Prove that you aren't sheep

So are you capable of questioning your own beliefs, or do you just suck up the latest right wing propaganda like a good goy?

Summarise a central political belief of yours in one sentence, and then provide at least three arguments AGAINST it.

If you can't then you are no better than the lefties you cry about so much, and you probably don't know what you are talking about.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
twitter.com/AnonBabble

A sheep is not able to use a computer properly, let alone type.
God damnit you guys and you hate against sheep, it's like a sheep raped you on your sleep and didn't like it. Sheep are great, you can use them as pillow.
I'm not a sheep btw. No sheep is able to type.

>Summarise a central political belief of yours in one sentence, and then provide at least three arguments AGAINST it.

The free market is the best solution for everything.

1. A large private military would be bad.
2. A goverment run by the market would be bad.
3. Private nukes would be a nightmare.

one of the main arguments for free markets and against central planning is "how does the government know what I want better than I do?"

The question is though, is it best for people to get what they think they want. Afterall, people waste a huge amount on consumption, whereas investment by the government could make society better off in the long run.

>Afterall, people waste a huge amount on consumption, whereas investment by the government could make society better off in the long run.
But thats just wrong. Trough competition a consumer product evoles. Who knows what they might find with there research. Space exploration brought us Teflon which we now use for cooking tools.

>thats just wrong
no it isn't

take a look outside at the absolute shit people waste their money on

I'm too lazy and who the fuck are you that I have to prove something to, anyway?

Prove to me you aren't a sheep buying into every centrist propaganda, telling yourself you're smarter than everyone else like a good goy

you are proving it to yourself

if you are too lazy to think for yourself because you are used to being spoonfed then that's just depressing

>Summarise a central political belief of yours in one sentence, and then provide at least three arguments AGAINST it.
I never understood what the fuck is this supposed to be about. Why would you believe in something if you have arguments against it?
Is it just an exercise in muh relativism *tips fedora*?

>take a look outside at the absolute shit people waste their money on
and thats nobody business. If they don't have enough money left in the bank at the end of the month they starve.

Monarchy is the best system

1. People would resist this model now
2. A genetic fuck up can ruin everything
3. Because a king can't do everything, the system he creates to help him could become just as corrupt as modern democracies

we are using resources to get selfie sticks into every household, but we don't have any roads that aren't full of potholes

we are using resources to get selfie sticks into every household,
who is we? is the government pushing selfie sticks?
> but we don't have any roads that aren't full of potholes
and who is in charge of roads? the government, thats who.

>#meandmypotholes

use your selfie stick to take photos of you and your potholes. spread pothole awareness. make a difference in your pothole community.

yeah I'm stumped.

I gave it my best shot.

Markets are pretty much the best solution.

>federational tribalism
tribes, the leader structure is federational so there is leader for a group of tribes with their own leaders, high autonomity, low tax, no weaponory laws.

Cons
Doesnt work with big population(Pseudo solution, fuck niggers)
Local wars may spark now and then(Pseudo solution, 1 Duel between 1 warrior of each tribe to settle the conflict)
1/2 Con
technological advancement may have difficulties
1/2 Con
Everyone who is not normal(faggots,any sort of illness) will be killed.

Okay, I'll bite:

Central belief: People should be held accountable for their actions no matter their sex or ethnicity or whatever

Counter arguments
>das raciss!
>that's a very privileged way of thinking

and a more grounded one:
>how do you ensure that with this rule in place than an ethnic or sexual majority doesn't manifest itself?

The sad truth being that it WILL usually lead to a majority of white/asian males kek.

>Why would you believe in something if you have arguments against it?
Why would you believe in something if you haven't questioned whether it's true?

I'm not a centrist

First two cons are acctually invalid.
3rd con is extremly true

And btw, its highly unlikely that all the positive genetic mutations happen in one bloodline. So you waste a lot of intellegence from the lower castes.
That is the main reason I am against monarchy.

the main question around accountability is that when we assign something as being THE cause of an event, we are arbitrarily choosing singling out one cause, when there are numerous causes (and the causes of the causes)

what if we combined eugenics with monarchy?

