In case anyone is still doubtful, here’s question 3 from the “Absolute Bullshit 101” exam:
Compare and contrast.
Huh. I think the only relatively inappropirate action here is Libertarian calling Dewey an asshole. I don’t think Lib has been overly preachy nor Dewey overly argumentative. I don’t think there is an implicit understanding as to whether or not the “Ask the” threads are the forum for debate on the given topic - I would have assumed it was but I do understand Lib’s desire to take that aspect elsewhere. It does bring up the interesting question as to whether the OP has any rights over the direction a thread takes.
Actually, Meatros, if you’re saying that there were so many questions surrounding the lighthouse question that it should be its own thread, well, that’s one thing. I don’t think the quantity of lighthouse questions was terribly overwhelming, but reasonable minds can differ on that. But that isn’t what I understand Lib to be complaining about. Lib seems to be saying “you should not ask a question in a ‘Ask the…’ thread unless you are prepared to accept the answer given without further question.” And that, IMO, is a silly position to stake out.
More to the point: if Lib was seriously interested in dicussing the problems of lighthouses in Libertopia, why didn’t he start a new thread? I think the answer is terribly clear: he isn’t interested in answering difficult questions about his philosophy for which pat answers fail to suffice. And that indicates that he really isn’t interested in increasing people’s depth of understanding of libertarian philosophy.
Perhaps a better thread title would have been “Ask the Libertarian…but only if your question doesn’t threaten my utopian world-view.”
That was what I was saying. 
. It didn’t seem overwhelming per se, but IMHO it seemed as though their were a substantial amount of material to be presented.
Also, if I remember correctly, he asked you to post the thread; I’m not trying to say that it was incubent upon you to start the thread; but at the time, I didn’t know that he was dodging some of your questions from other threads (and why starting another thread might not have worked). In other words, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me for, either one of you, to start a new thread about it at the time I responded to this thread .
No problemo, Meatros
Like I said, I didn’t think there were so many lighthouse questions that another thread was really necessary, so I didn’t bother to start one. But if Lib (or anyone else) had wanted to separate that particular discussion and started a fresh thread to do so, I would have happily followed along.
I also note that Lib’s proffered reason for wanting a separate thread was that I was taking significant time away from him posting answers to other questions. That seems unsupported by the facts (other posters were asking questions and having them answered), but even if we take it as given, I’d see that statement as evidence that Lib would not pursue a discussion of lighthouse questions in a separate thread – a new thread, if anything, would only increase Lib’s time devoted to posting if he fully participated in both threads (i.e. juggling two browser windows instead of one).
I see. That last point you made about the time issue is a good one that I hadn’t considered before.
I’ll chime in on Dewey’s side here (much to his surprise, expect). The point he seemed to be raising wasn’t about lighthouses as such, but only as an example of how libertarian concepts would apply in a real-world example. It could have been toll roads (except that one has been done to death) or just about any other function that society has to perform collectively instead of counting on individual altruism. There was nothing unfair about it; he was using facts and reasoning to gently expose the gap between ideological rhetoric and its effects.
When reality and one’s ideological constructs, either descriptive or prescriptive, are in conflict, it isn’t reality’s fault, although ideologues will try to resolve the conflict that way. Libertarian, when faced with the inadequacy of his ideology to deal with a simple real-world situation, decided to pout and “blame the mirror” instead.
Judgment is for the defendant. Plaintiff will pay the court costs.
Yah, if Libertarian stops and thinks for a second, hopefully we will be embarrassed by his conduct in both threads.
I mean, what kind of teacher (which is the role Lib took on for himself in the “ask the…” thread) berate a student for saying “teach, I don’t understand your answer. Could you explain, please?”
Sua
Well, OK smart guy, what does prevent an aircraft carrier from overturning?
::flees back to GQ::
Obviously the giant superintelligent squids will build the lighthouses.
No, NO, NO!
The giant superintelligent squids are what keeps an aircraft carrier from overturning. It’s the invisible, opera suit wearing monkey butlers who build the lighthouses.
I just saw that Lib opened up this thread.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=151926
Dammit, Lib! I was posting the reply of replies in that thread and it was closed by the time I got done!
But I do think you’re being overly sensitive. Dewey was pushing at the soft points of your philosophy and you cracked under the strain. What kind of person can’t take that sort of pressure in an 'Ask the…" thread?
Jonathan
Like I said, there’s a place to debate. The only strain was the weight of his ass pushing its way into a thread that was itself not intended for debate and in a forum where such debates are, as a matter of board policy, discouraged.
I’ve debated here for three years. Anyone who believes I’m afraid of debate is mistaken. Come debate me. I will debate anyone, including the jackass himself.
No, I truly think the culture of ‘Ask the…’ threads allows for debate and a series of questions and follow ups to questions.
Nonetheless…your wish is my command.
Questions, yes. Debates, no — unless they are opened in the Great Debates forum. Read the forum descriptions provided by representatives of the board owners on the front page.
“Otherwise, I welcome questions about my beloved philosophy, and will gladly go all the way down to the basics if necessary.” Emphasis mine.
“For frank exchanges of views on less-than-cosmic topics.”
IMHO has also seen its share of debates, and GD its share of less-than-cosmic debate topics, Lib.
So what exactly did DCU do that was out of line other than going against your view of board rules?
Precisely, Lib. I submit that libertarianism is too cosmic a topic to be correctly handled in IMHO, and that you put it in the wrong place to begin with. ATGG, for example, was in Great Debates to begin with.
It’s probably just me. That’s how I look at things for myself. I would not crash someone’s Ask thread for the purpose of elbowing my way to the front of everyone and bullying the Opening Poster.
But I think I’ve explained my position, Pun. And I’ve opened a thread now in the appropriate forum where he may debate to his heart’s content. I think that that is sufficient accomodation. Do you think that there is something more that I should do?
[Off-topic]
Check your email, Dewey.
[/Off-topic]