# Allright, I'll do it. Liberal... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 5, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529 "2005-02-05T16:01:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/261 "2005-02-07T22:09:55Z")
> [@](#): > > _Liberal said:_ > I don’t think so. I’ve admitted twice in this thread alone to substantive error. I’ve apologized to three people for perceived slights. I’ve started a new clean slate with Cricetus. I’m not even being mean to you right now despite that your entire post was hostile. Let me ask you something — you posted that in response to my saying that I don’t believe that it will ever be the case that I am never misunderstood. Do you believe that it will ever be the case that you are never misunderstood? I never said you couldn’t be apologetic. However, saying something so common sense as “there’s always a chance I’ll be misunderstood” sounds like an excuse to not even try to cut down. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/262 "2005-02-07T22:17:09Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I gave my definition of coercion in this thread. Check it out. I can only suppose you mean this part, taken from Post #211 in this thread: > [@Liberal](#): > > Initial force or deception is called “coercion”. What I find absolutely flabbergasting is that you think this adds any sort of meaningful clarity to your statement. **Guinistasia** is exactly right when she says your definition of coercion is hopelessly vague. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/263 "2005-02-07T22:19:03Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, consider whether you would ever believe that a circle could be constructed in this universe whose circumference was its diameter times pi. You might be open to seeing it, sure. But you know that it is a metaphysical impossibility because this universe is curved, and such circles may be constructed only on flat planes. In order to get me to change my mind about Peter having as much right to his property as Paul has to his own, you will first have to convince me that it is a metaphysical possibility that Peter, as a human being, is a non-sentient entity. Good luck with that. There’s nothing responsive in this reply, or conducive to genuine discussion. Instead Liberal is devious when he’s in a tight spot. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/264 "2005-02-07T22:22:50Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I never said you couldn’t be apologetic. However, saying something so common sense as “there’s always a chance I’ll be misunderstood” sounds like an excuse to not even try to cut down. YMMV. Oy. Well, just a page back, people are telling me that nothing is too obvious or too common to mention, and that I should expound at greater length. I’m begining to feel like a wishbone. For me, the obvious meaning was that my goal is to do better, but not to be perfect. As you say, your mileage may vary. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/265 "2005-02-07T22:24:13Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > It’s a small quirk, and it is a quirk, and it never really seemed germane to bring it up. Wasn’t germane here either, but I figured as long as I was telling you off I’d include it :). Thanks for offering not to do it anymore–I appreciate it! > > Daniel It’s still not germane, I know, but . . . huh? If you’re going to sign a name, I’ll use that name. If you don’t want people to call you Daniel, why on earth would you sign your posts with it? I’m sorry, but that seems entirely too bizarre to me. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/266 "2005-02-07T22:26:12Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > There’s nothing responsive in this reply, or conducive to genuine discussion. Instead Liberal is devious when he’s in a tight spot. Let me ask you this: do you believe that your post, quoted here, is “conducive to genuine discussion”? Or responsive to what I wrote? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/267 "2005-02-07T22:32:56Z")
> [@andros](#): > > I’m sorry, but that seems entirely too bizarre to me. Perhaps “quirk” means something different to you than it does to me. I freely acknowledge that it’s not rational, which is why I told him to take it or leave it. If he decides to keep calling me Daniel, that’s my problem. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/268 "2005-02-07T22:43:21Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > When you say that you meant no offense by **calling someone a gnat on a camel’s ass** , I don’t believe you…(bolding mine). What is wrong with you guys? :mad: _He did not call her a gnat on a camel’s ass!!!_ Damn, this is getting tiresome. He said that from the perspecive of the smelly, downtrodden client, she and her offended sensibilities were no more important than would be a gnat on a camel’s ass. What in the hell is so hard to understand about this? If he had said, “You heartless bitch, you’re no more than a gnat on a camel’s ass.” – or something similar – _that_ would be calling her a gnat on a camel’s ass. And you guys accuse **Lib** of twisting words and meanings. He’s got nothing on you. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/269 "2005-02-07T22:44:30Z")
Sorry, “bolding mine” should have gone in my part of the post. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/270 "2005-02-07T23:00:52Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > What in the hell is so hard to understand about this? Well, if you miss the biblical reference, you’re left floundering for an explanation of why **Liberal** would _use_ such an odd phrasing. Here in the pit at least, malice is frequently a good guess. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/271 "2005-02-07T23:04:07Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > What I find absolutely flabbergasting is that you think this adds any sort of meaningful clarity to your statement. **Guinistasia** is exactly right when she says your definition of coercion is hopelessly vague. To be honest, I find the definition rather compelling. Coercion to me is inducing someone to take an action that they would not take, if they had full information and freedom of choice. As such, defining coercion as initial force or deception seems eminently reasonable. What you call “hopelessly vague” I would call inclusive - there are a great range of coercive behaviours. I don’t really have a problem with this; it would seem difficult to found an entire philosophy on a narrow definition. So “coercion” becomes a matter of interpretation. So? So is “social utility” in a statist context. Personally I find the former concept less vague than the latter, since there is a bewildering array of potential definitions for social utility, before we even get in to personal utility. I can see how reasonable people would disagree, but I don’t see that coercion in **Lib** ’s sense is “hopelessly” vague, just as I don’t dismiss all possible definitions of social utility as pointless. And before you accuse me of raising a strawman, I do realise that you didn’t invoke the concept of social utility - I just picked it as an example of a concept on which numerous other governmental philosophies are based, just as libertarianism is on non-coercion. If it’s not one to which you subscribe, that’s fine, but I would be (genuinely) interested in knowing what you feel a good guiding principle should be. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/272 "2005-02-07T23:06:30Z")
