Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Jul '18 12:511 edit
    Which is preferable?

    This is the fight between the Left and those who favor freedom. Freedom allows for inequality, while those who purport to favor equality know that it will never be fully achieved, nor can be. The Left will simply say they need more and more power to make things "equal", all the while living in the lap of luxury themselves.

    Which do you choose?
  2. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35839
    03 Jul '18 12:58
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Which is preferable?

    This is the fight between the Left and those who favor freedom. Freedom allows for inequality, while those who purport to favor equality know that it will never be fully achieved, nor can be. The Left will simply say they need more and more power to make things "equal", all the while living in the lap of luxury themselves.

    Which do you choose?
    So you're all about demanding the "freedom" to be a self-centered racist, sexist a-hole?

    You don't need the freedom to be that in America. Look around, there are plenty of them walking around. Just like the countless a-holes who claim they need religious "freedom", when everyone has religious freedom in America, even those from religions you don't like.

    Isn't what you really want is just the "freedom" to be white?
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    03 Jul '18 12:58
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Which is preferable?

    This is the fight between the Left and those who favor freedom. Freedom allows for inequality, while those who purport to favor equality know that it will never be fully achieved, nor can be. The Left will simply say they need more and more power to make things "equal", all the while living in the lap of luxury themselves.

    Which do you choose?
    I would choose the truth rather than your lies and propaganda.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Jul '18 13:08
    Originally posted by @suzianne
    So you're all about demanding the "freedom" to be a self-centered racist, sexist a-hole?

    You don't need the freedom to be that in America. Look around, there are plenty of them walking around. Just like the countless a-holes who claim they need religious "freedom", when everyone has religious freedom in America, even those from religions you don't like.

    Isn't what you really want is just the "freedom" to be white?
    So what should be done to those who look down on others?

    I say this assuming it is PC to look down on conservatives and those who oppose you politically.
  5. SubscriberPonderableonline
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    527669
    03 Jul '18 13:212 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Which is preferable?

    This is the fight between the Left and those who favor freedom. Freedom allows for inequality, while those who purport to favor equality know that it will never be fully achieved, nor can be. The Left will simply say they need more and more power to make things "equal", all the while living in the lap of luxury themselves.

    Which do you choose?
    "Frei wovon. das interessiert Zarathustra nicht. Hell aber soll Dein Auge künden: Frei wozu!"

    Nietzsche. Also sprach Zarathustra

    To our English speaking friends: Nietzsche put it very well that you should do something with what you have (or believe you have) that would say. To what end should freedom serve? The same could be said about equality.

    My take is that my freedom Ends, where the freedom of the other Person Begins. And this should be equal. So how could I be free without equality, or how could I be equal without freedom?

    This Dilemma is evidently just another pseudodiscussion Topic. What for? maybe so that some People get the Attention they crave?

    Would Zarathustra crave the Attention of People in the Debates Forum of RHP?

    "Da sitzen sie an den Ufern der Sümpfe und angeln, und halten sich für tief. Wer aber angelt wo noch nicht einmal Fische sind, den heiße ich nicht einmal oberflächlich."
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    03 Jul '18 13:44
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Which is preferable?

    This is the fight between the Left and those who favor freedom. Freedom allows for inequality, while those who purport to favor equality know that it will never be fully achieved, nor can be. The Left will simply say they need more and more power to make things "equal", all the while living in the lap of luxury themselves.

    Which do you choose?
    Let's pretend you want to have a serious discussion.

    First, what "freedom" do you imagine the Left opposes?
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Jul '18 13:45
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    I would choose the truth rather than your lies and propaganda.
    Should the Declaration of Independence be amended?

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    Should it be the pursuit of equality instead?
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Jul '18 13:492 edits
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Let's pretend you want to have a serious discussion.

    First, what "freedom" do you imagine the Left opposes?
    I keep hearing about income inequality. The Left is consumed by the top 1%.

    But it puzzles me. I mean, if the top 1% pay more, how would it benefit them? The government is going to spend the same amount regardless, and at the end of the day if they don't have enough money, they just borrow it to the tune of trillions of dollars.

    So is bringing more revenue from the top 1% needed to keep debt down? If so, how much debt is too much debt? Currently the US has $20 plus trillion and climbing exponentially.

    In the interim, we will be preached to by the Left that more money is needed for entitlements. When they do the debt never is a factor in such decisions.

    I know, I know, gut the military, that will solve all our problems.
  9. Garner, NC
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    27885
    03 Jul '18 13:49
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Let's pretend you want to have a serious discussion.

    First, what "freedom" do you imagine the Left opposes?
    The left opposes the "freedom" to keep the fruits of ones labor.

