- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
The problem is that any and all on the right seem to be immediately called alt right.
Yeah, it's in part due to the confusing history of the term and in part due to a desire to tarnish regular conservatives as extremists.
So which right wing positions are mainstream enough that you aren’t automatically called a Nazi for having them?
Any position that isn't related to white nationalism. Of course, calling political opponents "fascists" and "Nazis" is a useful tactic to cause people to dismiss opposing ideas without actually engaging with them.
Very few people actually understand the term "alt-right". There are a lot of reasons for this, one of which being the vagueness of the term's meaning "alternative right". This sounds like a name for any brand of conservatism that isn't the mainstream.
Two very different factions took it to mean completely different things. The white nationalists (who originally coined the term in 2010) took it to mean their alternative to the mainstream right wing. Other non-mainstream conservatives, on the other hand, took it to mean anything on the right that wasn't regular party Republicanism.
Now, the non-mainstream conservatives who weren't white supremacists quickly abandoned the label when they found what it originally meant. Nobody wanted to be associated with Richard Spencer's white nationalists. As a result, Spencer's definition of alt-right was put forth as the correct usage, so that alternative conservatives would not be grouped with Spencer's ilk. At the same time, these non-mainstream conservatives argued strongly that they were not to be labeled "alt-right" as it now had a very discrete meaning: white nationalism.
However, the regular non-mainstream conservatives are the ones who popularized the term, despite the white nationalist Richard Spencer coining it. As such, it has become associated with people who aren't extremists. This confusion is then magnified due to the corporate media using both definitions simultaneously whenever it suits them. Regular alternative right-wing figures are called alt-right, while simultaneously alt-right is called white nationalist. This means that they can call any right-wing alternative figures white nationalists by proxy.
It's been around 30 years since the media were told that publishing the names of school shooters creates copycat shooters. This is because it gives them infamy, which is exactly what these people want. Of course, the corporate media doesn't care about reducing school shootings and to this day always publishes their names.
To defend oneself against an armed or stronger attacker, rapist, thief, etc. one requires a weapon. The police do not typically arrive until after the crime has taken place; when it is too late. I don't believe that people's ability to defend themselves and their property should be taken away simply because other people are irresponsible. Studies suggest 2 million crimes are prevented annually by firearms, of which 200k are rapes (1,2). Compared with the 20k annual homicides by gun, this seems to me a worthy tradeoff (3).
(1) http://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed Resistance to Crime- The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defe.pdf
(You need to copy and paste sources 1 and 2 for them to work).
".. a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard..
Technically regular prisons are concentration camps under such a broad definition. In which case, concentration camps are not inherently bad things.
I'm confused, you think I want to blur the line between the moderate and extremist right because this would be of benefit to me? Does that mean that you think I'm a right wing extremist? Of course I distinguish, for example, between the extremist right that want to kill all whites or throw gays from buildings and regular conservatives.
Being rich requires the existence of poor people because it is a relative, not an absolute, term.
Interesting, I think of it as absolute. For instance, the fact that I don't have to worry about food, shelter, clothing etc. and also have a multitude of luxuries at my disposal makes me consider myself rich. I don't look at the guy making more than me and feel poor.
Therefore, since the gap between rich and poor is increasing, one can reasonably conclude (without any data) that you are distorting factual reality for the sake of ideology.
OK, so then can we distinguish between inequality and wealth?
you illustrate how wages and personal wealth has increased on average, but you steer well clear of explaining the effect inflation has had on the price of goods and services over time
You probably don't remember this but I'm against central banking and fiat currency which are the drivers of inflation. Note also that such increases are in terms of purchasing power, which means inflation is accounted for (1).
you illustrate how wages and personal wealth has increased on average, but you steer well clear of explaining the effect inflation has had on the price of goods and services over time, and indeed of explaining how averages even work in the first place! If there are ten of us and one of us earns a million bucks a year while the other 9 earn nothing, the average wage between us is 100,000 per year.
Well actually, my source demonstrated that there were less people in extreme poverty, since I imagined that demographic would be more of interest to you for the reason you are giving here.
In regards to the EU or in regards to Britain? Corbyn has to support the EU because the radical left (who are a large base of his support) are largely rabidly pro-EU. It's very interesting how the radicals were previously anti-EU due to opposition to corporate influence and due to a lack of democratic representation and accountability. I suppose this is because the new doctrine holds that reducing immigration is for some reason a cardinal sin. This, once again, is very strange since the left should be looking to increase wages, which decreasing immigration does (1). The availability of surplus labour depresses wages and makes for a power dynamic that favors the employer. This also allows employers to get away with zero hour contracts and similar exploitation: because if you don't accept the terms someone else will.
It would appear that on average everyone is getting richer, if you look at the data (1). In any case, is it inherently evil for a rich man to become richer?
The costs are astronomically larger than in any socialized single-payer system.
There is a way to address the problem of health providers having all the power in the consumer relationship without a single-payer system. Obama first tabled the suggestion of a "Public Option" before "Single-payer" and what was eventually settled for (which gave the U.S. health insurance companies more power by the way - because now legally everyone has to have coverage in the U.S.). What do you think about the idea of a "Public Option"; a government run health insurance provider with the power of collective bargaining and the ability to compete with price gouging insurance companies in order to keep their prices down.
You asked what I would have done differently in Jesus’s shoes. I’m saying that I would have not said those things which are properly ignored and I would have added those things we have injected into interpretation, such as reason.
I was making the argument that since complex systems are so difficult to understand, while you may think your intervention would be better you have no way to know if it actually would have been.
Our elevated regard for humans depends on them being human. That’s not unconditional.
Jesus was only referring to humans though. So it's unconditional love for humans.
As awful as it is to consider the ending of a human life, someone needs disregard such empathy and do just that, in order to preserve human life. I don’t believe this position is consistent with unconditional love.
You can kill someone despite loving them on some level.
There are various views within Islam and not all inconsistency with western civ values.
Not sure exactly what you're saying here but I'm referring to the fact that Islam is so totalitarian (e.g. pray 5 times a day) and the fact that it calls for theocracy. This means anything similar to western civilization that might spring out of an area with such an ideology would be despite it, not because of it.
In Matthew 5:17 through 20, Jesus maintains the validity of the Old Testament, and stated that it is Law until the end. Paul expanded Christianity to include Gentiles.
He said he didn't "come to abolish the Law or the Prophets". Nonetheless, Christianity was not just for the Jewish state of Israel (see below). Linking back to the idea that God punished whole cities, since he didn't destroy every single city that wasn't Jewish it still doesn't follow that everywhere should be compelled to follow OT law. Further, these cities were either Jewish (under his theocratic rule) or completely debauched (e.g. Sodom). Note also that in Sodom God even said he would spare it if Abraham could find even 10 righteous people there.
Paul expanded Christianity to include Gentiles.
No, Jesus did that. Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Interestingly, he didn't mention to teach gentiles the OT here, only his teachings.
All I hear at this point is...
Everything you quoted me saying there is factually accurate and comes from my own independent inquiry into the workings of the EU parliamentary system. Furthermore, I hate the conservatives and have never voted for them even once, so good luck with the argument of guilt by association there, followed by a string of straw men, things I don't agree with and slurs against minorities.