Philosophical Vegan Forum

EquALLity wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DxfMUEf9otQ

I hate when politicians try to be 'relatable' to young people by being fake. It's really cringeworthy.

ow.

RedAppleGP wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:Also, probably better to cover a full topic alone rather than a bunch of things muddled together.

What do you mean?

Like just address anarchism, and the arguments made for it, and how it doesn't make any sense.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Like just address anarchism, and the arguments made for it, and how it doesn't make any sense.

I guess I'll go to the anarchist thread and read through it again and do some of my own little research.

RedAppleGP wrote:

knot wrote:Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron anyway?

Actually Cameron made a video that properly addresses this argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8
Either way, it's still a shit philosophy.

That seems incoherent to me, I don't think he's thought it through :_D
He says manufacturing should be in the hands of the workers instead of the capitalists, but at the same time he's against state authority... but you'd need a state to enforce such a system. Rich people are not just gonna give all their shit away by the kindness of their heart, you'll need to pry it from their cold dying hands

knot wrote:

RedAppleGP wrote:

knot wrote:Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron anyway?

Actually Cameron made a video that properly addresses this argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8
Either way, it's still a shit philosophy.

That seems incoherent to me, I don't think he's thought it through :_D
He says manufacturing should be in the hands of the workers instead of the capitalists, but at the same time he's against state authority... but you'd need a state to enforce such a system. Rich people are not just gonna give all their shit away by the kindness of their heart, you'll need to pry it from their cold dying hands

Right. I don't agree with hard communism because of the consequences (particularly, difficulty in implementing it), but at least that's a coherent system that we can discuss (and it hasn't been all bad; socialism is a nice mix which is working fairly well in some European countries, where many forum members enjoy the benefits of essentially free single payer healthcare).

I think anarchism has the potential to work in small isolated communities, (but even then, a leader and their subordinates still need to keep some order) but I don't think that it's possible to achieve a nonlethal anarchist society.

Hey guys, I've been thinking about Cameron's extremist views on feminism. He thinks catcalls qualify as "street harassment", and that the responsibility of one's rape lies with the perpetrator not the victim.
Firstly, before I move on, for the catcalls, I'll quote Voltaire:

Voltaire wrote:I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

(there's debate as to whether or not he said that, but it works either way)
And for rape, while I'm not saying that the rape victim is entirely responsible for their rape, but they should take precautions to avoid rape as much as possible, such as having pepper spray on you at all times, and being with a person for security, etc..

Cameron usually says that people who claim that the victim should be careful are victim blamers, which from my understanding, is just a buzzword.

Anyways, I'd wager that Cameron is the sexist in this situation. He's the one who thinks that women are so weak helpless and fragile that they can't even go out at night and be harassed, and they can't even take care of themselves. He claims that we should just teach men not to rape, which made me facedesk. We have laws against rape, you fucking imbecile (sexually violence has gone down significantly last time I checked)! While it would be nice we will always have assholes in every society (even in your perfect anarchist society). There will always be rapists, and a world without them is unfortunately a fantasy. And for street harassment, you think that women are so weak they can't handle a few comments about them? No. We should be teaching women to know what to do if they feel as though they may be raped, and we should teach women not to feel so insecure about the comments they receive. Cam, if you're reading this, women are human beings with agency. Contrary to what you think, they don't need to be coddled all the time, and they can learn to look out for themselves.

You say that we shouldn't police the choices of women and they should drink as much as their hearts desire, and they should be allowed to wear whatever they want without fear of being raped.

Firstly, NO ONE under any circumstance should drink as much as they want. The only exception is when it's a special occasion and you're at a place that you trust, like your house or a friend's house. This goes for both men and women (and I think Cammy is a bit of an alcoholic, since when he got his new job, he spent most of the money on booze, which just goes to show how responsible he is). Being drunk provides you with a lot of risks, such as drunk driving, doing things you wouldn't do when you're sober, not fucking up your liver, etc. A risk for women is, of course, getting raped. As for women wearing whatever they want, I can list studies that show that women's attire have little to do with being raped.
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200901/marked-mayhem






Just something to consider.

I was going to read this debate, but Libertarian socialist don't exist. It's like a Jewish nazi. Sure, people can claim to be one, but the one thing us Libertarians and Socialist can agree on is our ideologies are not compatible.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:10 pmSure, people can claim to be one, but the one thing us Libertarians and Socialist can agree on is our ideologies are not compatible.

Or it means anybody between the two extremes on the spectrum...?
Which is everybody except 100% committed extremist libertarians and 100% committed extremist socialists? So basically everybody, thus a meaningless title that tells us nothing.

I have a feeling he's say he's 100% of both, though.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:10 pm I was going to read this debate, but Libertarian socialist don't exist. It's like a Jewish nazi. Sure, people can claim to be one, but the one thing us Libertarians and Socialist can agree on is our ideologies are not compatible.

Some Jewish Nazis did exist, strange as it may sound.

I'd like to know how you'd define "libertarianism" and how you'd define "socialism" in order to know why you'd say the two aren't compatible. I think that theoretically, they are compatible and some societies that could be considered "libertarian socialist", such as Anarchist Spain. However, I would not favour a libertarian socialist society as I think it would lead to a lack of security (e.g. Anarchist Spain was left vulnerable to the Francoists).

I'd recommend you watch this video by Libertarian Socialist Rants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8

I haven't watched it yet, but if you want to learn more about libertarian socialism, it's probably best to hear it from the horse's mouth. Especially as I will admit to being a bit biased against any forms of libertarianism.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:50 pm Or it means anybody between the two extremes on the spectrum...?
Which is everybody except 100% committed extremist libertarians and 100% committed extremist socialists? So basically everybody, thus a meaningless title that tells us nothing.

I have a feeling he's say he's 100% of both, though.

I'm not sure why you'd come to the conclusion that "libertarian socialist" would mean somebody between the two extremes on the spectrum rather than somebody who supports both libertarianism and socialism. That isn't really the case with any political ideologies I can think of. For instance, democratic socialists support both democracy and socialism, free market capitalists support both capitalism and the free market, Marxist-Leninists support both Marxism and Leninism, etc. Whereas, you don't get moderate leftists calling themselves "right-wing communists" and you don't get moderate conservatives calling themselves "left-wing fascists" and you also don't get the vast majority of people calling themselves "communist nazis".