• 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!

Would Jesus be a Liberal?

Which of these political leans would Jesus be?

  • Liberal

    Votes: 40 44.0%
  • Conservative

    Votes: 12 13.2%
  • Moderate

    Votes: 7 7.7%
  • Potato

    Votes: 32 35.2%

  • Total voters
    91
Remember the talk you had with a few members here? Did you disprove anything they said?

That the government taxation is theivery?
I'm not sure did they say anything congruent with political reality?
 
That the government taxation is theivery?
I'm not sure did they say anything congruent with political reality?

Did you counter any arguments at all? If you did not, you can not judge anything or claim victory. All you are is nothing but the loser of the debate.
 
Yes.

If you read the Sermon on the Mount and the tenents of his preaching being social justice He would be a progressive.

He could be no less.
 
Did you counter any arguments at all? If you did not, you can not judge anything or claim victory. All you are is nothing but the loser of the debate.

What debate... can you reiterate any points made?

Someone said government taxation was thievery... and that I 'had' to prove it wasn't.
They should prove they arent crazy.

As for you henrin we could go 5 pages while you played a little game pretending you had the higher philosophical ethos while you bumble through a whole thread to he point where you stop making sense.
 
Yes.

If you read the Sermon on the Mount and the tenents of his preaching being social justice He would be a progressive.

He could be no less.

He supported a totalitarian dictatorship. He is a militant fascist radical by any reckoning. Incidentally, the totalitarian regime He supports has historically committed mass genocides using biological contagions. Something to consider while listening to the propaganda on how great this "Kingdom" will be.
 
What debate... can you reiterate any points made?

The talk you just got done having.

Someone said government taxation was thievery... and that I 'had' to prove it wasn't.
They should prove they arent crazy.

Assuming someone is crazy is not winning the debate. Why do I even continue to talk to you if this always your stance for why you don't need to debate?

As for you henrin we could go 5 pages while you played a little game pretending you had the higher philosophical ethos while you bumble through a whole thread to he point where you stop making sense.

The thread you are talking about I did not pretend I had a higher anything, nor did I stop making sense. You just were unable to defend yourself and never actually took the effort to do so. Making excuses for your failure is not victory, but greater failure.
 
The talk you just got done having.

You mean all the strange abstract insane stuff about the government stealing?


Assuming someone is crazy is not winning the debate. Why do I even continue to talk to you if this always your stance for why you don't need to debate?

I debated with you over a half dozen pages in another thread. You're impossible.



The thread you are talking about I did not pretend I had a higher anything, nor did I stop making sense. You just were unable to defend yourself and never actually took the effort to do so. Making excuses for your failure is not victory, but greater failure.

Sorry, when you can communicate your philosophy effectively you might get somewhere. Until then it's a distorted signal from the other side of the solar system, I can't even make out what you mean.
 
You mean all the strange abstract insane stuff about the government stealing?

Judging arguments is not countering arguments. You should be aware of this. This is really all you ever do.


I debated with you over a half dozen pages in another thread. You're impossible.

You didn't defend yourself, so no, you did not debate.

Sorry, when you can communicate your philosophy effectively you might get somewhere. Until then it's a distorted signal from the other side of the solar system, I can't even make out what you mean.

Again, your failure is your own. I made everything very clear and all you had to do was tell me how I was wrong. You never did. Telling me you are going to riot if you fail has nothing to do with the point I was making and the stance you needed to defend in which you didn't. Calling me insane does not further your debate stance, nor does it prove me wrong. None of what you did in that thread is what is called debating.
 
Last edited:
Judging arguments is not countering arguments. You should be aware of this. This is really all you ever do.

The arguments aren't particularly valid ab initio and are mostly bait to lead the conversation further into whatever confirms your personal beliefs. As in the arguments are bunk. Sorry.

You didn't defend yourself, so no, you did not debate.

Defend myself from what?


Again, your failure is your own. I made everything very clear and all you had to do was tell me how I was wrong. You never did. Telling me you are going to riot if you fail has nothing to do with the point I was making and the stance you needed to defend in which you didn't. Calling me insane does not further your debate stance, nor does it prove me wrong. None of what you did in that thread is what is called debating.

