The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

[Immanuel Can]

still think your a biaset ageinst solcilism, but let talk.

Not "biased," G. I just know what Socialism is, and what it has done historically.

I'm a 70's deocrat

That's a long while ago.

- i do not affirm "trickldown"

Nor does anybody. The term is a Leftist pejorative, not a description of an economic theory anybody seriously holds.

your views? on the "balance" bet gov and fre market?

My view would be that government is made up of people. And while some people can be trusted, a great many definitely cannot be. So government needs checks and balances on it, so as to prevent abuses. One good measure is frequent elections...elections with integrity, that is. Another is limited terms of office prior to re-election. Another is division of powers among different branches of government, so no person or body can make unchecked legislation.

I regard government as a necessary measure, but not necessarily a good one. For that reason, it should be kept as small as is possible, and should strictly be limited as to the areas where it is allowed to interfere. I have a strong belief in human rights, but also in freedoms and responsibilities. In any area where the private sector can function reasonably well, government has no business interfering. But justice is definitely a government concern, and legitimately so. Their relation to the economy is primarily that of preventing outright abuses and injustices, such as preventing monopolies, wage slaves or unjust discrimination. But they do not have a right to appropriate other people's property, except by consent. They have a legitimate role in things like civil order and national defence.

There's a lot more I could say. How's that for a starter summary?

[Terrapin Station]

So no head of state may ever be held responsible for the acts of the country they are ruling. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

What happened to the "unless" part? Answers with nuance or qualifications aren't allowed?

He got you fair and square, you didn't distinguish between the issuing of orders vs suggestions, which is your fault.

But you didn't answer what happened to the "unless" part, either.

[Terrapin Station]

FFS.
How would you judge Hitler's responsibility when he ordered the invasion of the Ukraine. It's not a difficult question.

The folks who actually invaded Ukraine are responsible,

your implication is that Hitler did not order the invasion. Germans under Hitler did not even breathe without their Dear LEader's permission - no fucking way some generals invaded Uekraine without Dear LEaders order first.

You should rather infer something I've made explicit many times: I don't consider the fact that S ordered R to do x to make S (morally/legally) responsible for x being done.

[Terrapin Station]

I did not ask you about the actual soldiers on the ground I asked you about HITLER's responsibility.
Now please answer the question!

Zero unless we're talking about factual info where there may have been deception, etc.

utter bullshit - learn your history bubba.

I'm giving my opinion. There aren't correct/incorrect opinions about this stuff.

[Walker]

since Faux "News" makes up 1/2 of all viewership - CNN and MSNBC combined - that old "media mantra" wear thin.

so you bleive Faux "news" - so you must affirm the media - lol.

bot. drink your kooliad, dear leader is calling you.

Gaffo, I think you’ve adapted method acting to writing.
You’re a method writer.

Check out that troop buildup for the virtual inauguration. Lockdown for the big day. What’s a virtual inauguration? Animatrons today move with more grace than The … Biden. Is he an older prototype?

Hunter will probably be living in the White House. Maybe a reporter will ask him an obvious question or two. Ha! Is Hunter a human name? It's kind of like Rex, or Duke.

This dog and pony show is turning into quite a display of statist power.

Most of the media sounds delighted.

[FlashDangerpants]

What happened to the "unless" part? Answers with nuance or qualifications aren't allowed?

He got you fair and square, you didn't distinguish between the issuing of orders vs suggestions, which is your fault.

what histroy books are you reading? which universe?

what the fuck are you on about you stupid drunk old bastard?

[Sculptor]

Zero unless we're talking about factual info where there may have been deception, etc.

So no head of state may ever be held responsible for the acts of the country they are ruling. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

What happened to the "unless" part? Answers with nuance or qualifications aren't allowed?

So Hitler is not responsible because "unless we're talking about factual info where there may have been deception, etc." In other words because Hitler knew full well the pain, death and suffering that his army would cause during Operation Barbarossa, and his army knew that too. Hitler is not responsible for Operation Barbarossa which he and his generals planned, funded and ordered?
Are we clear now?

[Sculptor]

Zero unless we're talking about factual info where there may have been deception, etc.

So no head of state may ever be held responsible for the acts of the country they are ruling. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

If the head of state is the highest level commander of the military, he is responsible for every order given, including one to invade another country.

The front line soldier is not expected to have the geopolitical expertise to decide whether the order is appropriate or not (unlike the nurse, who is expected to have a degree of expert knowledge about every drug to be administered).

The expectation on the soldier is that he will follow the orders of his immediate commander, who will follow the orders of his commander, and so on all the way up to the highest level of command.

Man, take this sh1t up with Terrrapin Station.
He's fucked up.

[Terrapin Station]

So no head of state may ever be held responsible for the acts of the country they are ruling. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

What happened to the "unless" part? Answers with nuance or qualifications aren't allowed?

