Leftism is Lunacy

[maxwel]

Let me put it this way ...

Matthew 6 19“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Every dollar you bank here on earth is a 'dollar' you won't have in heaven. Let that be your guide.

Ricky, I asked a simple question, a simple question that requires nothing more than a yes or no.

I asked a simple question.

REFUSING to answer a simple question shows you CANNOT answer the question without proving yourself wrong.

Refusing to answer a simple question means you have lost the argument.



What you did was answer a simple yes/no question with many pages of confusing ramble, going in all kinds of different directions... like a politician.
You just did what politicians do.



Here, let me ask the question again.
According to your own definition, "hoarding" is not a quantitative issue, but is instead based SOLELY on a person's attitude toward his money?

Is that correct?

So according to your definition, it is feasible that I could have a billions dollars in the bank and not be a hoarder... correct?



Please stick to the simple clear question, and give me a simple clear answer.
I am using YOUR definition of haording, and asking simple yes/no questions about YOUR definitions.
Please consider, failing to answer simple yes/no questions is PROOF that you cannot answer them.

So, will you answer simple yes/no questions, or will you refuse, and PROVE that you cannot answer them without proving yourself wrong?

 

[maxwel]

Ricky Z and Me


The reason I'm suddenly picking on Rickyz is not because I dislike hm.

I think he's actually a nice guy, and a good person, and if someone here was in trouble, he'd probably try to help.

My point is just to show that many of these leftist ethics, which they yell about so much, simply have no epistemological basis; they are completely arbitrary. If we examine them carefully, and logically, we'll find they simply disintegrate under a bit of pressure.



Let me clear up a few more things:

1. Saying Ricky has some leftist views does not mean I'm calling him a leftist... I don't know what he considers himself, and we don't need to put unfair labels on him.

2. Saying I disagree with Ricky does not mean I think he's stupid. Some of the smartest men in the world (a group in which I am NOT a member) disagree on all kinds of things. Disagreement is often the result of different foundational presuppositions... not intelligence.

3. Saying I disagree with some leftist views, and I think they're utter nonsense, does NOT mean I think the political right is surrounded by a magical halo of peace and light. All men are sinners.



Alright, I think I'm done, lol.
: )
Everyone have fun.

 

[RickyZ]

it is feasible that I could have a billions dollars in the bank and not be a hoarder?

NO

........................

 

[RickyZ]

Im sorry you couldn't figure that out on your own

 

[maxwel]

NO

........................

Contradiction means your argument is invalid


A. First you say "hoarding" is NOT defined by the quantity of money.
B. Next you say "hoarding" IS defined by the quantity of money.
C. It cannot be both, that is a logical contradiction.
(By saying a particular amount, regardless of circumstances, definitively constitutes hoarding, you are showing hoarding IS defined by quantity, and thus you immediately contradict your previous statement, where you said hoarding was NOT defined by quantity. A thing cannot be both "defined by quantity", while also being "not defined by quantity"... your positions contradict.)


Leftist Ethical Arguments
This is generally what occurs in leftist ethics...
as soon as you ask people questions, they immediately start contradicting themselves.
And these contradictions will necessarily occur, because the ethics are arbitrary to begin with... they have no logical basis. They are essentially hanging in thin air. You simply show they are hanging on nothing, and they must necessarily fall.



End of this Argument

When you start contradicting yourself, the argument is over,
you have proven your argument is irrational

As soon as you contradict yourself, you disprove your own argument.






Try again?

So, would you like to try again, with a DIFFERENT definition of hoarding?
Let's start at the beginning again.
Here's the original question:
"Precisely how many riches can one be allowed to accumulate before it's considered hoarding?"

 

[maxwel]

Ricky,
lets do something different.


1. If my conversation with you got too harsh, then I apologize.
If it felt too harsh, or too personal, then I genuinely apologize.


2. Let's just drop this whole conversation.
I made the point I wanted to make.
I'm done.
I just wanted to make the point that some of these leftists ethics don't work logically.
Whether I did it well, or did it poorly, I feel like I'm done.

I don't feel any need to continue.


3. Feel free to have the last word.
I won't respond or rebut your statements.
Say anything you need to say, make your case, call me a capitalist pig... it's all good, lol.
You put up with my interrogation, so the least I can do is give you the last word.


4. Finally, I need to talk ABOUT you for a minute.

I need to reiterate a couple things.
A bad argument is a bad argument, no matter who makes the argument.
Whether you're mother Theresa, or Stephen Hawking, a bad argument is still a bad argument.
And for the record, geniuses like Stephen Hawking have sometimes made very bad arguments.

