Well, yes, I will agree that Lib does rather tend to leave his statements at the axiomatic level, and leave the reader to make the exact same inferences he does. And it irritates me too, since I feel like I see what inference he wants me to make, yet won’t express it. I just tend to think that we’re pretty much all guilty (on some level) of believing our personal fundamental axioms to be self-evident - it’s just that Lib’s are uncommon enough to be challenged by a significant number of posters. I think it’s this that is key - most other people have some concept of social welfare that guides their thinking which implicitly informs their viewpoints but doesn’t get questioned in the explicit way that Lib’s viewpoint does.
In much the same vein (and again, I realise you haven’t espoused this viewpoint), I see people denouncing the widening inequality gap as something we should all be ashamed of, as if the utility of the wealthy in some way decreases the utility of the poor. We all make bald statements that expose our basic assumptions, and Lib is no more immune to these than you or I. Maybe he’s more prone to them, maybe not, but I have a hard time singling him out as an exemplar of such behaviour.
In the interests of full disclosure, of course, I should point out at this juncture that I have a great deal of time for the libertarian principles, and at present would describe them as my personal guiding philosophies (although I’m pragmatic enough to realise that libertaria will never exist). So maybe I’m biased.
Don’t you see, Lib? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” What better place to practice? and practice…and practice…
Simple words, but damn hard work. And it’s done – one. post. at. a. time.
We are real people behind these names. We have long histories that trail behind us. Not everyone here has the insight that you have been given or the obligations that you have chosen for yourself. More is required of you and you know what I’m talking about.
I double dog dare you to make peace with your “enemy.”
I’ve said numerous times, including in many of those threads in the link list, that I find much of value in libertarianism. I think that a pure libertarian state is a singularly bad idea, but much of what the philosophy stands for informs my view of the world: a minimal state, personal responsibility, free trade and free markets, an individual-centered view of liberty and so forth.
Which is why Lib’s attitude towards me is all the more puzzling. We presumably share more beliefs than not, yet he somehow deems my opposition to a radical implementation of that philosophy as hatred for all things libertarian (and for him personally). And it just ain’t so.
And here we have Liberal’s army of loyal lackies fighting for him, so that he may keep above the fray.
Actually, it was irrelevant for him to respond to the fact that most people are unfamiliar with the Biblical reference he made with a discussion of what great literature he has read. That story is obscure, and the Bible is a long book. Few people have read the whole thing, and while the importance of the work can’t be denied, it’s not only a small minority of people who would recognize the reference he made.
As for magic realist literature, Cien Años de Soledad is often ranked as the most important literary work of the century. I don’t fault you if you aren’t familiar with it, but to claim it’s obscure or unimportant is, frankly, false.
Strawman. I didn’t say any such thing. In fact, I have enough acquaintance of the Bible to understand literature and culture quite well. However, I’m not at fault in not recognizing a story so obscure that none of the Christians in this thread (until now) recognized it.
Congratulations. You are the second person here, counting Lib, to recognize that story. To me, the fact that you and Liberal are the only folks who know the quote suggests that it’s much less famous than “To be or not to be” - but it is possible, I suppose, that the people reading this thread are simply an anomaly in not understanding it.
But drawing a contrast between libertarianism on one hand and coercion on the other is sharply dishonest, since it’s only the convenient libertarian definition of “coercion” that permits the argument to work. Liberal, in this argument, took the dishonesty a step further, because rather than refer to “coercion”, which most people, at least, recognize as integral to libertarian philosophy, he set up his dichotomy between libertarianism and stopping peaceful, honest people from pursuing happiness. Suggesting that the alternative to libertarianism equals the deliberate opposition to happiness is childish and lazy, and it ignores the real task of arguing.
Lib is quite sharp at pointing out the flaws in others arguments. Other people value him for that, but I would be more convinced if he also felt the commensurate need to use arguments of equal validity rather than simply putting the onus upon everyone else to prove him wrong to his own satisfaction.
The worst thing I can be accused of here is hyperbole. What Liberal said is this: “Present a compelling argument that peaceful honest people ought NOT to be allowed to pursue their own happiness in their own way, and I’ll leave the philosophy behind.” Thus, according to Liberal, the only argument against libertarianism is the argument that people shouldn’t “be allowed to pursue their happiness in their own way.” What I said was, at worst, a minor exaggeration. Far smaller than his claim that opposition to libertarianism is tantamount to opposition to happiness.
Run along, now, Shodan. No one is interested in arguing with you in this thread; that’s why it references Liberal in its title. Now wash up for dinner while the grownups have a discussion.
Nice job. You completely ignored LHoD’s post, and instead fought bravely against a strawman. I once told Liberal, “Sweetheart, I know it’s kind of your thing to nobly fight against these strawmen, tilting at them like the windmills of La Mancha.” Apparently this extends to his lackeys as well.
