Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why can't liberals think for themselves Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    Inference: 'I looked for people to conform to my views, i'm not going to bother responding to your request to explain Burkes views because I havent actually got a clue'
    More assumptions and ad hominem attacks coming now. I completely disagree with Edmund Burke as I'm opposed to conservatism. Yes, I have read his work, some of it at least, and disagree with his viewpoints. Whilst he does make some credible arguments, they're not arguments that I personally morally agree with.

    I think you just need to come to terms with the fact others have a different viewpoint to you. Like I said, if you want to create a thread on it then do so.

    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    This is why liberals can't think for themselves. fyi, Einstein stole so much of the work he is famous for, it's not even funny.
    /thread
    So what? If you steal from one author, its plagiarism. If you steal from many, its research. To suggest this has any impact on the work that Einstein achieved is scraping at the barrel in terms of an argument at best.

    I'm more than capable of thinking for myself which is why, rather than go out there and just align myself with a prefixed ideology, I actually read the works of many and formulated my own viewpoints which actually factors in aspects of many peoples works listed in an earlier post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    And you accept that the NHS inherently involves a degree of economic planning that has not lead to totalitarianism?
    Not all economic planning leads to totalitarianism... that's one of the key arguments. You appear to have misinterpreted the main argument of his work, or to have taken a more extreme form of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    More assumptions and ad hominem attacks coming now. I completely disagree with Edmund Burke as I'm opposed to conservatism. Yes, I have read his work, some of it at least, and disagree with his viewpoints. Whilst he does make some credible arguments, they're not arguments that I personally morally agree with.
    .
    Of course people have different viewpoints to me... My entire point here is it is you who does not recognise this. There are facts and then there are opinions. What arguments by Burke are morally uncredible? (name one)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    My dear fellow, you are confused.

    Theft is the unauthorised taking of another's property. Taxation is authorised by the law the of the land, and by necessity and common sense besides.

    Are you saying you don't believe in a police force or an army?

    Just because it is 'law of the land' doesn't make it moral.
    Why is the state authorised to take money at the point of a gun and not other people?

    Police force would exist but they would be paid services like anything else. They would have to provide good services or would lose business. The current police do not. They always get paid regardless of their performance. You cannot switch security providers if you feel they are not up to the job.

    As for an army there would be no need for one. There is no need to invade other countries and all people would have a gun in their possession.
    Switzerland doesn't have any army but instead of all citizens have an assault rifle in their home in case of invasion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    No he didn't. Your not helping.
    http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/einstein.htm

    Of course not...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    You've already wrongly dismissed Hayek.
    Actually I was entirely correct in my dismissal of Hayek; that dismissal appears to have provoked some bizarre misquotations on your part

    I doubt you've read Mises either, his work while extreme is not bad at all. You would know if you bothered to actually read any of it.
    Ah yes, the reasoning of the third-rate, right-wing conspiracy theorist intellectual; 'if they don't come to the same conclusions I came to, they're either part of the conspiracy or they "don't get it"'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/einstein.htm

    Of course not...
    who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert?

    This isn't how science works.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Actually I was entirely correct in my dismissal of Hayek; that dismissal appears to have provoked some bizarre misquotations on your part



    Ah yes, the reasoning of the third-rate, right-wing conspiracy theorist intellectual; 'if they don't come to the same conclusions I came to, they're either part of the conspiracy or they "don't get it"'.
    And subsequently the musings of a left wing conspiracy theorist intellectual... You are the one dismissing fact. What edition of the work are you using?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    Switzerland doesn't have any army but instead of all citizens have an assault rifle in their home in case of invasion.
    Actually, it does

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...nd#Land_Forces

    And the idea that simply by adopting a bunch of whacky right-wing ideas, we will be protected from the military power of other countries, is utterly clueless and iditioc
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    Of course people have different viewpoints to me... My entire point here is it is you who does not recognise this. Look at your avatar. There are facts and then there are opinions. What arguments by Burke are morally uncredible? (name one)
    That property is essential to human life. That is probably the main thing I disagree with him on and the arguments that stem from that. You're entitled to your opinion but you're not going to change mine as I've already come to a conclusion based on extensive reading I've done. If your goal was to come on here and tried to get me to become more conservative then you're just blowing hot air.