In my opinion, some of the leftist ethics Ricky champions are built on bad arguments.
However, I do think he takes those positions for very good reasons, and very sincere reasons.

I think Ricky is a good man.
I think that's why he gets so upset.
He sincerely feels his views are the best ways to help people, and so when we argue against his views, he feels we are doing the opposite... we're hurting people.
This is perfectly reasonable.

If his views on economic systems are correct, then we would be in the moral wrong for being against them.
This is a rational.
He is absolutely right.
If his premises are right, then his conclusions are also right... if his economic views are right, then we really are in the wrong, and he should be standing up and arguing with us.

I don't think Ricky is a bad guy,
In fact, he has a lot of backbone to stand up all alone and argue for his views.
I just disagree with his positions on some things.

That's all.

 

[Lewiz]

End of this Argument

When you start contradicting yourself, the argument is over,
you have proven your argument is irrational

As soon as you contradict yourself, you disprove your own argument.

If you said this to everyone in the BDF that needed it, you'd be a very busy man.

 

[Desdichado]

He should make it his signature.

If you say this to everyone in the BDF that needs it, you'd be a very busy man.

 

[Lewiz]

He should make it his signature.

Maybe I could copy/paste it about a hundred times(and leave his name on it, lol).

 

[Desdichado]

Make it your signature and quote him.

High praise unless you do it facetiously.

Maybe I could copy/paste it about a hundred times(and leave his name on it, lol).

 

[Lewiz]

(male bovine residue... ).

I need to remember that one, LOL!

 

[preston39]

To be honest, I'm register as NON-PARTISAN and haven't voted for a Republican OR Democrat since Ross Perot made his run.

R...,,

The Bible tells us ...if we aren't in support of Christ we are an ....Antichrist.

Therefore, we must pick the best/closest to G-d we can find and vote.

 

[JaumeJ]

Being like Christ constitutes being a monarchist and never voting for a mere politician. We are not taught anywhere to support apolitical party.

There is a law from the writings of Moses stating we should obey those in authority, but this is in referencetot eh first Israel, for the laws were their constitution, and the head of ste was God........this has not been so since. We are given liberty to choose right.

Oh, I did vote one time, and that was for Jimmy CÇarter. I do notregret having voted for him, but I could just as well never voted for all it matters.

R...,,

The Bible tells us ...if we aren't in support of Christ we are an ....Antichrist.

Therefore, we must pick the best/closest to G-d we can find and vote.

 

[dcontroversal]

I mean this is almost unbelievable, but this is one absurd illogical end of the leftist satanic agenda:

David Buckel, prominent gay rights lawyer, burns himself to death in New York to protest global warming | Fox News

Satan is literally laughing at this, and this leftist ideology is eclipsing our world. There is only one hope and it is Christ and his message is the Gospel.

Our world has gone insane...

As insane as the 104 year old Aussie citizen who just traveled to Europe to commit assisted suicide in protest against the AU goverment being against assisted suicide....

 

[RickyZ]

Max, I grew up in an age when you did your own research and considered ALL the arguments available before coming to a conclusion. When we had an answer it was well rounded and thought out and covered all the information available. That is why one word answers to questions like yours are a false attempt to elicit useful intel.

You on the other hand, appear to be caught up in the new age where people have short attention spans, and make decisions based upon sound bites and memes. You can't handle lengthy replies because your brain is trained to accept only so much information before it starts spinning. That is exactly how we end up with choices like Trump vs Clinton.

Too, you're trying to lure me into a corner and I'm not going to let you. Tricks such as lures and one-word replies to difficult questions show that it is YOU who has lost validity in an argument.

And lordy, will you people PLEASE learn to RTFP and take in what is said instead of what you want to hear? Expand your mind to include room for middle ground. Saying "if you don't work you don't eat" is NOT a leftist ideology. Combined with "pay your employees a livable wage that includes more than living in a tent and eating ramen noodles" puts it in a CENTRIST ideology, which again those of this age just cannot comprehend. But try anyway - expand your mind to include centrist ideologies and you'll find than my position is indeed quite Biblical.

As if the 45 verses of God's word - would you like Him to give you one word answers? - without any commentary from me at all didn't say that already.

Oh and sorry if this seems a bit rough. But your games and lures indicate you are in need of a spanking. Which is not a leftist position either.

