct answer, by the way.
 
Alright I'll give that some credence.

Unfortunately, I've actually become over sensitive to certain harsh realities of everyday life, like the slaughter of animals for food, people physically and mentally suffering, the losses we all anguish over. I have to live with the bombardment of these certainties everyday and still find purpose and joy in daily living because "that's life". There is a methodology that allows some peace for those who are over sensitive to aggressive speech. "Keep it simple" and "focus on the positive" are the one, two punch for a complicated mind that finds the free activity of life and others over stimulating. There will always be effort in life for as long as we strive to exist. People must be allowed the freedom to expand and grow beyond our ignorance, such is the very nature of the universe. You can become a monk at some distant monastery to contemplate the meaning of stillness or dirt, BORING.

I would rather look for solutions rather than dwelling on the endless possibilities, which is "Non Gradus Anus Rodentum".


Two things.

One, it doesn't make much sense to encourage problem solving while encouraging a simple take on life.

Two, the real question is about who's to define which problems people can solve. An insensitive take on stimulation disallows people from solving more sensitive problems unless they're insulated by security, but why must people afford insulation in order to solve what they want?

How can people be allowed to throw paint around and obligate others to build fences to prevent from being splashed? Throwing paint requires rational thought, yet throwing paint onto someone else would inhibit another's rational thought. Furthermore, demanding that others insulate themselves would culturally imperialize another's rational thought.

The same logic can be applied to light and sound since they also cross physical mediums.
 
Last edited:
Two things.

One, it doesn't make much sense to encourage problem solving while encouraging a simple take on life.

Why can't you have simple problem solving for life? Too many times people miss the forest through the trees for no other reason than ego. To be, or not to to be? How much simpler a question?
I saw an episode of the old TV show "Kung Fu" where the student ask the master "Why did your friend kill himself"? The master replied "while many look into this valley and see the beauty of life and nature he saw only ugliness and could not bare it." The student replied "master why would he look into the darkness when there is the light"? And the master said "we may never know these things for such is choice." Is the glass half empty or half full, only each individual can make that determination.

Two, the real question is about who's to define which problems people can solve. An insensitive take on stimulation disallows people from solving more sensitive problems unless they're insulated by security, but why must people afford insulation in order to solve what they want?

Insensitive or realistic? This question says "your only problem is that you have no problem." Though there is no real problem because you perceive one it is definitely real to you. The trick is to learn desensitization in order to function on a simpler and higher level. A highly effective method for therapists is to offer relief for phobias by repeated stimulation of said fear, till the patient realizes the fear is unfounded. It's similar to being severely sensitive to negative stimulation. It takes practice to dial the input level down and the only security is wisdom and experience against the folly of others.

How can people be allowed to throw paint around and obligate others to build fences to prevent from being splashed? Throwing paint requires rational thought, yet throwing paint onto someone else would inhibit another's rational thought. Furthermore, demanding that others insulate themselves would culturally imperialize another's rational thought.

The same logic can be applied to light and sound since they also cross physical mediums.

Now you speak of "freedom" or "free will". This is a fundamental concept of life itself that all living things need the space to express their nature and grow. Part of free will is the ability for someone else to invade your boundaries and encroach on your space. Over time you'll learn that true freedom does not exist beyond your mind and that only in your thoughts are we truly free. This is the place where slavery lives in the form of stubborn ignorance, not in the body. It's THE truth that all inmates must learn in order to survive the internment that the limited body places on the soul. To embrace the truth of "free will" is to break down the walls of fear and pride that emote from a sense of only self. Patience, forbearance and caring are the great weapons of preservation not intolerance, violence or effrontery.

The force is strong with you young padawan, now leave the dark side and see that the true light of life is the happy cookie of your mind :lamo

Other words have a little fun and learn to laugh at yourself. It takes a lot of burden off your shoulders when you see we're only a small piece of the big puzzle.
 
Back
Top Bottom