SPC promotes anarchism

[SPC]

Logic doesn't change based upon my personal situation. Regardless of whether I was poor or rich, I would still believe that taxation is theft and that welfare discourages coming out of poverty.

You say that now. But in reailty, no person can deny that their political views are influenced by their economic and social standing.

That's an unfalsifiable argument, since I am not poor nor likely to be poor in the near future, there is no way I could disprove that.

But your argument is patently ridiculous and has been documented as such innumerable times.

My argument that my philosophy is independent of my social standing?

[Хahar 🤔]

Logic doesn't change based upon my personal situation. Regardless of whether I was poor or rich, I would still believe that taxation is theft and that welfare discourages coming out of poverty.

You say that now. But in reailty, no person can deny that their political views are influenced by their economic and social standing.

That's an unfalsifiable argument, since I am not poor nor likely to be poor in the near future, there is no way I could disprove that.

But your argument is patently ridiculous and has been documented as such innumerable times.

My argument that my philosophy is independent of my social standing?

Certainly. Find one person here whose philosophy isn't dependent on outside circumstances. Even mine is.

[SPC]

Logic doesn't change based upon my personal situation. Regardless of whether I was poor or rich, I would still believe that taxation is theft and that welfare discourages coming out of poverty.

You say that now. But in reailty, no person can deny that their political views are influenced by their economic and social standing.

That's an unfalsifiable argument, since I am not poor nor likely to be poor in the near future, there is no way I could disprove that.

But your argument is patently ridiculous and has been documented as such innumerable times.

My argument that my philosophy is independent of my social standing?

Certainly. Find one person here whose philosophy isn't dependent on outside circumstances. Even mine is.

Well, you could make the argument that if I wasn't a such a high social standing, and if my intelligence quotient were lower, than I would be less likely to have been able to buy free-market books in the past, thus sparking my interest in libertarianism.

Also, I can name at least a few instances where my personal interest contradicts my politics. For example, being ethnically Jewish, my incentive would be to support military aid to Israel, but I do not. Being an Altria stockholder, my incentive would be to support tobacco subsidies, but I do not.

[Bacon King]

Logic doesn't change based upon my personal situation. Regardless of whether I was poor or rich, I would still believe that taxation is theft and that welfare discourages coming out of poverty.

You say that now. But in reailty, no person can deny that their political views are influenced by their economic and social standing.

That's an unfalsifiable argument, since I am not poor nor likely to be poor in the near future, there is no way I could disprove that.

But your argument is patently ridiculous and has been documented as such innumerable times.

My argument that my philosophy is independent of my social standing?

Certainly. Find one person here whose philosophy isn't dependent on outside circumstances. Even mine is.

Well, you could make the argument that if I wasn't a such a high social standing, and if my intelligence quotient were lower, than I would be less likely to have been able to buy free-market books in the past, thus sparking my interest in libertarianism.

For someone with such a supposedly high IQ, you sure do type bad.

[SPC]

Logic doesn't change based upon my personal situation. Regardless of whether I was poor or rich, I would still believe that taxation is theft and that welfare discourages coming out of poverty.

You say that now. But in reailty, no person can deny that their political views are influenced by their economic and social standing.

That's an unfalsifiable argument, since I am not poor nor likely to be poor in the near future, there is no way I could disprove that.

But your argument is patently ridiculous and has been documented as such innumerable times.

My argument that my philosophy is independent of my social standing?

Certainly. Find one person here whose philosophy isn't dependent on outside circumstances. Even mine is.

Well, you could make the argument that if I wasn't a such a high social standing, and if my intelligence quotient were lower, than I would be less likely to have been able to buy free-market books in the past, thus sparking my interest in libertarianism.

For someone with such a supposedly high IQ, you sure do type bad.

I don't see any errors in that sentence, unles you were referring to something else I typed.

[Bacon King]

"if I wasn't a such a high social standing" and "if my IQ were lower, than I would be..."

but don't take me too seriously. I just love the irony and hate the excessive ego.

[Bono]

Logic doesn't change based upon my personal situation. Regardless of whether I was poor or rich, I would still believe that taxation is theft and that welfare discourages coming out of poverty.

You say that now. But in reailty, no person can deny that their political views are influenced by their economic and social standing.

That's an unfalsifiable argument, since I am not poor nor likely to be poor in the near future, there is no way I could disprove that.

But your argument is patently ridiculous and has been documented as such innumerable times.

My argument that my philosophy is independent of my social standing?

Certainly. Find one person here whose philosophy isn't dependent on outside circumstances. Even mine is.

So? Genetic fallacy.

[Franzl]

Logic doesn't change based upon my personal situation. Regardless of whether I was poor or rich, I would still believe that taxation is theft and that welfare discourages coming out of poverty.

You say that now. But in reailty, no person can deny that their political views are influenced by their economic and social standing.

That's an unfalsifiable argument, since I am not poor nor likely to be poor in the near future, there is no way I could disprove that.

But your argument is patently ridiculous and has been documented as such innumerable times.

My argument that my philosophy is independent of my social standing?

Certainly. Find one person here whose philosophy isn't dependent on outside circumstances. Even mine is.

So? Genetic fallacy.

And that's perfectly true, but you're missing the point.

I'm not arguing about the merit of SPC's arguments (though I disagree with them).

I'm saying that his views are definitely influenced by his economic and social standing, as they are with all of us. That's a completely neutral observation.

[Gustaf]

I would say a person has a right to have his or her argument debated on its own merits without having to respond to personal attacks regarding who proposes the argument. Whether or to what extent our views are influenced by outside factors is hard to determine and not really relevant to a discussion of the issue. It's bad form, which would be obvious if used in less PC ways (you only believe in welfare because you are poor and uneducated, for instance).

[SPC]

"if I wasn't a such a high social standing" and "if my IQ were lower, than I would be..."

but don't take me too seriously. I just love the irony and hate the excessive ego.

My post wasn't intended to be taken seriously either, so don't make a big deal about it.