/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4291382

>>4185370

In general, you're not going to get very far here making an illogical argument.

That said, This a very polarizing issue. It's one of those "poisoned well" issues, where it's hard to have a discussion about it in public without causing a lot of controversy simply by adopting a contrary opinion, because people automatically associate any contrary opinion (even a logical one) with the most extreme immoral opinions.

You get the same thing when you discuss racial differences in average intelligence, (which always inevitably invokes Godwin's Law), anti-organized religious sentiment (thoughtcrime!), and anything political, despite how not-political it logically should be (Abortionists like strangling babies.)

So, it's hard to get a logical discussion going. As such, I provide this picture in the hopes of bringing this down to Earth a bit.

Now, going by pure research, let's look at some actual logic:

>>3655750
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Opposition_to_the_state

>>3369778

See: Contradictions inherent in their philosophies.

>>3369782

See, this is an example of reasoning not to use. "I disagree with you, therefore you must be mentally ill." I prefer a more pic related approach.

>>3369798

The problem with arguing with a viewpoint that is not logically consistent is that you have to get them to see that it isn't first. Unless they accept that logic is important, you basically cannot argue from a logical perspective.

That said, I think your arguments are sound and very similar to what I would use. You do have to make sure they are "primed" first, and the method you mentioned before is a good example.

I think this thread needs a little of this:

>>2456766