Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Conservatism vs Leftism (Pt. 1) | Michael Malice | INTERNATIONAL | Rubin Report" video.

  1. So we don't need to agree about facts? ... we'll just each go our own way !?!? I have a strange feeling that that assumes we can somehow magically isolate any consequence of any ones behavior to their own little instance of planet Earth.
    55
  2. A cult ... Hmm... I just don't get what she contributes of value which we couldn't already get from better thinkers before.
    8
  3. Yeah... that basically seems like what's he's saying. We don't need to agree about atmospheric physics... we can just go each our way and pick our own preferred CO2 concentration and sea levels. Yeah... that'll work.
    7
  4. + t1337Dude I certainly hope you can see the difference in only imposing negative externalities on your local community and doing it on the entire globe. ... and the consequences of the latter is playing out as we speak.
    4
  5. So - is he saying you can sit down and reason with US conservatives? Impressing... wonder why there's still ~50% creationists in the US.
    4
  6. +Edward Holmes I agree - Thank you. As a (geo)libertarian, I've grown increasingly frustrated with the irrationality crawling out of the woodwork the past years amongst people who call them selves libertarians. Nice to know there's others left who believe it starts by getting the facts straight. - THEN we can find solutions. I'm amazed at the science denial from libertarians. ... why? ... I mean... if you believe your ideology is the right one, then it must be because you think it can present solutions to any problem the real world might throw at us. ... but many libertarians instead react to problem (like climate change) by denying the real world and the facts about it.
    2
  7. +Stuart Morrow You are entitled to your own opinions - not your own facts. People insisting on living in an alternate physical reality should not be taken serious. That be it flat-earthers as well as homeopaths. I don't see what that has to do with priorities. If your position was to acknowledge the basic scientific facts and (say) accept that climate change is real, man made and dangerous, but just don't give a shit because you don't feel any responsibility to future generations. ... well... then that's a "priority". Not one I agree with, but at least it's an "opinion" - not just denial of facts. And I can't really see that's a left-wing, nor right-wing position. Not denying science should be everybodys first priority, so we can start with the facts, and THEN have the political discussion. I don't like left-wing science denial either.
    2
  8. And you don't think any of the liberal thinkers like John Locke, John Stuart Mill or Thomas Paine had a "unified philosophy" ?
    1
  9. "I'm sure this is going to get into a long discussion." Yeah... tying this into moral philosophy (and behavioral biology and evolution in turn) opens a huge can of worms. However... being "first" doesn't mean having had the final say and that there's no more getting wiser. Newton was first too ... but Einstein was in many cases more "right". To try to make the argument short... People like Richard Dawkins has argued convincingly (in "The selfish gene") that altruism an evolutionary emergent behavior which can lay the ground for morality. It sounds to me like Ayn Rand is way too simplistic. That doesn't mean that I (as a libertarian) doesn't think free markets and individual freedom is the goal ... it just means that I haven't yet heard an Ayn Rand argument which I found convincing.
    1