So Hitler is not responsible because "unless we're talking about factual info where there may have been deception, etc." In other words because Hitler knew full well the pain, death and suffering that his army would cause during Operation Barbarossa, and his army knew that too. Hitler is not responsible for Operation Barbarossa which he and his generals planned, funded and ordered?
Are we clear now?

If we're not talking about contractual fraud and we're only talking about someone following an order, then the person giving the order is not responsible for people following the order and performing whatever actions they performed as part of the order on my view, and I'd not hold them legally or morally responsible. You know this already (that this is my view).

[Sculptor]

What happened to the "unless" part? Answers with nuance or qualifications aren't allowed?

So Hitler is not responsible because "unless we're talking about factual info where there may have been deception, etc." In other words because Hitler knew full well the pain, death and suffering that his army would cause during Operation Barbarossa, and his army knew that too. Hitler is not responsible for Operation Barbarossa which he and his generals planned, funded and ordered?
Are we clear now?

If we're not talking about contractual fraud and we're only talking about someone following an order, then the person giving the order is not responsible for people following the order and performing whatever actions they performed as part of the order on my view, and I'd not hold them legally or morally responsible. You know this already (that this is my view).

You are a fuck wit.
Osama BIn Laden is innocent.

[Terrapin Station]

So Hitler is not responsible because "unless we're talking about factual info where there may have been deception, etc." In other words because Hitler knew full well the pain, death and suffering that his army would cause during Operation Barbarossa, and his army knew that too. Hitler is not responsible for Operation Barbarossa which he and his generals planned, funded and ordered?
Are we clear now?

If we're not talking about contractual fraud and we're only talking about someone following an order, then the person giving the order is not responsible for people following the order and performing whatever actions they performed as part of the order on my view, and I'd not hold them legally or morally responsible. You know this already (that this is my view).

You are a fuck wit.

If only that would result in me changing my opinion!

[tillingborn]

You are a fuck wit.

If only that would result in me changing my opinion!

Can't argue with that either. Again out of interest, what do you hope to gain by expressing opinions that you have no interest in exploring on a philosophy forum?

[Terrapin Station]

You are a fuck wit.

If only that would result in me changing my opinion!

Can't argue with that either. Again out of interest, what do you hope to gain by expressing opinions that you have no interest in exploring on a philosophy forum?

What would count as having an interest in "exploring my opinions" that I haven't already done? (And especially in the context of responding to a response to me that consists of "you're a fuckwit" lol.) You're not thinking that "exploring opinions" has something to do with trying to acquiesce to emotional outbursts in response to opinions that people aren't comfortable with, are you?

[tillingborn]

If only that would result in me changing my opinion!

Can't argue with that either. Again out of interest, what do you hope to gain by expressing opinions that you have no interest in exploring on a philosophy forum?

What would count as having an interest in "exploring my opinions" that I haven't already done? (And especially in the context of responding to a response to me that consists of "you're a fuckwit" lol.) You're not thinking that "exploring opinions" has something to do with trying to acquiesce to emotional outbursts in response to opinions that people aren't comfortable with, are you?

Sculptor's opinion is just his opinion. It's not an opinion I share, but then everyone's opinion, is just their opinion. In an earlier post, you put it like this:

My disposition is that I don't have an issue with anything short of force. Other people have other dispositions, obviously.

I took that to mean that there is something about you that discourse is powerless to change. I'm sure you are a more rounded character, but all I know is what I have read.

[Terrapin Station]

Can't argue with that either. Again out of interest, what do you hope to gain by expressing opinions that you have no interest in exploring on a philosophy forum?

What would count as having an interest in "exploring my opinions" that I haven't already done? (And especially in the context of responding to a response to me that consists of "you're a fuckwit" lol.) You're not thinking that "exploring opinions" has something to do with trying to acquiesce to emotional outbursts in response to opinions that people aren't comfortable with, are you?

Sculptor's opinion is just his opinion. It's not an opinion I share, but then everyone's opinion, is just their opinion. In an earlier post, you put it like this:

My disposition is that I don't have an issue with anything short of force. Other people have other dispositions, obviously.

I took that to mean that there is something about you that discourse is powerless to change. I'm sure you are a more rounded character, but all I know is what I have read.

Aside from the fact that in general, discourse is unlikely to change anyone's foundational moral/ethical stances, because those are basically emotional dispositions, I've been doing this stuff, where I pursued a professional path for it in the past, even, for close to 50 years now--I first became intensely interested in philosophy around late 1972/early 1973. So I've been around the block multiple times. It's not often that I run into any ideas on boards that I haven't already run into many times. It's not that that's impossible, it's just unlikely, especially as so many people on boards like this are basically trying to recreate the wheel. Relatively novel exhibits of crazy are another issue, like the guy I've been going back and forth with who believes that different words can refer to the same thing, but the same word on different occasions can not. (And that's one reason I'm intrigued by the crazies, because at least they can provide something novel--some new twist on lunacy, and I find it an interesting challenge to see if I can get them to be a little less crazy, assuming that they're not just trolling, which I'm never sure of.)