LHoD’s argument was that Liberal deliberately used a phrase that could be interpreted in an offensive manner in order to insult the OP while maintaining plausible deniability. Frankly, this is my interpretation as well, but I refrained from bringing it up as there’s not much point in arguing about what underlay Liberal’s statement, especially since I don’t particularly trust him to tell the truth. Like LHoD said, referring to a person as an insect is generally an insult.
Keep tilting, Starving Artist! It’s your duty to save your beloved Dulcinea de Tobosa from the windmills!
I think Liberal is quite capable of blaming others for his failings without your help, Starving Artist.
Liberal, you don’t get to blame your hijackings on Dewey. Your behavior is not his responsibility; it’s your own. You should post the discussions you seem to crave on libertarian politics in an appropriate spot, and the mods will no doubt be quite happy to deal with Dewey, should he prevent meaningful discussion from taking place. But it shouldn’t be necessary anyway; just as everyone else is perfectly capable of scrolling down and skipping your hijacks in discussions, as you’ve maintained, you are capable of doing the same for Dewey’s.
Why would that be remarkable to you at all?
I admitted that I am not a temperamentally nice person. I lean more towards impatience. However, I find the rage that you demonstrate for people you dislike or merely disagree with shocking at times. And I can’t understand in the slightest the sharp barbs you throw at others in passing. That’s what made me conclude that you must be unhappy deep down, because it doesn’t seem like the behavior of a happy person. That’s one of the reasons I’ve refrained from commenting on it in the past - I’ve felt a little pity for you, Lib, since you seem so sad or angry inside. Really, I don’t think I have even an edge of the meanness you have; I think you’ve cornered the market. And I hope that one day, you resolve the problems that cause you to act that way.
Hoo, boy, this is rich! You dare to condescend to Shodan like this? What are you, crazy???
You remind of the feisty kid in an old western who’s a quick draw but no match for the seasoned gunfighter he insists upon provoking. The gunfighter knows the kid is no match and tries to go easy on him, but the kid persists in his silly provocations until finally the gunfighter has little choice but to waste him.
So I’d proceed with caution if I were you. Pit wits wit’ Shodan, my friend, and you won’t have a wit to pit wit’.
Not only that, Liberal rushed headlong into a flat and emphatic contradiction to his slightly earlier post on l’ism. Does this not strike you as strange? 20,000 posts on a debating forum and such an elementary error in arguing his hobbyhorse topic? On top of at least 2 other elementary errors of argument in the post.
There is another voice in Liberal, agitating to be heard.
Since you didn’t respond to me, I’ll deal with both the yes and the no. If you do believe that your post to me was "“conducive to genuine discussion” and responsive, then it seems to me that you apply a different standard for conduction and responsiveness to yourself than you do to others. If not, then it seems to me that the criteria by which you decide to post are different from those you demand of others.
Seriously, you’re starting to sound like that little terrier from the Warner Bros. cartoons that follows the bulldog around going “Yeah boss! Sure thing boss!”
But I didn’t. Now, it seems to me that if I had said what you just said, there would be a queue of people waiting to call me a nitpicker. Consider two people:
Me, a message board poster who doesn’t know her from Adam
and
Her client, the topic of her OP, whose self-esteem is so low that he won’t even bathe
Why is it more likely to you that the first would see her as something insignificant in a world that overwhelms him (a gnat on a camel’s ass) rather than the second?
I suppose that if people say that they are not familiar with the Biblical metaphor, I can understand that. It takes time to read the world’s great literature, and some people are younger and busier than others — just as someone who heard for the first time that there is something rotten in Denmark might not get the reference to Hamlet, and presume that I have impugned the hygiene of Danes.
And you better be nice. I’ve been honoring by and large your request that I not interfere with whatever progress you feel may be occurring as a result of this thread. I only stepped in to challenge the erroneous comment by LHoD that Lib had “called” MissTake a “gnat, etc.,” and then I commented on whatever posts were made to me as a result.
But if you’re gonna start getting insulting over something like my shock at seeing such gall as Excalibre displayed toward the highly respected Shodan, and my very considerate advice to him lest he be permanently injured should Shodan get wind of his insolent behavior, then I’m gonna have to rethink my decision to abide by your request.
And by the by, why is it that poster after poster can agree with the other nattering nabobs of negativity around here and nobody says a word. But boy, let me make one little comment in support of Lib or Shodan and…well, you know.
I believe that that comment goes to the heart of how to discern criticism from attacks. It seems to me that most of the useful criticism has already been offered, and all that remains is pointless bashing from people who say that I bash too much. It is amusing, but not useful, so I think I’ll sign out of here now. Thanks, Artist, not only for sticking up for me, but for giving me insights that I had not explored. I will forever remember your kindness. And I see from your example just how important kindness can be.
Thank you very much, Liberal. I hardly know what to say. I can’t recall a time here when I’ve been so touched or honored. You’ve certainly made the time I’ve spent here worthwhile. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the things you said.
I’ve had it with these schmucks too, Lib. No point sticking around here if the likes of Aeschines are all that is to be found. I’m out of here as well.
