Refute Political Memes Here

​

 

​

 

View: https://youtu.be/4kr81OJp270
[/media]


Ok, not every American I'm sure, but as an outsider looking in, it appears that this is the response of most democrats and even some republicans (who are secretly saying to themselves "WTF did I just do?").

 

​

 

​

 

You know the first thing I learned when dealing with word problems?
That the ones using the word always were just about always wrong.

That and people often go to wise men or women for council so they have a crowd around them.

 

​

 

You've posted this one before in this thread's predecessor, but I'll obligingly debunk it again.

Plato wrote no such thing. This quotation is Ammon Hennacy's anarchist twisting of a line from Plato's Laws dialogue which is translated thus: Laws are made to instruct the good, and in the hope that there may be no need of them; also to control the bad, whose hardness of heart will not be hindered from crime.

The message of Plato's original statement, as well as the ideological character of his enormous and influential body of political theory, is so different in its implications from the anarchist message in the image above that to attribute it to him is about as accurate as this attribution:

 

​

 

So you are saying we should just get rid of laws against murder, arson, and rape as well, since the criminals that enjoy those pursuits d0 them even though the laws exist?
Seriously, of all the arguments against gun control this has got to be one of the stupidest.

 

I'm not certain reductio ad absurdum would provide an effective argument against him in this case. Based on what he posts, he seems to support the rightist anarcho-capitalist view that victims of injustice are generally deserving of their circumstances due to their own supposed flaws, often because they are seemingly too weak to fend off injustice on their own, and so any governmental protections for such victims are unethical to him. For example, unemployment benefits are unethical to him because he sees unemployed people as lazy and gluttonous, affirmative action is unethical to him because he thinks that people of color must overcome any racial inequality on their own if they want to be rewarded with success, and gun control is unethical to him because he thinks that people who are injured or killed by guns are either (1.) criminals (arbitrarily defined) who should be shot by armed non-criminals or (2.) non-criminals who have failed to arm themselves in self-defense against inevitably armed criminals. This effectively social Darwinist paradigm also manifests as victim blaming in cases of rape.

However, the perceived truths that these ethics are based on are contradicted by observations of our world using the most reliable method available to us: empiricism. I've written about this at length in regard to gun control, also in this thread's predecessor:

 

​

 

Nothing wrong with speaking your mind but you need to be prepared to face the fucking consequences.
The problem is the people who rail against PC want to be able to be rude assholes without have people call them on their shit.
They mourn the days when they could tell jokes about spikes, heebs and bitches without someone telling them it was inappropriate to do that at work.
They miss being able to belittle retards or put down bums for not pullings themselves up by their bootstraps.
And don't get them started on the libtards.
The fact is for all their whining about college kids wanting safe spaces, the people who complain about PC language are far worse.
They want the ability to casually insult people and act like assholes in a totally safe environment with no one to tell them to stop being such incredible dickheads and act like decent fucking human beings.

 

​

 

​

 

​