Your central belief is extremly wrong in the first place.

it implies that all people are equal, but that is not true.
If a woman fucks up, her father/husband is to blame for letting her do.

Fucking sheep.

1. There's nothing wrong with socialism
2. Planned economy is a failed economy
3. A country without nationalism is a doomed country

Belief: All countries should be modelled as ethnostates, with something like 90% homogeneity being the consistent goal.

>people should be judged based on their character, not race!
Racial averages show the differences between us in fairly clear cut terms, statistically it is better to bring in 500 Germans than 500 Somalians. Obviously exceptions can be made to the rule, for dudes like Carson or Sowell.

>diversity is a strength!
Not even once. Every empire in history that had different cultures in its borders imploded in one way or another. Politicians couldn't list you one good strength of diversity, yet they preach it all the same.

>everyone is equal anyway!
Animals that evolved separately in different environments over tens of thousands of years are different. There's a reason blacks are better at running, whites lifting, etc. To deny this is to deny evolutionary theory.

I don't give a fuck, just let me live in peace for fuck's sake.

>combine monarchy with eugenics.

What do you mean?

I am against any radical form of eugenics to be honest, as long as the individual is healthy, he can procreate. Humans are not a breading stock at the end of the day. A governmental breeding enforcement is unnatural.
The government can do mistakes,The Survival of the fittest law does not.

Before you say that I promote racemix,
no I dont.
A genetic invasion, is something else.

You had one job, it was to present three arguments against yourself, you presented three Molyneux call-in show non arguments.

How much will I be paid for this assignment?

I mean we could breed our monarchs to be genetically superior

what is your ideology?

THESE ARENT ARGUMENTS YOU FUCKING SHEEP!

sheeple

I'm right wing because I believe in social heirarchy. Doctors should get paid more than bin men, and be paid more social capital too (respect). This creates social mobility, encourages working class people to train and move up this ladder, and therefore offers the labour force a bigger choice of the smartest and best to push up the standards of various industries.

1. What happens when this dynamic is abused and exploited? Corporations etc
2. How does this work/stay fair if we do not live in a society with equal opportunity?
3. Most downsides usually fall onto the poorer/working class. It's them who experiences the widening divide between the rich and the poor.

Or, you could just go back to how our country was when we had standards for the right to vote, and run a proper republic.

All citizens have a duty to their nation and their people.

>This is an infringement of liberty
>The terms are not clearly defined/broad statement
>Duty is applied to "all" without explaining the role of handicapped people or immigrants or children etc.

Still not gonna change my mind commie kike

I am for the individual, I believe that authority is never legitimate and that all of it's actions are force and violence.

Three arguments against:
>Muh roads
>Muh flag
>Stormfaggots of Sup Forums don't like me because I'm not a collectivist like them.

>States an extremely collectivist vague view
>Calls people disagree jewish collectivist

Oh

So you pick geneticly superior individuals out of the peasents and mix their blood into the royal one?

Sounds intresting to be honest, but kinda fucked up at the same time.

You still waste the one hit wonders of any bloodline. And if you start picking up tallented individuals out of the peasents. Is it still monarchy? I'd call it Fascism.

I'm an individualist, but only the first is even remotely an argument. (The flag one might be, what does muh flag even mean?)

>question your own beliefs
You can only be a real skeptic when you totally disregard skepticism -David Hume

>truth exists

>no it doesn't
wait, self refuting
>munchhausen trilemma
wait, self refuting
>truth must be known to be true and nothing can be known but then is truth the objective independent of its negation or would this make its negation then 'true' itself which would be self refuting?

Can't do it, just objectively right.

Hello sheep

gommies gotta die.

Muh flag represents how collectivists have a hissy fit when ever someone points out a flaw in their nation or leaders.

