You’re the OP of one of those threads, and having participated in a few of the others, but I’m not singling you out or anything. That 'lil text file is just my attempt at a comprehensive list of libertarianism debates here on the boards.
At any rate, this is the first I’ve heard of any sort of objection to anything being included in that list. Color me confused.
Hey, I’m all about the love, Dewey. But my impression is that your list is designed to refute and ridicule…not as a E-Z listing of libertarian thought.
Remember, I’m the sensible one. Shaggy’s the cool one. Daphne’s the hot one. And Fred’s the driver. Scoob’s the dog.
“…and *have *participated…” :smack:
And I’d also note, Jon, that I just went back and glanced through your thread, and it’s a model for how these sort of debates ought to be conducted. Indeed, if you look at that thread, you’ll see I pretty much agree with your profferred brand of libertarianism, and that it informs much of my own political thought. See post 14.
And it really is an EZ-Listing that attempts to be comprehensive. Heck, I added the “Sarah’s Gold” thread at Lib’s request.
I keep similar link sets on other debate topics I enter into regularly, most notably those dealing with constitutional law.
On preview: I had no idea you were a lesbian, JC. 
So you’re a short, chubby, near-sighted lesbian?
And all this time I thought you were a guy!
I don’t understand this sentiment.
Liberal is the equivilent of the SDMB word a day calender in that he uses big impressive sounding words of the intellectual elite. Just becuase he uses the language of the intellectual elite does not make him a member of the intellectual elite. Thats not saying Liberal is an idiot or even of just average intelligence but then again you can say that about most everyone that posts here. He doesn’t posses an intellect that would put him above your standard SDMB poster.
To illustrate my point let me stick that post into the ** Liberalizer 2000** [sup]tm [/sup]:
Liberal is homologous to a word a day calendar in that he is a vertible lexicon of jargon that the pedantic cognoscenti utilize. In so much as he exploits the jargon of the pedantic cognoscenti that only adumbrates his phrenic efficay. If one offered a remonstrance that would be a * Non sequitir * fallacy. Indubitably ** Liberal ** is not a * merry-andrew * however he does not command a preponderant acumen compared with the mean Doper.
Phew thats the most I have used a thesaurus and dictionary in a very long time.
I appreciate your bringing that up, Badger. I’d like to point out for the record that it is not the case, as Cricetus indicated, that I was “confused about what it means for something to be ‘falsifiable’.” What happened in that thread, as I recall, was that I maintained that natural selection is not falsifiable — that is, that no falsifiable hypothesis can be formulated about natural selection. It was a deductive syllogism by Darwin’s Finch that convinced me I was wrong. I certainly hope that that isn’t what people mean by nitpicking: i.e., saying that there is a difference between not knowing what X is, and asserting that X is not possible.
FinnAgain, thank you for pointing out that my use of the word animus was correct. I was about to post from Merriam-Webster when I saw your post.
Liberal, thank you for your post. But as I’ve said, I think you’re just fine the way you are.
Edlyn, thank you for letting me know Desmostylus didn’t get to you. It was a kind and thoughtful thing for you to do.
litost, the animus I was speaking of had to do with the over-the-top nature of the anger of many of those in this thread. Pile-ons in a Pit thread isn’t out of the ordinary, but the degree of anger and the desire to condemn the pitee seems to me to be much stronger in this thread than most.
Excalibre, perhaps it’s easier for me to see Liberal’s intelligence because I really haven’t (as yet 
) gotten crosswise with him. When you are arguing with someone over one point or another it’s harder to accept that they are intelligent because you think they are wrong…and, after all, if they were so smart they’d be agreeing with you.
Also, I saw a thread on the subject of Liberal’s vocabulary and intelligence shortly after I joined here. Someone came into the Pit complaining, in effect, that Liberal was bullying them with big words and complex concepts. At that time anyway, Lib had lots and lots of defenders come into the thread and state quite clearly that Lib wasn’t putting on airs; he really did talk like that and he really was that smart. So I started out thinking that Lib was a smart guy with a good vocabulary…and I’ve seen little to dissuade me from that point of view in the meantime.
Impressive, but the punctuation needs work. Lib would have nailed it.
Just to keep the record straight, I have no degree of any kind other than a high school diploma, and have taken no course of any kind in philosophy. I know what I know of Plato, Kant, Nietzche, et all, by reading their books, and books about their books.
