| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Comments:
<0> Well
<1> Read "The Road to Serfdom." Also read "Capitalism and Freedom," by Milton Friedman. They are what moderns would call "conservatives" or "plain capitalists," but they call themselves "[cl***ical] liberals."
<0> If there was a perfect definition
<0> It would probably be universal
<0> But it's never applied that way
<1> Liberals today are more "socialist." Quite the opposite of "cl***ical liberals."
<0> A french "conservative" is probably nowhere close to an American conservative
<1> Yeah. I'm talking in U.S. terms.
<2> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cl***ical_liberalism
<1> rdragon: *nods*
<0> Socialism wasn't around at the time of "cl***ic liberalism"
<3> OK... so thats mean whatever I read above is more inline with what USA people think right
<0> Well, what you read above is unrelated to either side, really
<3> Liberal french people might be thinking different
<1> JBlitzen: Indeed it was. Hayek warned specifically against socialism.
<3> or let say Liberal Palestinian
<0> It's a semantic argument that a lot of liberaltarians use to avoid taking a defensible position
<0> Hayek postdates "cl***ic liberalism" by a couple centuries, Lateralus.
<0> But don't let me stop you
<1> JBlitzen: What position is being contested?
<1> JBlitzen: Heh, not exactly. Hayek is 1899-1992.
<0> Yes, and "cl***ic liberalism" had its birth in the early 1700's
<0> So, I'm not real rational or anything, but I think 1970 - 1770 is "a couple centuries"
<1> JBlitzen: That's like saying Einstein predates modern physics by 80 years.
<2> ...huh?
<0> Well, I'll ask the judges, but I think we can't give you any points for that answer
<4> Too early for this
<0> Yes, I'm sorry, the judges say no
<1> *rolls eyes* Hayek didn't *create* "cl***ical liberalism," so he doesn't *predate* or *postdate* it. He added to it.
<0> [01:46] <0> Socialism wasn't around at the time of "cl***ic liberalism"
<0> [01:47] <1> JBlitzen: Indeed it was. Hayek warned specifically against socialism.
<0> [01:47] <0> Hayek postdates "cl***ic liberalism" by a couple centuries, Lateralus.
<0> [01:48] <1> JBlitzen: Heh, not exactly. Hayek is 1899-1992.
<0> [01:48] <0> Yes, and "cl***ic liberalism" had its birth in the early 1700's
<0> Let's put that vaunted rationality to work and reread those lines a few times
<1> Socialism was definitely around during Hayek's time.
<0> Yeah, see, the judges are shaking their heads in pity now
<1> Guh. Hayek was a *proponent* of what we would, today, call cl***ical liberalism. Jeez.
<0> So are you
<2> http://www.google.com/search?q=hayek+socialism
<0> And yet, nobody cares
<1> You said socialism wasn't around during "cl***ical liberalism." It was.
<0> Are you really this stupid
<1> The nazis, soviets, etc.
<1> How do you mean?
<0> Because John Locke was born over 100 years before Karl Marx
<1> Cl***ical liberalism didn't begin and end with John Locke, dude.
<2> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism : "Elie Halevy claims that the term "socialism" was coined independently by two groups advocating different ways of organizing society and economics: the Saint-Simonians, and most likely Pierre Leroux, in the years 1831-33, and the followers of Robert Owen, around 1835."
<0> Okay, so let's say 1931
<1> Hayek, for example, was a cl***ical liberal.
<0> er
<0> 1831
<0> Cl***ical liberalism (also called cl***ic liberalism or simply liberalism) is the original form of, and is today a tendency within, liberalism. It is a political school of thought that first emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries
<1> As he himself states in "The Road to Serfdom."
<1> *First emerged.*
<1> Didn't die then.
<0> The Wealth of Nations (1776) by Adam Smith is considered one of the cl***ic foundations of liberalism.
<1> *nods*
<0> 1776, 1831
<1> Hayek, for example, was a cl***ical liberal.
<0> Okay
<1> And he spoke against socialism.
<0> I give up
<0> You're just a ****ing idiot
<0> Let me know when you become rational enough to learn algebra
<1> Give me an algorithm.
<3> 42
<0> Well, that's the tough part of saying that rationality is principle.
<0> Rationality isn't the whole recipe.