>"I don't need a team to watch my back, the power of individualism will protect me"
>gets shot in back

I called OP a kike you kike, read a book jeez

You implied extreme collectivism when I only demonstrated an example of collectivism itself, seems like your mind automatically jumps to extremes just like a woman

Begone jewess

sextus just rekt us

>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>Gun rights cause more gun deaths
>Gun manufacturing fuels drug war
>When everybody is armed, we are less free because we need to be on the look out for extremely dangerous armed men. This means more of our time and energy is devoted to defending ourselves from imaginary enemies.

>He doesn't know what sheep means
But you're german, so you know what goats are, don't you ahmed.

National Socialism
>critizing a perfect system
Wew ladderino

>Complains about socialism
>Praises National (((Socialism)))

Delete your account and go back to Christchurch ASAP

wouldn't a good argument be someone who wants to maximize that which is viewed as a net negative by the rest of the populace or other individuals?
Who would stop them?
What individualists absolutely love to forget or just ignore is the "individual" doesn't exist.
There is no creature which is defined as "the individual".
People are equal in one way yet can still be different, this difference is where individualism falls apart.

>"three arguments"
>x is bad
>y is bad
>z is bad

>bin man

Love you brother. I love my English heritage; it's charming. I am KINGHAM.

> Implying you would ever hold political views that have any credible counter arguments that aren't based in ideology.

wew lad

>implying
More of an Anglo-Saxon Monarchist to be completely and totally honest with you there family.

Stay mad with your failure of an ideology, strong and just people are what make strong and just societies and only those societies can facilitate a significant portion creation of more strong and just individuals through culture.

Freedom.

There are no arguments against it.

This whole world proves we were never meant to run shit ourselves.

We should have never went against God.

>There is no creature which is defined as "the individual".
>People are equal in one way yet can still be different, this difference is where individualism falls apart.

I don't understand what you're saying. Individualism doesn't mean everybody is the same.

Democracy is the worst political idea ever conceived, and power shouldn't be in the hands of the uneducated masses.

1) muh feels
2) muh representation
3) muh freedumbs

Am I free to use my freedom to inhibit the freedom of another?

>freedom is the lack of restraint
>there will always be some form of restraint
>there will never be total freedom

You must define how much freedom can be called true freedom.

Freedom is Chaos.

Chaos is unpleasant, and not very good for the survival of living things.

>original thoughts
>ever
every opinion you have is given to you, prove me wrong.
protip: you can't

I was just doing this in the morning.

Assertion: Traditional gender roles were better for humanity.

1) They weren't better for everyone - there were victims.
2) In some places, it seems to have stymied growth.
3) It may be related to lower GDP, if GDP is held as an innate positive.

I also later refuted all three points as well.

We think a lot more than you assume that we do.

My opinion is that you're full of shit.

in that case you better release all the prisoners from guantanamo

>Individualism doesn't mean everybody is the same.
But it posits everyone is an individual without clearly defining what an individual is, and as soon as it is defined it totally falls apart because no one seriously fits the definition put forward.
It is either all inclusive in which everyone is the same (this is bad because it is untrue and does not facilitate good societies or social interplay) or highly exclusive and in this case there is no good argument as to why the individuals within the category of individualism matter more than the non-individuals.

An individual is an agent that can make a choice.

Countries should not be taller than a village and every one of them will be so independent from each others that the only way they will have to communicate is by merchants on small ships.
A dictator will decide what tasks have to be done and how many people will be assigned on it, but it will be to the population to decide who will work at that task. They will not be paid for their labour, but every good produced will be at the free disposal of citizens.

1) No way to get back to modern civilisation this way.
2) What if there is a small asperity on the land?
3) What happen if someone have to build a bridge but he decide to build it from the other side and freeze on his way to work?

>An individual is an agent that can make a choice.
Define choice.

>all inclusive definition
So then whose to say what agents or choices should or should not be made?
Would you limit the power of individuals so that it only suited your individual needs? How would you legitimize this more so than their claim to be self determining and limiting your power or your freedom?

