Dewey, you're an asshole

Why did you feel like you had to use this thread to host your debate about fucking lighthouses? That’s the crassest behavior that I’ve seen in all my years here.

I realize you don’t give a shit what I think, your unctuous pleas to the contrary notwithstanding, but I just want to know why me? If you wanted a debate, why couldn’t you open a fucking GD thread? People don’t barge into the “Ask the Muslim” threads so they can rant about contradictions in the Qu’ran. They don’t hijack the “Ask the Gay Guy” thread so they can preach about the evils of homosexuality. Not unless they’re jerks.

I do not need what you call respect. It is not only meaningless, but a burden besides. I pleaded with you to let it go or take it elsewhere, but you thought that nothing in the world was more important to you than shitting in my thread.

Fuck it. I don’t even care. I’m not even coming back here to see if you’ve answered. It goes without saying that you will neither admit that you did anything wrong nor apologize.

I just wanted to let you know that I respect you the same way you respect me.

Soooooo…does this mean you’re not going to answer my question about committment of the mentally ill?

This thread is uncannily like BZ00000’s “Ask The Guy Who Won’t Ever Post To This Thread Again Guy”.

Heh. Has anyone seen Lib and BZ00000 in the same room at the same time? :slight_smile:

Perhaps not at the same time, but in the same thread…

Also, Dewey, I think it would help if you had opened a thread to actually debate the lighthouse question. It seems to me that you were hijacking his “ask the” thread a little bit.

I didn’t know playing along was a requisite in those types of threads. I would say that theories show their strength by how well they stand up to such scrutiny and difficult questions.

We’ve had many threads about how we should abolish all money and property and everybody would be happy and work for nothing and just take what they need. The problem is that they don’t stand up to scrutiny and it seems neither does the theory being proposed in the thread that originated this one.

People can, and have, debated serious issues in the other (serious) Ask The… threads. You do not get to be the unquestioned font of the great Libertarian philosophy.

Dewey was behaving perfectly civilly towards you. I see no evidence of preaching. Preaching is, “Libertarianism is evil because blah, blah, blah.” He was asking questions: Can one own New York harbour? Who runs the lighthouses? How would you deal with the following consequences thereof?

This thread frankly makes you come off as someone who gets the screaming meemies whenever someone brings up a sticky question in your philosophy and comes and kvetches about it in the Pit rather than dealing with it.

You told people to ask questions. Dewey is doing so. Bitching about it makes you look like someone who is afraid of questioning.

Meatros, he’d already been pitted twice, but ran off and started the thread under debate.

Scrutiny is one thing, but I think the problem was that the “lighthouse” question was taking over the entire discussion. The answer Lib gave satisfied the question (IMHO) at least in non-debating terms. It seemed as though Lib would’ve debated him further (and Lib was debating him quite extensively), but wanted to do so in a different forum. Either one of them could’ve started the thread elsewhere.

I don’t follow you; who had been pitted twice?

The guy who started the thread under debate. Libertarian.

Meatros: The lighthouse discussion started as a question: “*n a perfect libertarian society, who pays for lighthouses?”

His answer (“the owner”) raised other related questions, which I asked.

An “Ask the…” thread ought not be a license to require posters to accept your answers at face value. It seems to me that Lib was more interested in preaching the gospel of libertarianism than he was to really answering legitmate questions about his philosophy.

Here’s one. It contains a link to the other one.

Ask the sailor thread:

Ok, I am a sailor and I know about boats and ships and lighthouses. Ask me anything you’d like to know.

Q. Why don’t airplane carriers fall over since they look so top heavy?

A. Because the legislative of the USA which makes all laws, has suspended the law of gravity in what it pertains to US naval vessels. This does not apply to civilian vessels which are subject to ordinary laws.

Q. Are you sure about that?

A. Yes.

Q. I’m still not convinced.

A. Actually there’s another reason and it is that airplane carriers carry airplans on their decks. As we all know airplanes are made in such way that they can exert negative gravity, that is why they can fly. When the airplanes are stationed on the carrier’s deck, they exert an upward force which tends to keep the ship upright.

Q. You really believe that?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you sure you know what you’re talking about?

A. I am an expert.

Q. Can you prove that?

A. Look I am getting tired of your tone and i’m closing this thread and taking my ball and going home. I am trying to disseminate some knowledge and all I get is an asshole who wants to spoil the whole thing. Assholes. Don’t they know that these things only work if you believe in them? Sheesh!

Yes and no. I think it’s fair enought that Lib be asked questions - and difficult ones - but if you want to debate his answers it would be nice to take it elsewhere.

BTW, I’ve read the Coase article on lighthouses and he does indeed confuse government provision of lighthouses with government production of lighthouses.

hawthorn, the whole point was that he wouldn’t answer questions “elsewhere”. Still won’t.

I understand that, and I agree with it. I suppose my point was that maybe an entire seperate post, in GD, should have been in order, mainly because, IMHO, the question seemed to elicit a huge discussion on it, and again IMHO, seem to detract from the “Ask the…” topic. IMHO, I think it would have made for a solid debate on it’s own, **that’s why ** I think it should have had it’s own topic-do you see what I’m saying? I don’t know if I’m being very clear. As I said, either of you two could have done it, (I suppose I could to, but I REALLY don’t think I could do either side of the debate any justice).

Ah…If that’s the case, nevermind. I thought, all things being equal, that the “Lighthouse” question deserved it’s own debate.


Y’know buddy. I hate to say “I told you so.,” but I told you so.