Across this board we have libertarians claiming folks dont have a right to education, healthcare, and in the voter ID thread, that folks dont have an explicit right to vote.

Sorry, you can't actually prove whatever vapid philosophical stance on the nature of rights substantiates such positions.

Unless you want to try right now. Theres a reason libertarian philosophies don't make it far out of the basements of libertarians...
 
The arguments aren't particularly valid ab initio and are mostly bait to lead the conversation further into whatever confirms your personal beliefs. As in the arguments are bunk. Sorry.

So you are superior to the argument because you are you. That is not an argument.

Defend myself from what?

Arguments.



Across this board we have libertarians claiming folks dont have a right to education, healthcare, and in the voter ID thread, that folks dont have an explicit right to vote.

Sorry, you can't actually prove whatever vapid philosophical stance on the nature of rights substantiates such positions.

Unless you want to try right now. Theres a reason libertarian philosophies don't make it far out of the basements of libertarians...

The problem isn't that I can't because I can and have in the past. The problem is I put out a starting point to a debate and instead of debating with me you decide to scream at me and call me names. I have no reason to further the debate at that point since I am not actually in one.
 
So you are superior to the argument because you are you. That is not an argument.

The invalidity of an argument rests on the argument itself. Not me. Know what you're talking about. o wait, you probably don't.

Arguments.

No one faces significant risk to face in an actual debate. I don't have to defend my person from your argument.

The problem isn't that I can't because I can and have in the past. The problem is I put out a starting point to a debate and instead of debating with me you decide to scream at me and call me names. I have no reason to further the debate at that point since I am not actually in one.

On the internet, no one can hear you scream. :roll:
but seriously... over that five pages in that other thread your syntax degenerated to the point I thought you may be on sleeping pills.
 
The invalidity of an argument rests on the argument itself. Not me. Know what you're talking about. o wait, you probably don't.

The invalidity of an argument has to be shown.

No one faces significant risk to face in an actual debate. I don't have to defend my person from your argument.

No, but in order to claim to be involved in a debate you have to defend your stance.

On the internet, no one can hear you scream. :roll:
but seriously... over that five pages in that other thread your syntax degenerated to the point I thought you may be on sleeping pills.

So we are back to the beginning to talk about your inabilities.
 
If Jesus Christ were alive today, would he be a liberal, conservative, or something else? Why?


HE would have no human political inclinations whatsoever.... Some Things Some Beings are above and beyond that.

My 2 cents.
 
That the government taxation is theivery?
I'm not sure did they say anything congruent with political reality?

Political reality =/= logical debate. The question posed to you, which you seem to persist in avoiding an honest discussion of, is what is the difference between you holding me at gunpoint and taking my money, or the government holding me at gunpoint, taking my money, and giving it to you. This discussion is about logic and reason, not political reality. Political reality is dependent on politicians buying votes, which has nothing to do with ethics.
 
The invalidity of an argument has to be shown.

Oh...... theyre so obvious... I guess you mustve thought I was making fun of you.



No, but in order to claim to be involved in a debate you have to defend your stance.
I never issued any stance... I parried yours. Am I countering your arguments or defending mine in order to debate? Please decide.

So we are back to the beginning to talk about your inabilities.

Sorry, you broke down in that thread... I gave you a thumbs up and told you to have your trophy and left that place.
 
Political reality =/= logical debate. The question posed to you, which you seem to persist in avoiding an honest discussion of, is what is the difference between you holding me at gunpoint and taking my money, or the government holding me at gunpoint, taking my money, and giving it to you. This discussion is about logic and reason, not political reality. Political reality is dependent on politicians buying votes, which has nothing to do with ethics.

1) The government is not an individual the analogy is invalid
2) the government is part of a social contract that establishes law order and civilization, the analogy is invalid
3) the government drafts the laws and enforces them that you may not be robbed in the first place.

You cannot make an analogy between the public burden of taxation
and some psychotic vision where the government robs your money and gives it to me personally.

You're actually willing to even visualize that your money is taken by you at gun point and then given to another less worthy individual through the government?

If this is true the political problem in this country is far more grave than I ever expected.
Wait.... no....
about as bad as I thought.
 
