Sabras

Never heard Stefan calling it that. But isn't it "First Principles"? The idea that one thing cannot be and not be something at the same time?

Hello, We often hear Stefan comparing examples to other examples in order to clarify and spot contradictions. For example: If somebody said "Government is moral" Stefan would probably reply similarly to this - "So if I come to you and take your money at gunpoint, that is not moral. This is exactly what governments do, therefore we cannot call governments moral if we have already established that they steal, which we know is immoral" Then the contradiction becomes clear since we all know that this is precisely what governments do. My question is, does this art of spotting and pointing out contradictions with the use of metaphors and different examples have a name? Is it Aristotle's First Principles? Sorry for a silly question but I wish to learn more about this art of....brilliancy.

I was considering homicide unit. Yes, no matter what I do in a public police force, I will still be funded through taxation. Creating a private security company is good idea, but given the how difficult it is to start a business in the UK I doubt it would work out, but definitely something worth considering. I appreciate your comment Cab21

In this case a different company could simply sell their drugs for a lower cost. This has nothing to do with Capitalism! In the free market situation companies would be able to compete with each other by reducing the prices of their drugs. Chances are that there are no alternative companies producing similar drugs as this pharmaceutical company most probably made sure to eliminate their competition through funding politicians who in return granted them political favours. If this indeed is the case, then it is the exact opposite of Capitalism!

Hello, I'm a Police Officer and probably the biggest hypocrite of all time! Long story short - I have chose to become a Police Officer around 4 years ago when I was a statist, and only around 6 months ago I have discovered the virtue and beauty of anarchism. I have already spent years chasing this career, I even chose a university course relating to it, in hope that it will aid me in achieving a senior rank. I cannot deny that I enjoy one aspect of the job - helping the actual victims of crime. Since I have discovered anarchy I am doing my best to make sure that my colleagues are not abusing their powers as well as attempt to educate them about things like - war on drugs, personal freedom, implications of incarceration etc - I mean, anything I can do to help to protect the people's liberty and at the same time dim the hypocrisy as much as possible . Moreover, hopefully by achieving a senior rank within the police force I will able to make some impact on the way police operates - potential changes would involve reduction of violation of freedom - It's a long shot, I know. I rationalise remaining in the force by thinking that once I leave - I will be replaced by someone who does not have any respect for personal freedom. What do you guys think? Is it a lost cause to attempt to rehabilitate the force and the way police operates? I hope I won't be slammed too hard for my career!

Hello, Quite frequently we hear questions like "Is it fair that that women earn less than men?" as a response to valid arguments based on research and evidence. This is a clear attempt to dehumanise the person as well as to appeal to the emotions of the listeners. The way I see it we have two choices, either surrender and agree with the other person or stand our ground in which case we risk being called and labelled with all the nasty words. I understand that such emotional appeals should not be a part of any sort of reasonable debate, however, it is quite hard to avoid such questions especially when the debate takes place in a university. Let's face it, the moment we are being labelled as a racist or a misogynist, nobody will listen to us. Is there a way of avoiding agreeing and at the same time listeners not labelling you as a spawn of Satan?

Quite of a predictable response from a person who most likely will believe their illusions no matter what. I'd say it's a waste of time to reason in attempt to persuade such people. However, even though you might not persuade or able to reason with this particular person, another person listening to such a debate may actually listen to reason and evidence. Also, I think it's a good practice to debate, even with the most annoying/ignorant people, you learn new ways of approaching the matter and prepare yourself for some of the arguments you might hear from the other side. It prepares you for debates with open-minded people who may not be a lost-cause. Be strong my friend!

As a university student who's opinions stray away from those held by general public, I know exactly how you feel. I've been a part of such debates. Starting my final year on the 25th, Although I'm nervous I am actually looking forward to the debates as I know they will involve some of the topics covered by FDR. I feel prepared and although I know I will end up being shouted at and labelled as a racist, misogynist bigot. My understanding is that once they start calling you names without any valid reason or justification, all it is, is mindless name calling and abuse.