I appreciate that list Dewey. Maybe someone (e.g. you, heh) could start a thread somewhere that could be an SDMB encyclopedia, anyone who has compiled a link list could post them. Not sure what forum that would go in but if prominent might cut down on search engine use. (I sense something similar has been done before but maybe a sticky like the “Have a Computer question?” in GQ would be good)
Jonathan, it doesn’t look like an “attack list” to me, though the classification system may be biased.
One other point I wanted to address too, Excalibre, was your comment on Liberal intentionally “stirring shit up.”
You said:
“Incidentally, when others post things they don’t believe just to stir shit up, well, they are not permitted to do so for very long. Since you’ve admitted it yourself, I find it puzzling that you’re still here. But I suppose that’s not really my business.”
Like GIGObuster said before, context is everything. I think the difference between a troll stirring shit up and Liberal doing lies in the context. We all say things from time to time that we know is going to knock over the hive and set the bees buzzing. The difference is that a troll does it only out of malicious intent with little object other than to rile people up. I think that on those occasions when the rest of us do it, it’s usually born of impatience or scorn with an opinion the poster thinks is ridiculous, or it’s an attempt to get people to see how they sound from a different perspective, or it’s an attempt to get a dialog started in regard to the objectionable comment. My guess would be that Lib is motivated more by one these types of things than he is out of a simple desire to annoy people and be a jerk.
In other words, sometimes being a jerk is the goal; other times being a jerk is simply part and parcel of taking a certain stand or point of view. I think with Lib it’s usually the latter case.
I agree with you - it’s easy to mistakenly assume that someone is intelligent because they agree with you. I suggest you work at applying a little more critical thinking in your debates - frankly, I’ve gotten into arguments with you before over your tendency to take for granted the dogma of your own political ideology. But I don’t want to stray too far; this pit thread is about Lib. I recommend that you begin to apply the same standards to those who agree with you as you do to those who disagree.
And if you’ve read what I’m talking about, note that my complaint is not that Lib holds unpopular points of view. If he did, and defended them well, and could hold his own in honest debate, his presence would be a wonderful asset to the SDMB. But what I’m talking about here is his tendency to argue views even he doesn’t agree with just, I guess, so he can continue to feel that he is some sort of SDMB rebel. When Roland Deschain did it, he quite deservedly got warnings, and it was part of the reason he was eventually banned. (Don’t think I’m drawing an overall comparison between the two, because even if I dislike Liberal, he’s several miles above Deschain in my estimation. But in this one circumstance, they engage in similar behaviors.)
I note that, for all his vaunted intellectual honesty, he still hasn’t responded to the post above referencing his running away when caught in a lie. Would that he merely had the honesty of the average Doper; I can’t help but have zero respect for anyone who engages in childish namecalling and then lies about it later.
Your guess is correct, but one hardly need guess. Contrary to what Excalibre has said, I specifically denied (he/she said I “admitted”) posting just to stir shit up. That’s quite honestly the sort of thing that tends to push me over the edge — e.g., deliberately misrepresenting or misstating what I said. Now cognizant of the advice here, I am merely going to correct the record and stop short of counter-attacking.
What post is that? If it is one from Dewey, I wouldn’t have read it. I’m pretty much just skimming yours because you seem to be venting more than anything. Part of the advice I’ve been given here is that the approach taken determines to a great extent whether people will listen to you. Waving a sword and screaming “liar!” is hardly the method of choice for persuasion. I reckon that applies as much to me as to anyone else.
I personally don’t think scraps of parchment mean a whole lot one way or the other. I have a degree, and I’m as stupid as a cast iron pincushion.
I am now curious, though, as to what the hell Polycarp was talking about.
I’ve seen Dewey’s list before, and I believe it is a fraud. It is a self-serving compilation of melt-downs and loose-ends from years ago when he deliberately bombarded me with more absurdly hypothetical questions than I could possibly address, and then sat back and watched me try to type four-hundred words a minute to stay caught up. He represents it as some sort of compendium on libertarian shortcomings. The sheer pleasure that he takes in copying and pasting the list in multiple threads over a long period of time ought to be enough of a clue that his motivation is nothing more than petty spite. I abandoned discussion with him for no reason other than I found him to be insincere, disingenuous, dishonest, and worth not one more minute of my time or effort. I no longer read his posts.
He quite likely meant education in its purest sense, which would not necessarily mean formal education. Self-education is a legitimate form of education.
Oh, OK.
“I do think that word means what you think it means.”