CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS SlimyBastard

Reward Points:4
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
100%
Arguments:4
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
4 most recent arguments.
SlimyBastard(4) Clarified
1 point

You will have to clarify how this is relevant and make an argument. I don't read whole books to answer rebuttals. I also think that anybody defending the killing of the weak and sick should probably be the first to be shot. Especially as there is plenty, and they are illiterate ignorant disgusting trash.

Fascists should always be the first to be shot.

2 points

It's simple, Kill all humans.

There is not a single person in society that is not dependent on that society.

So, if you need to kill people who are a burden, then you're might as well start with yourself.

[dark humor you moron]

---

There is a fundamental ignorance of what a society is, how one operates, and how people exist within one.

Simply put, if a society is constructed in such a way that some folks are being left out, that society is broken, not the people it decided to neglect. (And yes, this is a CHOICE made by that society, it can just as easily not be made)

So really, you're just asking for a poorly constructed society to "lean in" and simply further its destructive nature by eradicating any and all evidence of its broken state. And I have significant doubts that you are better off in this society. In fact all statistics on the matter show you to be far worse off as a result of this horrible structuring. But here you are, defending your own oppression, like a true idiot.

---

From the fundamentals of economics, the problem is extremely bad distribution models, IE extremely bad methods of labor distribution, and extremely poor models of resource distribution.

How can we be certain?

Just follow our economic history, and look at all the massive failures. Entire towns are abandoned by any and all means of production, infrastructure is left to rot, as all discussion of its upkeep are removed from the table. (this one is many decades old)

And then we can look at wealth accumulation as it increases dramatically for a very small few, while the rest see their relative value continue to decline. Massive upward transfers are now commonplace.

---

A society is "accurately" judged by how they treat their sick, their weak, and their downtrodden. Clearly you aren't smart enough to understand this. You are self centered, ignorant, and lack any humanity whatsoever. You have made yourself less than garbage. Should we treat you as such? Or do you deserve some basic respect?

---

Lastly, determinism involving "who" is a "burden to society" is a slippery slope into fascism. It is a certainty.

And fascists should not be given a platform. (go scream all you want in the middle of nowhere) *If you're too stupid to learn systemic theory, so you might better understand why people are suffering, you are too stupid to solve the problem of people suffering.

1 point

I'ma go with WOW, because the main premise is illiterate of political theory and history.

It is generally difficult to argue with somebody who identifies those operating in the interests of oligarchs, and the interests of the ruling class, as the opposite of such. It shows complete ignorance to what terms mean, and where they came from.

---

Theory, is the abstraction of complexity and systems, to better parse and understand the whole. Political theory attempts to create terminology to better represent the various ideas and positions of policy. Accurate representation of said terms is a requisite for any any and all discourse concerning politics.

---

The left/right dichotomy originates from the French Revolution. Whereby in the "National Assembly" there sat 2 "wings" of seating. On the left, sat those seeking policies of "The Enlightenment." Liberalism, IE the notions of democracy and liberty. There were those seeking republics, parliamentary systems, and democracies. On the right sat the monarchists, aristocrats, and theocrats. Seeking to maintain their authoritarian controls.

As time progressed and the enlightenment became realized, this dichotomy maintained itself in specific ways. Those seeking greater liberty and democracy shifted only to oppose those who still sought to centralize power and authority. This shift coalesced in the 19th century to identify capitalist owner class elites as another form of authoritarian. Though that concept essentially began almost as soon as they took power. Notions of "socialism" well before had already been taking hold as a fight against a very small number of "land owners" who owned all the farmland, and essentially forced the populous to pay "rent" just to be able to live. (David Ricardo was very vocally opposed to this "economic rent.") a greater knowledge of pre-Marxian socialism is necessary to understand the use of the word in this context...

---

To attempt to condense this into abstract theory, one must identify the commonalities as history has progressed into and through the 20th century.

As many have done well and poorly throughout the years, there are several themes which are recurring.

Left has always been an opposition to centralized power, as it always appeals for the removal of such authorities, in favor of "The People's" self governance, and self determination. IE democracy. Many such ideas have been floated as to how to organize such political and economic structure. But the main premise has always remained.

Some consider the opposition to "hierarchy" to be an effective description of this narrative, others consider a more materialistic approach, in which the values, wants and desires of each group are in opposition to one another. See the differences between Marxist and Anarchist methodology.

---

The point...

The main premise underlying this "topic" asserts that "Democrats," and their supporters are "Left", and Republicans and their supporters are "Right."

This premise is entirely illiterate of context, and history. BOTH parties operate under the control of "Donor Class" entities. Both parties are beholden to the ruling class of society, as this "ruling class" has essentially taken control of policy making. This means that BOTH parties are in fact "right-wing." as they are in favor of consolidated and centralized powers, as that is what insulates and isolates them from the potential loss of power democracy might beget.

This is reflected in several ivy league studies in which a study of our policy making shown that the donor class receives 90% of that which they ask in policy, and the rest of the populous only receives 30%. (The caveat, is that the 30% must coincide with the 90% of the donor class, Meaning that we really didn't receive anything "they" didn't want us to have) The illusion of choice. The US is a defacto oligarchy.

I argue that the premise is DEAD WRONG. History and context are both on my side.

2 points

To determine if Jews are "white people." You must understand what "whiteness" is.

This is NOT a skin color concept. But a concept of identity. Whiteness has always been subjective, and a nationalistic group think identity. Italians and Irish were once considered non-white. The notion of whiteness is based in "othering." The notion that some folks are better than others, and should be recognized as such. Supremacy.

This is better explained in discussing what fascism is, and how it functions as a world view in a group.

Fascism is an ultra-nationalistic far-right world view. Roger Griffin suggests that fascism tends to sell itself with significant appeals to "national rebirth." Demagoguery, ala appeals to people's prejudices is a heavy aspect of fascist propaganda. The world view itself models as an absolutist idea of pyramidal hierarchy (hence far-right). Where the top of said hierarchy should only belong to the ultra-nationalistic group identitarians.

The biggest problem is that fascists tend to expand and contract that identity as it fits their powerbase. If you find yourself with a much bigger opposition of "brown and black people" then you might consider appealing to those with skin color that is less so, as you see yourself needing greater numbers against. Suddenly Italian and Irish are considered "White."

Whiteness is not a measure of skin color, but a measure of a specific fascistic identity.

---

And so, with context, we might be able to determine if Jews are white.

The answer is likely not one or the other, but that some will identify and group themselves with the "white identity," while others would not. Having been integrated in those white societies for so long, it is inevitable that some would find themselves within it. The question isn't a yes or no, but "how many!?"

How many Jews in the US support the narratives of white nationalists? Republicans appeal directly to those groups, and their supportive media is extremely sympathetic to the white nationalist platforms. How many Jews voted for Trump? The answer is not ZERO. There is a net positive number of Jews who believe the white identity politics and have supported that world view. But it is certainly not all of them.

It's complicated...

SlimyBastard has not yet created any debates.

About Me


"I've spent too much time reading history and theory to suffer fools."

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Education: College Grad

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here