What Is Your Political Philosophy?

No, you're a conservative. You think the best system is the one that we have now, that "it works". You reject idealism and instead prefer the status quo that we have now. That's text book conservatism.

If your political "philosophy" predominated in the 15th century we would all be bending a knee to our feudal lords right now while ranting about, "What undeniably works best is what has been shown to work best," and dismissing anything else as "gossamer musings ideologues may conjure."

 

I recognize democratic societies that regulate capitalism and incorporate a strong social welfare component as the proven superior paradigm. Of course, that in no way suggests that I believe they have achieved their maximal potential or that their status quo is acceptable. Far from it. The demonstrable reality is that those states also facilitate and exhibit ongoing progress and innovation more effectively than any other system.

Until someone can proofer and defend an actual alternative construct that has demonstrated those qualities, I shall adhere to the model that incorporates and demonstrates the ability to continue to perfect itself.

Does that define me as a "progressive"? Some folks like the simplicity of labels, but they aren't terribly important to me.

 

I don't believe in reductio ad absurdum

 

You are imposing your theocratic assumptions about what the word negative and abuse mean. I never mentioned rape. I mentioned consensual sex between an adult and a child. Rightly, you assume that any sexual contact between an adult and a child is evil. But then you would have to back off from that libertarian position of letting others do what they please unless they are harming them.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Israel is a modern western atheistocracy. The Observant Jews that I know hate Israel.

 

YOU DIDN'T WATCH THE VIDEO DID YOU? Just asserting things that I disproved in specific detail in my documentary does not delete in space and time what I said. Fogel showed that the material and economic conditions for Southern slaves were superior to both white and black free labor in the North.

Fogel and Engerman, Time on the Cross, (TOC) 5, 126, 244

After considering years of criticism of this book Fogel made the same conclusion in his Without Consent or Contract page 395.

The slaves had everything they needed for life. They were given food, shelter, health care, retirement and any other essential need. Fogel showed that the Slaves were well fed as compared with Western Nations at the time and actually exceeded modern recommended nutritional intake. Fogel showed that slaves had good shelter and their houses were generally not overcrowded. Also, the life expectation of Southern slaves was favorable to most western nations at the time.

TOC, 112, 115, 125; Without Consent or Contract, (WCOC) 133-134.

You are being so dishonest right now it is scary. Abolition brought on the civil war not the south. The civil war was an invasion of the south, not the other way around:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:American_Civil_War_Battles_by_Theater,_Year.png

Facts are facts.

And I proved that the material wealth of the Agrarian-Gentleman planter south was better than Northern industrialism.

"By the census of 1860, while the population of the Free. States was not quite nineteen millions, their total of assessed values, real and personal, was $6,541,000,000: being three hundred and forty-six ($346) dollars to each soul. The free white population of the South was a little more than eight and a quarter millions, and our total of assessed values was $5,465,-808,000 : being six hundred and sixty ($660) dollars to each soul; nearly double the wealth of the North. But if the four millions of Africans in the South be added, our people still have four hundred and forty-seven ($447) dollars of value for each soul, black and white."

Dabney, Defence of Virginia, 331

ROFL!

The last 60 years proves it does not work. Women and blacks have created nothing but class warfare.

ROFL! So there is no prison industrial complex, no forced income tax via Capitis Diminutio Maxima? Do you really think illegal alien Mexican farm workers live better than southern slaves did?

I have already proved that the Southern system worked best. That is why the Yankee Capitalist North had to destroy it because it was such a strong competitor to their factories.

The South had some things it needed to improve but the South before the civil war as I have proved in detail.

 

There is no such thing as consensual sex between an adult and child in the United States. A child is not developed enough to consent to anything. Mind boggling I needed to explain that. But please keep talking. Nothing makes a person lose integrity faster than their own words. Sex with a child is called rape.

 

So you have some nutty ideas about slavery being a good thing. If you actually believe that, "Southern slavery worked fantastic as I have proved," you are quite likely impervious to reason, but if you insist, I suggest that you set your sites on becoming a slave. I'm sure someone will accommodate you.

Neither you, nor anyone else, has yet offered any actual nation as demonstrably as successful as the democratic ones that all regulate capitalism and maintain a social welfare system to benefit their people.

I'll stick with my pragmatic approach. What works best is preferable to all the airy-fairy fictional alternatives.




.

 

Seeing that your definition of developed entails you choosing an educational curriculum for that child by way of patriarchy, there will in fact never bee a time when he will be developed. Case in point: If what you are saying is true, the American children cannot become citizens until your age of accountability.

Hold on, are you suggesting that I am saying otherwise? I believe that sex with a child is rape, BECAUSE, I do not believe in leaving people alone. Sex with a child is evil, but consent has nothing to do with it. You make all morality circle around this idea of consent which if you believe this forces you to say that infant children cannot be american citizens.

