I consider him the better Caesar.

Who would you pick? Assuming they were brought up to speed and able to tackle the problems of today in a timely manner. Would you oppose any sort of leader on principle? Would you support a candidate in principle but doubt their ability to actually govern?

I think I'd let Caesar, Napoleon and Frederick II to govern the country - despite their prevalent executivism which some people would surely be upset by. I'd like to see Nietzsche have a stab at it, too, but he'd probably be fucking awful.

I've just started reading Atlas Shrugged. I'm not too far into it - only about 100 pages, but come on. It isn't shit-flingingly awful. It doesn't seem enough, for most people, to just criticise her philosophy but they have to criticise her as a writer as well.

She isn't that bad. I'm actually enjoying the book; it flows nicely, I like the characters and the imagery is good. She's by no means great, but she's certainly good.

I'm no Objectivist, but it seems like there's a cult of hatred around her as much as there is a cult of personality. It's all very polarised, but it seems to me that Rand doesn't deserve all the hatred (and adoration) she gets.

I mean, hey, Alan Greenspan was an Objectivist, so it can't all be bad.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 16, 2014, 04:27:42 PM

Quote from: IcyWind on December 16, 2014, 04:25:18 PM

Because Ron Paul's views, in general, only catered to a very minor, extremely hardcore, group.

Well the guy's failed bid did spawn the Tea Party, I don't know if I'd characterise them as "minor" or "extremely hardcore".

Ron Paul's failed bid is not what spawned the Tea Party. >.>

Wrong word.

Galvanised would be a better word. The Tea Party certainly wasn't created as a result of Paul's bid.

Because Ron Paul's views, in general, only catered to a very minor, extremely hardcore, group.

Well the guy's failed bid did spawn the Tea Party, I don't know if I'd characterise them as "minor" or "extremely hardcore".

Although, in saying that, Austrian economics have a very weird and very disturbing grip on the American libertarian/conservative demographics >.>

Even I find it too much.

Well, that's depressing.

Although, how come Ron Paul didn't pull through with his conservative credentials? He criticised Reagan for his budget deficits - now that's pretty fucking conservative. Or did his foreign policy ideas shut him out of the opportunity?

Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 16, 2014, 03:57:33 PM

Quote from: IcyWind on December 16, 2014, 03:54:58 PM

I see the two of you are not going to convince me otherwise, nor will I convince you.

That's a bad mindset with which to enter a debate, man. It should be about gathering information and personal knowledge, as much as convincing other people. My goal isn't to dominate you, but to understand how you think.

Not how I entered this debate. But we are essentially going in circles now on this argument.

That's fair enough. If you don't want to continue then I won't hold it against you.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 16, 2014, 03:28:42 PM

Quote from: IcyWind on December 16, 2014, 03:23:38 PM

Likewise, blaming Islam for the Taliban is like blaming Catholicism for the IRA.

Except the Taliban quite explicitly identifies as Muslim. In the same way ISIS identifies as a caliphate-founding organisation - hence the name.

Yet the Taliban does plenty of shit that Islam prohibits: drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.

You're welcome to call it a "glorified mafia ring" if that'll make you feel better, but they are just as pick and choosy with what they want to follow as Catholic extremists are.

They have to be picky and choosy. Trying to literally follow scripture absolutely will turn you into a straight-up hypocrite. The problem is that such fundamentals exist to be latched onto in the first place, and doesn't diminish the fact that their beliefs are primarily motivated by their religion.

You'll never find a fundamentalist Jain who murders people for his religion.

The Lord is not pleased

The Lord looks suspiciously European.

...which brings me back to my original question of why it's a double homicide.

Because we generally accept that there are some reasons for ending an innocent life which are legitimate. Killing a person because you feel like it is obviously antisocial. Killing a man to transplant his kidneys is leaning towards antisocial. Switching the track of an oncoming train to kill one person instead of five is fairly neutral.

It just matters where on the spectrum of "acceptableness" abortion lies, which tends to be in the only very slightly antisocial. Killing a pregnant woman for any other reason than to save a substantial net amount of lives will also be punishable, especially when you also have no right to rob the foetus of its future life. The woman, however, will be almost wholly responsible for its upbringing and development, and is in a better position than some thug with a gun to decide whether or not it'd be right to keep it.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 16, 2014, 03:15:08 PM

Life begins at conception. To kill a pregnant woman who has thus far decided to keep the baby is, as far as it matters, ending two lives.

Then those two things are in conflict. If life begins at conception, we shouldn't have abortions.

That's not true. There's nothing inherently wrong with ending an innocent life.

Suicide is a sign of doubleplusungood dissention from the Party's policies. This is crimethink, a form of ownlife, and you could become an unperson! Submit for plusgood re-education at Minitru, for a real bellyfeel.

Life begins at conception. To kill a pregnant woman who has thus far decided to keep the baby is, as far as it matters, ending two lives.

There aren't an overwhelming number of Democratic leaders who are anti-Israel, anti-America, anti-religion. You can't win if you aren't a Christian in the US. I doubt I'll see a Jewish or Muslim president in my lifetime, much less an atheist. I don't know a single politician who is anti-America...

Oh, I know, I'm just saying you can always list an series of problems with a platform or a party, but it's integrity is always suspect. People in the GOP are trying to fight the things you've listed, which is one of the reasons I like Rubio.

However, depending on who you're talking to, the negatives of the party may be outweighed by the negatives of the other party. I'm not at all saying your list is non-applicable, or that mine is more applicable, merely the problems you list might be inconsequential by the time of an election.

...is this bizarro Meta day or something?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with those labels. I'm just saying most of them in some fashion are applicable on some level to the Democrats.

Indeed, even your own labels could be questioned.