 

[preston39]

.... We are not taught anywhere to support apolitical party......

J...,

Nowhere did I suggest that.

Following Christ and supporting His cause...is not a political party.

 

[Desdichado]

He's relying on formal logic to check your premises. It's hardly a modern "gotcha" tactic.

More of a method so ancient it's been forgotten. Thank you, post-rationalist philosophers.

Max, I grew up in an age when you did your own research and considered ALL the arguments available before coming to a conclusion. When we had an answer it was well rounded and thought out and covered all the information available. That is why one word answers to questions like yours are a false attempt to elicit useful intel.

You on the other hand, appear to be caught up in the new age where people have short attention spans, and make decisions based upon sound bites and memes. You can't handle lengthy replies because your brain is trained to accept only so much information before it starts spinning. That is exactly how we end up with choices like Trump vs Clinton.

Too, you're trying to lure me into a corner and I'm not going to let you. Tricks such as lures and one-word replies to difficult questions show that it is YOU who has lost validity in an argument.

And lordy, will you people PLEASE learn to RTFP and take in what is said instead of what you want to hear? Expand your mind to include room for middle ground. Saying "if you don't work you don't eat" is NOT a leftist ideology. Combined with "pay your employees a livable wage that includes more than living in a tent and eating ramen noodles" puts it in a CENTRIST ideology, which again those of this age just cannot comprehend. But try anyway - expand your mind to include centrist ideologies and you'll find than my position is indeed quite Biblical.

As if the 45 verses of God's word - would you like Him to give you one word answers? - without any commentary from me at all didn't say that already.

Oh and sorry if this seems a bit rough. But your games and lures indicate you are in need of a spanking. Which is not a leftist position either.

 

[JaumeJ]

Why would the eternal King support or be in favor of ay political pary on earth? The flags of the nations belong to Him....until the Kingdom is established forever, there is no politic worthy of His attention.

Look at what all of the parties do in the world! If you believe there are any the are "like" what Jesus teaches, I am afraid your vision is lacking.

J...,

Nowhere did I suggest that.

Following Christ and supporting His cause...is not a political party.

 

[Desdichado]

Oh I can't resist. You're a better man than I, Gunga Max.

Max, I grew up in an age when you did your own research and considered ALL the arguments available before coming to a conclusion. When we had an answer it was well rounded and thought out and covered all the information available. That is why one word answers to questions like yours are a false attempt to elicit useful intel.

Yes! The 60's and 70's. Known to be decades of rational flourishing. Where no political games were played. Lion laid with lamb.

This really is your last resort? Being 60 hardly makes you some grey-bearded old-timer compared to two other adult males.

You on the other hand, appear to be caught up in the new age where people have short attention spans, and make decisions based upon sound bites and memes. You can't handle lengthy replies because your brain is trained to accept only so much information before it starts spinning. That is exactly how we end up with choices like Trump vs Clinton.

See my post above.

Too, you're trying to lure me into a corner and I'm not going to let you. Tricks such as lures and one-word replies to difficult questions show that it is YOU who has lost validity in an argument.

He's asking you a pretty basic axiological question. I mean I guess you could view it as a corner.

And lordy, will you people PLEASE learn to RTFP and take in what is said instead of what you want to hear? Expand your mind to include room for middle ground. Saying "if you don't work you don't eat" is NOT a leftist ideology. Combined with "pay your employees a livable wage that includes more than living in a tent and eating ramen noodles" puts it in a CENTRIST ideology, which again those of this age just cannot comprehend. But try anyway - expand your mind to include centrist ideologies and you'll find than my position is indeed quite Biblical.

You're seriously undereducated in the realm of political thought, history, and economics. I have no problem being so blunt since you say you wish to spank a 43 year-old man.

If I had two hands with which I could type atm, I'd go into more detail in this post. Suffice to say, I'm fully cognizant of there being a political center, but your ideology is almost too realized to qualify as such.

As if the 45 verses of God's word - would you like Him to give you one word answers? - without any commentary from me at all didn't say that already.

Prooftexting without context for each verse is hardly a proof for your ideology. Particularly when we factor in questions of proper authority.

Oh and sorry if this seems a bit rough. But your games and lures indicate you are in need of a spanking. Which is not a leftist position either.

He shows how your premises are arbitrary and you choose to close on this note? Do you read yourself, sir?

 

[Desdichado]

Max, he wants to spank you and he didn't even ask for your consent!

#Maxtoo