<1> Hahaha.
<0> But hey, don't let making my point for me detract from your continued stupidity
<1> "Rationality isn't it," ya'll. Remember that.
<1> "Rationality is stupid."
<1> "Nothing really exists."
<0> Well, you're the only one who said the last two
<0> But I guess presumption is rational for objectivists
<1> How is rationality not the only "recipe?" How do we know anything except through rationality?
<1> Knowing nothing without rationality, how does anything we know really "exist?"
<0> Do you really think that the existence of something is dependent on your knowledge of it?
<0> Isn't that like totally antithetical to the use of the term "objective"?
<1> That doesn't follow. Existence isn't dependent upon knowledge: knowledge is dependent upon *existence.*
<0> Then it seems like rationality is ****ing hind tit
<1> How so?
<2> you can't just reverse words and make it have an inverted meaning or something
<1> rdragon: How is existence dependent upon knowledge and knowledge not dependent upon existence?
<2> well existence doesn't exist without existence
<0> [01:59] <1> Knowing nothing without rationality, how does anything we know really "exist?"
<1> rdragon: Right, but we're talking about knowledge.
<1> JBlitzen: What do you mean?
<2> well, i'm a determinist... 'knowledge' is an illusion based on the state of the matter making up your brain
<1> rdragon: But if it produces *real* and *measurable* results, why is that knowledge an *illusion?*
<2> (and of every previous state of the universe)
<2> eh? 'knowledge' is just memory
<1> *just*?
<2> just like a C++ object is fundamentally just 'junky data'
<1> So your memories are junk data?
<0> Well
<0> Your's are
<0> :)
<1> If it makes you feel better. ;)
<2> memories are just the end-result of the universe's affect on your brain
<1> "Just?"
<2> yes, just
<2> you've said that twice now
<2> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
<1> So what you are, by means of cause and effect, is "just" nothing but cause and effect? You have no sense of self?
<2> "I" am just junky matter and energy
<0> Yeah, so send me your stereo
<2> particles, molecules, atoms, with an exact and precise state
<1> So, like, if I kill you, you won't care.
<2> nah, that junk stimulates my brain junk and makes it feel good
<2> Lateralus - I wouldn't be alive to 'feel care'
<1> It's just 'junk,' after all.
<2> you're just junk too, so I might kill you first
<1> But why would you if you weren't just junk?
<2> my junk owns your junk
<1> Yeah. See? BS. :)
<2> but that has nothing to do with anything
<2> free will = nonexistent
<2> soul = rediculous idea
<2> chaos theory = bunch of nuts
<1> So you believe in determinism?
<2> I thought that was the first thing I said
<1> One sec:
<2> 10 minutes ago
<0> Haha
<2> I even gave you the wikipedia link to determinism, 4 minutes ago
<2> your brain junk ****s
<1> rdragon: http://www.xanga.com/CaptainScurvy/344430765/item.html
<1> rdragon: So, can free will then exist?
<2> I already addressed free will... please pay attention
<2> oh, you want me to read 'captain scurvy' first?
<1> rdragon: But if determinism is true, the "you" that is wholly deterministic will have subjective experiences like free will.
<0> Hahaha
<2> it seems like I have free will, yes
<2> doesn't mean I really believe that it exists
<1> But even in the 'sense' that you don't, you still do.
<2> no, my brain just 'thinks' I do
<2> it would be silly to sit still and 'wait for things to happen'
<0> I don't think determinism prevents the belief in free will, only self will itself
<1> If determinism is true, and cause produces effect, then you have another "body" in four dimensions--if there's no true randomosity or free will, then that "body" will have already been determined in any given point in time. But if you have *awareness* of that 4d body, then you have a subjective free will.
<0> What are you, like 12?
<2> cause does produce effect, that's what cause is
<0> I think rdragon's totally wrong and even I understand his position better than you do
<1> "Cause producing effect" is what cause *is*?
<2> I can't prove that determinism is true
<2> but I believe it is
<1> I think we can more or less agree that an effect always has a cause, right?
<0> A cause, by definition always has some effect(s)
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#london
agreets mirc
ENVISIONWSU.WICHITA.EDU
#MissKitten
#linuxhelp
#AllNiteCafe
#MissKitten
#linux
lebriçou
pscan completed in
|
|