(aside to **SA** ): I’ve sent you two rounds of email from Yahoo to your Yahoo and Hotmail addresses. My email is a MESS. Give me a couple of days to go in with torches, hunting dogs and a search party. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/273 "2005-02-07T23:08:53Z")
I think malice toward **Lib** is a more likely explanation. I had never heard the term before but to me – perhaps because I bear **Lib** no ill will – the meaning was both obvious and self-explanatory. But you raise a good point. Despite the fact that the biblical reference has been made and a full explanation has been offered both to it and from my own viewpoint on it as one who was ignorant of the biblical reference, **Lib** is _still_ being accused of calling the OP a gnat on a camel’s ass. How can this be anything but dishonest? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/274 "2005-02-07T23:10:28Z")
:smack: My post above was to Squink. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/275 "2005-02-07T23:12:04Z")
Thanks, **Zoe**. I hope we are able to meet one day. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/276 "2005-02-07T23:17:31Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > What is wrong with you guys? :mad: > > _He did not call her a gnat on a camel’s ass!!!_ > > Damn, this is getting tiresome. He said that from the perspecive of the smelly, downtrodden client, she and her offended sensibilities were no more important than would be a gnat on a camel’s ass. I have just looked over the thread in question. His exact words, as correctly quoted in this thread several times, were: > [@Liberal](#): > > You misunderstood me. I’m not saying she’s a monster. I’m saying she’s a gnat on a camel’s ass. So he not only called **MissTake** “a gnat on a camel’s ass”, he said he was the one calling her that! Your interpretation above may be what he really meant, but that is not what the _words_ mean. I do not believe that any reasonable person could fail to interpret what he _actually said_ as meaning anything very different from “I, **Liberal** , am not comparing **MissTake** to something impressively evil and cruel, like a monster. I, **Liberal** , am comparing her to something insignificant and irritating, like a gnat on a camel’s ass.” ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/277 "2005-02-07T23:21:35Z")
> [@](#): > > _Liberal:_ > Oy. Well, just a page back, people are telling me that nothing is too obvious or too common to mention, and that I should expound at greater length. I’m begining to feel like a wishbone. For me, the obvious meaning was that my goal is to do better, but not to be perfect. As you say, your mileage may vary. Well I’m not quite sure nor quite care who was telling you all that but I don’t see how it’s in opposition to my point. Yes I’m sure we could all infer that part of your point is you’ll try but the other inference is “don’t expect too much”. Or did you honestly think some people expect perfection of you? No need to feel like a wishbone. Did all those books you read give the same opinions? Different people are annoyed for different reasons- life’s a real nutcracker isn’t it. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/278 "2005-02-07T23:26:32Z")
**Lamia** , thank you for posting that. I haven’t re-read the thread and I can see how it would appear at a casual glance that Lib had indeed called her that. But as **GIGObuster** said earlier, context is everything. **Lib** was simply reiterating what he had said before, and he was speaking from the point of view of the client. But his choice of words was poor considering that he had an audience that was gunning for him. While I still don’t agree that he, himself, was calling her a gnat…etc., I can see how it would appear that way to someone else based on a cursory glance. Thank you again for your post. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/279 "2005-02-07T23:53:14Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > As such, defining coercion as initial force or deception seems eminently reasonable. What you call “hopelessly vague” I would call inclusive - there are a great range of coercive behaviours. I don’t really have a problem with this; it would seem difficult to found an entire philosophy on a narrow definition. All that is fine insofar as it goes. You’re certainly correct that much of the value statements upon which western liberal democracy rests are also vague – equality, justice, due process and so forth. What’s damnable about **Lib** ’s formulation is the notion that the answer to any given problem set can be categorically derived from that brief statement of principle. He appears to think the answers to any real-world example to be obvious and unavoidable, as though it’s just a matter of chanting those magic words. Thus, **Lib** resists all efforts to flesh that starting principle out, to give it form beyond the extreme abstract. **Lib** says “I oppose coercion.” To which **Guin** asks “what the heck does that mean?” To which **Lib** responds “it means I oppose initial force or deception.” Which is great and all, but it doesn’t give us much guidance for real-world situations. It just invites another round of definition-guessing: what’s initial force? I can assure you, if I were to say “I believe in a right to (procedural) due process,” and someone asked me what the heck that meant, I could give them a shorthand answer (“fundamentally, the right to be heard, to have your say in matters that affect you”), but I could also lay out some concrete analysis for how that works in practice. Opposition to “initial fraud and deception” might well be a dandy philosophy, but without more than the trite phrase, it really is too vague. It requires analysis and application to actual situations before it truly takes life, before people can genuinely understand how that principle operates. And it’s on that front that **Lib** regularly balks. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/280 "2005-02-07T23:54:55Z")
Perhaps half this thread would have been unnecessary had **Liberal** thought to add “…to him” at the end of that comment. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529.md?page=15)