Oh...... theyre so obvious... I guess you mustve thought I was making fun of you.

This is turning into the last time I talked to you.

I never issued any stance... I parried yours. Am I countering your arguments or defending mine in order to debate? Please decide.

In the talk we were having you very much did have a stance. Do you honestly forget what it was?

Sorry, you broke down in that thread... I gave you a thumbs up and told you to have your trophy and left that place.

Nope. You just decided you wanted out and pretended to not understand me any more.
 
This is turning into the last time I talked to you.

Syntax... again.

In the talk we were having you very much did have a stance. Do you honestly forget what it was?

That I had a right to education, healthcare, a vote, etc... and that anyone who attempted to deny me of these rights would either meet the force of the government and if the government failed they would undoubtedly meet the force of the people. Oh.. yeah... and that magical faeries in the sky dont provide rights. Am I close to knowing what my own stances are? :roll:

Nope. You just decided you wanted out and pretended to not understand me any more.

Sorry, when the debate doesn't go the way you want you become stubborn and sour.

It was one of those.... "OOOOOOOOOOOkaaaaaay...." moments where you step back and walk away. Plenty of pages of you refusing to come down off your coud.
 
Last edited:
1) The government is not an individual the analogy is invalid

It doesn't need to be an individual for the analogy to be valid. It merely has to be.

2) the government is part of a social contract that establishes law order and civilization, the analogy is invalid

The social contract is and was constituted so to enable them to develop in the idea of liberty. Law can only have the domain of force of justice. Government is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense of rights and liberties. If you answered the question you thought was invalid you would know the answer to everything, like I said. But do what you always do and think that everything I say is invalid and not worth note.

3) the government drafts the laws and enforces them that you may not be robbed in the first place.

This is a ridiculous and dangerous idea that is only drafted out of ignorance. It is saying the law enforcer itself does not have to keep the law. Saying that the law permits the state to lawfully engage in actions which, if undertaken by individuals, would land them in jail. It is a idea that has lead to people being killed around the world by their governments. An idea that if you ever actually thought about it you would reject.
 
If taxation were applied to benefit each citizen equitably, your point might be valid. As it stands, taxation does not benefit everyone to the same extent. Taxation should pay common expenses of the governed (defense, education, commerce regulation, and other common benefits of government). The taxation system that we currently have takes from one for the benefit of another. That is theft, it's just that the government is taking the money from me to give to another rather than the other holding me at gunpoint.

All of this can be debated, but this thread isn't a tax debate thread
 
HE would have no human political inclinations whatsoever.... Some Things Some Beings are above and beyond that.

My 2 cents.

Wanting to establish a Dictatorship to rule over humanity for all time doesn't count?
 
Syntax... again.

Looks fine here, but like always games is all you have.

That I had a right to education, healthcare, a vote, etc... and that anyone who attempted to deny me of these rights would either meet the force of the government and if the government failed they would undoubtedly meet the force of the people.

Considering I never said anything about taking them away, but only on the topic if they are in fact rights, your argument was like it is now a strawman. Even if it was what I was getting at, in no way does supporting violence mask itself as a defense.

Oh.. yeah... and that magical faeries in the sky dont provide rights. Am I close to knowing what my own stances are? :roll:

I never said that magical faeries make rights. Also, arguing a misconstruction on the idea is not arguing against it.

Sorry, when the debate doesn't go the way you want you become stubborn and sour.

There was no debate so I couldn't possibly become stubborn and sour over it.

It was one of those.... "OOOOOOOOOOOkaaaaaay...." moments where you step back and walk away. Plenty of pages of you refusing to come down off your coud.

No, you walked away to excuse your failure.
 
Last edited:
This video should settle this debate... lol

 
Alright bro. I already had a post on the last page in which I issued several multiple reasons why the analogy put forth as an argument was invalid.

Terrible argument.

No, you walked away to excuse your failure.

You can make a catholic mass seem more exciting that an MMA fight with explosions.
 
Alright bro. I already had a post on the last page in which I issued several multiple reasons why the analogy put forth as an argument was invalid.

Terrible argument.

Terrible argument? See, this is all you have.


You can make a catholic mass seem more exciting that an MMA fight with explosions.

What?
 
Back
Top Bottom