    Example:

    Person A: Works 40 hours per week, doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs, doesn't drink much alcohol.

    Person B: Addicted to Meth. Refuses to enter rehab. Is not responsible enough to have a job.

    Question: Should they both drive cars of equal value? Should they both live in houses of equal value?

    Seemingly, the left claims unlimited access to Person A's wealth in order to help (and secure the vote of) Person B.
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Jul '18 13:58
    Originally posted by @techsouth
    The left opposes the "freedom" to keep the fruits of ones labor.

    Example:

    Person A: Works 40 hours per week, doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs, doesn't drink much alcohol.

    Person B: Addicted to Meth. Refuses to enter rehab. Is not responsible enough to have a job.

    Question: Should they both drive cars of equal value? Should they both live in ...[text shortened]... claims unlimited access to Person A's wealth in order to help (and secure the vote of) Person B.
    Now, now, all we need is a level headed and fair dictator.

    I think marauder would do just fine, don't you?

    I mean he is the picture of enlightenment and truthiness here at RHP.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    03 Jul '18 14:00
    Originally posted by @techsouth
    The left opposes the "freedom" to keep the fruits of ones labor.

    Example:

    Person A: Works 40 hours per week, doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs, doesn't drink much alcohol.

    Person B: Addicted to Meth. Refuses to enter rehab. Is not responsible enough to have a job.

    Question: Should they both drive cars of equal value? Should they both live in ...[text shortened]... claims unlimited access to Person A's wealth in order to help (and secure the vote of) Person B.
    Right wingers disingenuously claim that "equality" must mean "equality of outcome" when not even the most fervent leftist would make such a claim.

    There is no abstract "freedom" to not pay taxes at what society democratically determines is a fair rate. After all, the same society has created the economic system that enables one to earn the "fruits of one's labor" as you so misleadingly put it. In truth, absent the economic and legal infrastructure created by the State the capitalist system could not and did not exist.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    03 Jul '18 14:02
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Now, now, all we need is a level headed and fair dictator.

    I think marauder would do just fine, don't you?

    I mean he is the picture of enlightenment and truthiness here at RHP.
    Unlike right wingers (the term itself is derived from supporters of the monarchy), I am perfectly content to let the People democratically decide on such matters.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    03 Jul '18 14:04
    Originally posted by @whodey
    I keep hearing about income inequality. The Left is consumed by the top 1%.

    But it puzzles me. I mean, if the top 1% pay more, how would it benefit them? The government is going to spend the same amount regardless, and at the end of the day if they don't have enough money, they just borrow it to the tune of trillions of dollars.

    So is bringing more ...[text shortened]... factor in such decisions.

    I know, I know, gut the military, that will solve all our problems.
    There wouldn't be a $20 trillion debt if tax rates for the highest income earners haven't been slashed for the last 35+ years.That's simple math.
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    03 Jul '18 14:07
    no, the whodey doesn't actually want an honest debate but for the ones that do:

    freedom doesn't mean you are free to dump toxic waste into public rivers or burn a pile of rubber tires in your backyard and stink up the neighborhood.
    freedom means you are free to do whatever you want as long as you don't step on other people's freedom.

    equality doesn't mean everyone wears a grey jumpsuit and drives exactly the same color ford pinto and has the same income down to the cent. equality means equality of opportunity. that if you are as smart as a rich kid, you get to go to the same college as a rich kid, that if you are born in neighborhood A, the police doesn't arrive 1 hour later than it would in neighborhood B.
    real equality means that your life isn't decided at your birth. That at most you can aspire is to work 10 times harder than someone rich not to become rich yourself but just to give your kids a better chance at becoming rich themselves, 30 years later.


    ensuring that companies don't ruin the rivers you drink from isn't communism. ensuring that you don't die from a curable disease isn't communism. ensuring you get educated if you are smart enough for it isn't communism.
    these are common sense and they should only be limited by how civilized a country is.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Jul '18 14:091 edit
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    no, the whodey doesn't actually want an honest debate but for the ones that do:

    freedom doesn't mean you are free to dump toxic waste into public rivers or burn a pile of rubber tires in your backyard and stink up the neighborhood.
    freedom means you are free to do whatever you want as long as you don't step on other people's freedom.

    equali ...[text shortened]... mmunism.
    these are common sense and they should only be limited by how civilized a country is.
    Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes.

    I would agree that infringing on the freedom of others is a problem that laws need to address.

    I take issue, though, with your hate regarding rich children. Whose freedom are they infringing on by having a silver spoon born in their mouths?

    It sounds like coveting to me.
Back to Top