I see in this an incredible parallel with exactly why unwanted and unwarranted interference in the affairs of peaceful honest people by a central government (and in fairness, I don’t just mean majoritarian government — even a monarchy could do this) just doesn’t work.
If everybody is lumped together and labeled American, then you might be prompted to make laws that apply to all of them, this despite the fact that the needs of people in south central L.A. might be vastly different from the needs of people in rural Wyoming.
I can’t tell you how it gladdens my heart to see everyone discussing such things. Thank you.
For example, a person whose only experience of libertarianism was ol’ Libby here might decide it was useful to assume that all libertarians hijack every freakin’ thread to state how it applies to libertarianism!
Ahem. But that would be proven wrong with some interaction with other libertarians who did not do so. However, some harm might be done by the assumption at first.
So, does hijack now mean quoting a poster and commenting on what he wrote? Besides, I haven’t “hijacked” every thread. Look at the one on the California propositions, for example.
Gee, Gaudere, I wasn’t upset by Lib’s post. I just figured he’d gotten confused and thought he was posting a self-parody to his “In the Style of” thread over in the Pit.
I’m not upset either, but if I hear the phrase “peaceful honest people” one more time I think I’m going to puke. It’s becoming white noise; like the “mwah mwah mwah” sound the adults make in Peanuts cartoons.
Oh, and I was wrong–Lib only brought in libertarianism once in a discussion of temparature scales.
Gee, what if those peaceful honest people want a representative democracy with a set of laws that treat all fairly and equally, and are willing to live by the limitations of those laws in order that they get the protection from their fellow man’s possible rapacity that those same laws provide?
And while we’re at it, what if some of them are libertarian and others believe as outlined above? Who chooses? And why?
And while we’re on the same wavelength, what if a majority of them want to have a religious holiday declared a civil one as well, so that they can have it off from work and celebrate it? What about the people who don’t believe in that religion?
I don’t see how there’s any central difference between nouns and adjectives. Can you explain, for instance, just what the difference beteen saying that someone in Christian and saying that that person in a Christian? I suppose adjectives can be more wishy-washy; saying that something is “table-like” isn’t quite the same as saying that it’s a table… But every noun is just an instance of an adjective; every table is an instance of tableness; every Christian is an instance of Christianity. I don’t see how there’s any real difference between saying “You’re an X” and saying “You are Xy” i.e. “You’re an instance of Xness”.
I’m glad everyone had a good belly laugh, and I’m sorry that my text made Gaudere nauseous.
However, it appears that you’ve all already labelled me and put me in a box as witnessed by the fact that, in the post y’all have labelled as controversial, I never mentioned the philosophy that dare not speak its name.
What I mentioned was central government in the context of RT’s post, which I quoted.
Ah yes. But are we labeling you as part of a group? No, I don’t think so.
Lib, we’re labeling you as you. If this offends you, please take it up with yourself.
Lib, you’re too smart to play dumb well. So you didn’t mention libertarianism (whatever the ‘dare not speak its name’ part is about). Seems that opposition to “unwanted and unwarranted interference in the affairs of peaceful honest people by a central government” is part and parcel of your version of libertarianism.
And even if it wasn’t, the fact is that you took a nonpartisan discussion, one in which we were working hard to get away from taking sides, and you used it as an opportunity to score points for your personal political ideology.
That’s Lib, all the way. Yes, we’ve categorized you. As you. It’s rough, but I’m sure you can learn to deal with it.
The point I was going for, Ryan, which can as you note be obfuscated, was that adjectives are descriptors of characteristics, while nouns are categorizers. Certainly I can say that “RT is a Christian” and mean the same thing as “RT is Christian” – but consider the difference between “Gaudere is atheist in her views” and “Gaudere is an atheist” – in the first instance, I am conveying information to you about one aspect of Gaudere, her view on religion, while in the latter I am inserting her into a category of people, and not taking into account other characteristics such as her delightful habit of shooting down flights of theological fancy with the Doctrines of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, her empathic skill at understanding what makes others tick and willingness to use it to comprehend theistic points of view, and so on. I have placed her in a box, not illuminated one aspect of her multifold identity.
Fine. Categorize away. I’ve taken David’s advice and stopped caring. Check that. I do care what Gaudere thinks, but I can’t do anything about that, so…
Besides, if you’re working hard to get away from taking sides, what is this topic doing in great debates?
You’re the ones here <S>discussing</S> dissing my world view. I hadn’t mentioned it.
Lib, I think we’re just categorizing you as you. You’re a wonderful person, but the fact that you can work libertarianism into just about any discussion was at first amusing, and now is starting to get less so. It’s a perfectly good philosophy, but do we really need another “peaceful honest people” post in a discussion of temperature scales? Being constantly preached at does not make people charitable towards a viewpoint; they just tune out. If I was a rabid left-winger, and found a way to work an endorsement of left-wing ideals into nearly every discussion going on, wouldn’t you find it a bit annoying?
I realize libertarianism is the way you see the world, and therefore it’s hard to avoid bringing it up all the time. However, if you want people to acknowledge the validity of your philosophy, it would be more effective if you didn’t bring it up so blatantly in non-political threads. People will just start ignoring it and it’ll have negative associations, so your “witnessing” won’t have its desired effect.
Thank you.
But that would be proven wrong with some interaction with other libertarians who did not do so. However, some harm might be done by the assumption at first.