    Also, again, stop with the ad hominem attacks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    And subsequently the musings of a left wing conspiracy theorist intellectual...
    Is that the best you have? "I know you are, but what am I?". Struggling, really struggling. Though not surprising, given you appear unable to get along even with those on your own "side"

    You are the one dismissing fact.
    Is that what you call your crackpot ideas? If you say so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    That property is essential to human life. That is probably the main thing I disagree with him on and the arguments that stem from that. You're entitled to your opinion but you're not going to change mine as I've already come to a conclusion based on extensive reading I've done. If your goal was to come on here and tried to get me to become more conservative then you're just blowing hot air.

    Also, again, stop with the ad hominem attacks.
    Don't be silly, i'm not foolish enough to think that I could 'convert' you. Nor are ad hominem attacks my prefered method, I am pointing out your insistence on arguments to authority.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I swear to God. Liberalism is RIGHT wing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Is that the best you have? "I know you are, but what am I?". Struggling, really struggling. Though not surprising, given you appear unable to get along even with those on your own "side"



    Is that what you call your crackpot ideas? If you say so. Good luck being a proponent of these ideas if you want to progress at all in public life.
    So the value of an idea is determined by its acceptance? No. You have still yet to answer the question: 'What edition of the work are you using'. I think you got some dodgy pdf copy online which is why you're ignoring it. It is absolutely fact that Hayek supported social insurance, he wrote it in another work

    "here is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law"

    Law, Legislation and Liberty 1973
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    Of course people have different viewpoints to me... My entire point here is it is you who does not recognise this. Look at your avatar. There are facts and then there are opinions. What arguments by Burke are morally uncredible? (name one)
    Looks like Messiah has utterly disembowelled you, intellectually speaking

    It's probably sensible to slink away at this point, to save your dignity (such as it remains intact)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Actually, it does

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...nd#Land_Forces

    And the idea that simply by adopting a bunch of whacky right-wing ideas, we will be protected from the military power of other countries, is utterly clueless and iditioc
    We wouldn't need much protection if we stopped dropping bombs on other countries.

    Isn't it fascinating the that the most internally free states like America are more aggressive in foreign policy than unfree states like the former USSR.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Looks like Messiah has utterly disembowelled you, intellectually speaking

    It's probably sensible to slink away at this point, to save your dignity (such as it remains intact)
    Unfortunately for you, you have no authority, certainly not when it comes to intellectual matters; since you dismiss fact at will when being given opposing evidence. Messiah has no intellectual capacity; he has done nothing more than recite authority, you're agreeing with him because he agrees with you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    So the value of an idea is determined by its acceptance? No.
    Actually, to some degree, yes; and you can't disagree with that proposition if you believe in a free market of ideas.

    Your position is the equivalent of some crackpot inventor claiming his product is 'inherently' worth a million pounds even though the market will only pay a dollar
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    Unfortunately for you, you have no authority
    How do you define/measure 'authority'? Or must we accept this fatuous, subjective concept you offer us at face value?

    Messiah has no intellectual capacity
    Now that is utterly ungentlemanly; it seems to me that you are getting hot under the collar. You should apologise for that intemperate remark

    he has done nothing more than recite authority, you're agreeing with him because he agrees with you
    I'm agreeing with him, (a) because he's right, (b) because he's making an utter fool of you.

    I know that frustrates you, but you really should learn to control your emotions
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Actually, to some degree, yes; and you can't disagree with that proposition if you believe in a free market of ideas.

    Your position is the equivalent of some crackpot inventor claiming his product is 'inherently' worth a million pounds even though the market will only pay a dollar
    I don't even support the free market... bloody hell your insistence on denying facts is unbelievable. I am a moderate social democrat.

    Once again you avoid the question, worse yet you ignore more evidence to the contrary of your views.

    You are a hypocrite. Good day. To quote Popper '“No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.”

    I am not emotional, my language is emotional because I have no respect for people who deny facts. I know I have no chance of convincing you with logic, as you have just demonstrated.

    Nice one playing the subjectivity card. The last refuge of the scoundrel.
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.