Separation of Science and State

[HoreTore]

What gives you that idea? The characterisation of entire groups is a method of induction. You see some traits that you do not like in some individuals belonging to a particular group, and conclude that these traits belongs to all members of the group - because it is convenient. Also known as bigotry.

Some forms of bigotry are less taboo than others, however. Therein lies the difference.

No.

I am not refering to the persons themselves, I am referring to the prominent ideas that makes up anarcho-capitalism.

[Viking]

No.

I am not refering to the persons themselves, I am referring to the prominent ideas that makes up anarcho-capitalism.

This is what you said (bold face added by me): "Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.". You labeled the persons, not the ideas. That requires the assumption that if someone follows a stupid idea; or more precisely: a set of stupid ideas; then the persons themselves must be stupid; which does not automatically follow (as a matter of fact, there are...quite a few different ways to arrive at the same conclusion).

Furthermore, you have concluded that the ideas that make up the ideology are "stupid"; as you write above, which I for some funny reason suspect that you haven't spent time to "prove" logically, provided that such things are of such a nature that they can be "proven". After all, if you mean that a state - or rather the lack of it - should appear in a particular fashion only because the principles appeal to you; then what can be proven? What can be said to be "retarded"?

Anyway, regardless of what I write above, it is sort of an unnecessary statement to put forward - it is not going to help rational debate.

[HoreTore]

This is what you said (bold face added by me): "Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.". You labeled the persons, not the ideas. That requires the assumption that if someone follows a stupid idea; or more precisely: a set of stupid ideas; then the persons themselves must be stupid; which does not automatically follow (as a matter of fact, there are...quite a few different ways to arrive at the same conclusion).

Bah. Have fun chipping splinters.

Furthermore, you have concluded that the ideas that make up the ideology are "stupid"; as you write above, which I for some funny reason suspect that you haven't spent time to "prove" logically, provided that such things are of such a nature that they can be "proven". After all, if you mean that a state - or rather the lack of it - should appear in a particular fashion only because the principles appeal to you; then what can be proven? What can be said to be "retarded"?

I have concluded that in my opinion, those ideas are X. Are we not allowed to form opinions on political ideas....? Can I not decide that I believe social democracy to be good, and liberal-conservatives(høyre) to be bad? And that anarcho-capitalism is idiotic? If you believe otherwise; fine, go ahead, see what I care. Are people not allowed to say that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a completely and utterly retarded idea....?

Anyway, regardless of what I write above, it is sort of an unnecessary statement to put forward - it is not going to help rational debate.

Why on earth do you think I wanted to further debate? Heck, why would I even want debate anarcho-capitalism? As I said, the ideas are idiotic, why would I want to argue about stupidity?

[Viking]

Bah. Have fun chipping splinters.

I am most certain it is not; but in case it is, it's on your invitation (thanks).

I have concluded that in my opinion, those ideas are X. Are we not allowed to form opinions on political ideas....? Can I not decide that I believe social democracy to be good, and liberal-conservatives(høyre) to be bad? And that anarcho-capitalism is idiotic? If you believe otherwise; fine, go ahead, see what I care. Are people not allowed to say that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a completely and utterly retarded idea....?

I am jolly careful with labeling things as "retarded" as it is a very non-descriptive word. If the point of the USSR was to get humanity as close to utopia as possible, then history seems to show that they didn't really know what they were doing.

However; some important distinctions should be made: principle vs. whole. Sometimes principles are put above the whole. For instance when serial killers, serial rapists and "similar" criminals are given prison terms in stead of being executed (considering the cases where they stay in prison for the rest of their lives; the mentally "unstable" ones); even though execution would most probably benefit the rest of the society the most in sum (they could flee and kill/destroy again, they cost money and labour etc). In this case, the principle that the human life is sort of "sacred" is put above the whole, the society. Likewise, leaders of the USSR could say that they follow the right principles and thus have the moral high ground, even if their society wasn't the best to live in in terms of material values.

Yeah, you may have your own political opinions....but when using the word "retarded", then there is really being suggested that we are dealing with flaws of a logical nature; not a matter of taste. In which case you must be able to pull up arguments.

Why on earth do you think I wanted to further debate? Heck, why would I even want debate anarcho-capitalism? As I said, the ideas are idiotic, why would I want to argue about stupidity?

If you want to convince anyone about anything at all, then you will have to put forth arguments supporting your view. Shouting "you suck" is most likely not going to work (would be really nice if it did).

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you want to convince anyone about anything at all, then you will have to put forth arguments supporting your view. Shouting "you suck" is most likely not going to work (would be really nice if it did).

No you don't. Shouting "you suck" doesn't work, but shouting "unamerican", "socialist" or "communist" does.

[Beskar]

I say "Define God" and no one replies.

It is because I am right, innit?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I say "Define God" and no one replies.

It is because I am right, innit?

First Cause.

Happy?