Individualism says that there is something inherently good in allowing agents to choose for themselves and manifest their will in the world. .. This also implies that they be allowed to suffer the consequences of their choices.

I don't appreciate your manipulation but welcome opportunity to whore my opinion out so:

Universal suffrage is fundamental principle for every individual to share in responsibility for political direction the society is headed. For this reason I reject technocratic and autocratic approaches to government.

Caveats are following:
Since people have limited access to information and limited time and resources to gather them, not to mention driven by emotion, resulting in decision-making being almost certainly suboptimal in regards to whatever metric you could whip out to measure it with, like economic prosperity for instance.

Another problem is that responsibility will be strongly diluted and impact of individual very low, making it easy for the individual to disown this responsibility and blame others.

And for the third problem, this blame shifting can be to some extent seen as justified since individuals exert their influence through their own means regardless of the political system by using their wealth, charisma or social skills. You could say that responsibility for participation in governance entails your responsibility to not be manipulated, but at the end of the day we are all fallible people.

The first problem can be mitigated by representation, but at cost of even further diluting responsibility felt by the common guy and creating a group of people to be specifically targeted to corrupt and influence at expense of those they are supposed to represent.

Here we go

People should be controlled in order to stregthen the family and prevent degeneracy.

1. It stops them from personal freedom
2. Dissenters could collapse this system
3. Is the family and preventing degeneracy so important? Why does it matter? There are other things that matter too.

Literally no good arguments against ethnostates that go beyond what I said.

>Define choice.
The idea is that the individual has a WILL, or some desire and the choice is a manifestation of the will. A choice is made when the will drives the person to act towards a goal.

>Would you limit the power of individuals so that it only suited your individual needs? How would you legitimize this more so than their claim to be self determining and limiting your power or your freedom?

Well I think individualism represents a way of talking about society, with inherent value placed in the will of the individuals.... but there are also other values to consider. Stability, prosperity, justice... etc

How you design a society is a complicated calculation.

>Individualism says that there is something inherently good in allowing agents to choose for themselves and manifest their will in the world. .. This also implies that they be allowed to suffer the consequences of their choices.
So if an individual started indiscriminately shooting and torturing another individual for their own pleasure or because they've some sort of vendetta, then you'd be perfectly fine with that because they making a free choice?

Or would you limit their ability to make certain choices?
And when you do, how do you keep the qualifier for what should be limited in terms of choice as opposed to what should not be limited non-arbitrary?

> The question is though, is it best for people to get what they think they want. Afterall, people waste a huge amount on consumption, whereas investment by the government could make society better off in the long run.

The government is made up of people and people are inherently flawed. If you give the government the power to mandate what's best for people and give them moral authority over you, there are bound to be people in said government that will put in place some overreaching laws (draconian drug laws for example), therefore the only way to prevent tyranny is not to give the government the power to arbitrate over morality. It's the same with freedom of speech: you can't be correct about everything, therefore the only way for the collective to be correct is by allowing everything to be expressed, otherwise some correct ideas will be branded wrong and vilified.

see:Individualism is a value... It doesn't mean it's the only, all encompassing value. So no, mass murderers can be put to death.

>Well I think individualism represents a way of talking about society, with inherent value placed in the will of the individuals.... but there are also other values to consider. Stability, prosperity, justice... etc
You don't really sound like an individualist....

>How you design a society is a complicated calculation.
Yet it always works out.
Either because of or in spite of social/political reformations/institutions

One good argument is that some individuals go against racial stereotypes.
i.e. neil degrasse tyson is probably more civilized than some wigger you find on a street
(I'm for ethnic separation too but you can't just make dumb argumemts)

>So you waste a lot of intellegence from the lower castes.
Why, you still need engineers and doctors. Just cause you have a king doesn't mean you have typical europoor caste sytems

Except I said that in my post....90% homogenitity, exceptions would be made.