 

I know what you are doing. You are using the word nutty, which in fact only means that you don't like what I'm saying, because you cannot reply to the mountain of documented facts I gave you. You have to find a way to comfort yourself in dismissing me so you are using this word nutty as a way to comfort yourself by wrapping your belligerence up in a psychological term in order to deceive yourself that you have an intellectual reason for doing so. Seen it a 1000 times.

If I was impervious to reason I would not have cited so many documented facts from a Nobel Prize winning economist. You are again trying to find a way to make yourself feel better in dismissing me so you don't have to face the documented facts I cited.

You are using a definition of the golden rule that Dabney refuted almost 150 years ago.

http://drakeshelton.com/2013/02/09/...s-the-abolitionist-appeal-to-the-golden-rule/

If I broke the law or put myself in an irresponsible amount of debt I could expect to be a slave.

Sir belligerently asserting your opinion while ignoring the blatant contradictory facts I have shown you does not delete in space and time what I stated. Truth hurts.

You are using the words "airy-fairy fictional" as a way to make yourself feel better in dismissing massive documentation. You truly are a pathetic case sir.

 

sorry I dont do word salad/crazy. Im not asking if children can consent to sex...I am telling you they cannot. Strawman much?

 

Then they cannot be citizens.

 

You probably were able to deduce that thanks to my using the word, "nutty"

Again, if you believe "slavery worked fantastic" I encourage you to follow your bliss and be a slave.

 

Ill play along with your strawman because its a hilarious trainwreck.
You are simply wrong. Children are citizens however under the law they cannot give consent to certain things like sex and buying a house because they aren't mentally developed yet to make these types of decisions. Its also why you cant legally buy alcohol when you are seven. I repeat no underage person can consent legally to sex. If a 30 yr old sleeps with a 7 yr old even if the 7 yr old said yes, its still rape. Period. Now bask in my correctness.

 

You went insane much sooner than I expected.

 

Promotes freedom.

 

All you just did was assert your opinion. No arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

You are just switching the word liberty with freedom.

 

They're synonyms.

 

You cannot define a word by a mere synonymous substitute.

 

Well I was trying to be simple, since I presumed everyone knows what the word "freedom" means, so to clear up any ambiguity I defined liberty using that synonym.

What do you want me to do, pull out a dictionary and quote the definition of freedom to you? This is semantics - the real question is what exactly is your issue with what I've said?

 

Its not my opinion its law in all 50 states. Nice day for a troll.

 

That is a diversion. The issue here is philosophical consistency and accuracy not law. Slavery used to be law. Do you adhere to the validity of slavery because it once was exalted to the position of law?

 

First its my opinion then when I prove it isn't, now its a diversion. Hilarious comedy act you have going on here.


So you are saying that sex with a child shouldn't be illegal and laws against it in all 50 states are equivalent to the same laws as when slavery was legal. Is that correct?
Can you tell us why you think sex with a child should be legal and our current laws are not philosophically consistent? Can you tell us at what age you think a child should legally be able to consent to sex?

P.S. Your sentence below is more word salad and even more hilariously is the fact that law is philosophical consistency and accuracy in all 50 states.
The population of the entire nation all agree pedophilia should be illegal. Sure 300 million people are wrong and you are right.
"The issue here is philosophical consistency and accuracy not law"

 

No. I am saying that given your principles those positions are logically necessary.

To be clear: Based on my philosophy, I think that pedophilia is a heinous sin and deserving of the death penalty. But on your anthropology and social contract theory pedophilia should be legal.

As the Valencia Declaration on Sexual Rights states,

When a person, not a child, has reached the age of understanding a marriage covenant and has the ability to produce and care for children, then they can get married and have sex. That age can vary depending on the particular case.

Assertions are not arguments. You think it's word salad because you don't understand what an ad hominem argument is.

You're just embarrassing yourself now.

 

so Olivanus you think that anyone who has sexual contact with someone who is legally not an adult should be executed?

 

I don't think its word salad, it is word salad. Another sign of schizophrenia is thinking what you are typing makes perfect sense and that everyone else is "crazy". Have you ever read the Unibombers rants?
What part of affecting others in a negative way is impossible for your brain to comprehend? If you rape a child that is affecting someone in a negative way. Read that sentence again real slow or get an adult that is nearby (preferably a Doctor) and have them read this and explain it to you in a form that you can understand. There is no simpler way to reduce it.
Also child rape is not an assertion or argument. Its law in all 50 states. I've told you this repeatedly now.

To the other people out there.
My original stance was people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't affect others in negative ways. (That was it) This guy comes in and epic post fails by missing the whole "affecting others in negative way" part, and starts talking about how pedophilia should then be legal, then cant admit that rape of a child is considered affecting someone in a negative way.