>Individualism is a value
Nietzsche pls

>So no, mass murderers can be put to death.
On what basis and again how do you make that a non-arbitrary judgement?

or maybe even a single murderer, lets not make it a mass murderer, just one wealthy and prosperous man who killed a lowly beggar out in the streets just for the pleasure of it or some other reason.

What makes your claim here (your idea of justice, putting him to death [the killer])more legitimate than the defense of the killer?

People are inherently tribalistic, and we should stop pretending that we aren't.

>Leads to isolation, and possible conflict (Race war)
>Possible legislation banning race mixing, which infringes on freedom and could be interpreted as a civil liberties violation.
>What would this hypothetical society do with existing people who are mixed race, and how do they decide what tribe they belong to?

I'm mixed race myself, so this has been on my mind a lot since I started coming here.

I already know where you're going, you're going to make it a question of values, but how do you set up your qualifier for what legitimizes certain values over others to be non-arbitrary or at least objectively better than the qualifier which might be put forward by the murderer (mass or not)

Abortion is murder
>arguments against
1. Women should have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies.
>evidence against argument
a. suicide is illegal
b. self-mutilation will put you in the loony house
c. a baby is not part of your body anyway
2. It keeps the number of people who commit crime down
a. true but not a valid reason for murder
i. Even in an attack situation you may not kill someone who is not an imminent threat
a. attacker needs a means
b. attacker needs intent
c. attacker needs an opportunity
ii. baby has none of the necessary qualifiers as a deadly threat
b. It is impossible to say whether someone will be a criminal at birth
3. It is a choice that women have the right to
a. no one has the right to murder
b. you made your choice when you chose to have sex
c. I can understand if you were raped or it might kill you, but convenience is not an excuse
>reasons rape and life threatening is ok
i. rape you had no choice
ii. life-threatening the baby can be said to have
a. means
b. motive
c. intent

I believe strongly that we should take 'active measures' to keep dangerous Islamic ideology out of Canada, up to and including forbidding/deporting those imams that do not preach a sufficiently 'moderate' version of Islam, while curbing Islamic immigration and educating people on the terrible, barbaric things Islam brings to the countries it is prevalent in.

One argument against 'active measures' is that they encourage jihadist groups to notice us, making Canada a likelier target.

Another is that removing those fundamentalist imams would be an attack on free speech, which I do value a great deal.

Thirdly, Muslims already living in Canada will feel even more alienated than they do already. They will be likelier to be recruited by the jihadists.

>You don't really sound like an individualist....
I'm very big on individualism. I think the concept of the individual is very important to western values and western thought. I view attempts to move away from it as kike subversion.
What makes us great, since the greeks, is the idea of individualism.

>Either because of or in spite of social/political reformations/institutions
Well, perhaps. The reformations are the re balancing towards a more stable value set, if you ask me.

It's ok

>What makes your claim here (your idea of justice, putting him to death [the killer])more legitimate than the defense of the killer?

Well, values are arbitrary. There's no reason to say that my values are more better than yours...
But on the other hand, nearly everybody wants to come to America.

So, while values are , in principle, arbitrary, humans are wired in a particular way that they will prefer societies that result from the "correct" balance of values. And thus they will align their values to the society that they enjoy.

>I'm very big on individualism. I think the concept of the individual is very important to western values and western thought.
I disagree, so many of our ideals are about helping each other out and altruism. I think we almost have a collectivist individualism where its important to be your own person, but you are expected to help the greater good. I think pure individualism it little more than hedonism

To put it succinctly, if a value set usually leads a society to destroy itself, then it's a bad value set.

Everyone will agree.

The federal government should not ensure that women have the right to abortions.

- Abortions keep crime rates low.
- Most people getting abortions are niggers
- Rape and incest.

You are that Slavic dick sucking faggot from Luxembourg, I see constantly, aren't you?

You have to define what centrism is, before someone can criticize it. In fact, it's main issue with it. Centrists, or at least majority of people I have seen who call themselves centrists, don't have any firm convictions or beliefs. It lacks definitive body and soul to be called a political ideology.

In fact, centrists replaced traditional ideology with lack of ideology, view which, at times, seems to be even more fanatical. You worship a lack of worship. Your disbelief in objective truth and obsession on painting everything in single shade of grey proves that.

>I think we almost have a collectivist individualism where its important to be your own person, but you are expected to help the greater good.

I totally agree with what you're saying except for the way you characterize the situation. Individualism is a way of thinking about society that forces you to consider the desires of the people.
There's nothing contradictory with individuals helping each other. Individualism doesn't mean selfish, it means choice.

When I talk about moving AWAY from individualism, i'm talking about attempts to talk about a society in a way that removes the choice from the people. That people are MERELY a consequence of their surrondings and bear no blame for their circumstances.

We can't abide such talk.

People are defined by their relationship to power.

1. Perception of power is relative.
2. It is difficult to quantify informal power.
3. Power is ephemeral, unless underpinned by wealth and resources.

Enter stage left: Karl Marx...

>Well, values are arbitrary. There's no reason to say that my values are more better than yours...
You lost.
Seriously though, saying values are arbitrary but then saying they aren't in a different way doesn't give you any sort of intellectual credence.
You could just say individualism isn't rational and move on, no need to toss reason out the window to shoehorn in some failed idealism
>Everyone will agree.
Don't care.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

>What makes us great, since the greeks, is the idea of individualism.
No, it was the idea of State Freedom and Rational Administration, not individual freedom or individualism.
The Greeks were massive Statists, they just weren't cucked into thinking Statism is always an inherent evil.

And what I meant by societies always working out in the end is people generally tend to come together or at least not split apart, essentially tribalism.

>to be your own person
what does this mean.
>that forces you to consider the desires of the people.
They are worthless if you've no qualifier for them.
>it means choice
and when that choice is always selfish?

>That people are MERELY a consequence of their surrondings and bear no blame for their circumstances.
>We can't abide such talk.
How can we know this isn't the case?

Supremacy of the Nuclear family, and virtue of traditional Christian culture if not true devoted believer.

Arguments against:
>hurts people's feelings
>gives people a excuse to blame their unhappiness on
>requires actual effort rather then laziness

lolwhat, I dont even think that I have a thing that I borrowed from other people. I think that we nearly "invented" or at least started using racial realism at the same time, as a form of communal consensus.

there are really no arguments against it

but here you go

>liberals dont feel comfortable with this idea since they are cucks
>that one nice nigger you once saw on tv must still be killed
>full embrace of this idea will mean that your wife wont get raped by nigger hordes anymore, thats bad for you if you are a cuck.

>You lost.

What have I lost? Nothing.
It's just a fact that values are arbitrary.

>You could just say individualism isn't rational and move on, no need to toss reason out the window to shoehorn in some failed idealism

I'm saying that NO value set is provably "true". It doesn't even make sense to suggest it.

You're just confused about what we're talking about.

>And what I meant by societies always working out in the end is people generally tend to come together or at least not split apart, essentially tribalism.

Tribalism represents a value. That's not rational either.

I believe that people of different races, ethnicities, and cultures should remain seperate, and mixing any of the three can lead to the decline of one peoples or conflict between two.

1. Seperation between differing peoples breeds nationalism, which can cause conflict on a very large scale.

2. Some of the most successful peoples in history are the result of mixing any of these attributes, such as the Romans or Americans, who are based around an idea as opposed to heritage.

3. Individuals who live in poor conditions, such as war or poverty deserve to have a better life elsewhere, providing they are willing to adapt.

>They are worthless if you've no qualifier for them.
No, I don't think so. I think that's the proper frame to talk about these issues. It leads to better conclusions.


>and when that choice is always selfish?
I thought you said we valued altruism. Why would we act against our own values?

>How can we know this isn't the case?
It is the case. I'm not arguing the fact. I'm arguing the value.