Lib's 'Innocent Comments'

The BBQ Pit
21

Spiritus - I’ve a mind to join a club and beat him over the head with it. :wink: But we’ll try to be nice first. No, realli!

Lib - let me try again:

First, despite my many talents and broad knowledge, I’ve never studied philosophy. So I’m not sure what the noncoercion principle is.

But the more germane point is that these comments don’t appear flippant to me at all, and I don’t seem to be the only one. Rather, they seem to be a way of scoring a cheap point in an ideological argument, then running away.

Take that example. When SwimmingRiddles (whoever s/he is) made the original comment about looting, it was (a) ironic, (b) true, and (c) dead on topic. It was about Jesus, and how his action would be perceived in today’s environment.

Yours had to do with…trespassing, and the inability to defend oneself against a trespasser in today’s political environment. This had about as much to do with the topic as a hawk does with a handsaw, and had a very distant connection, at best, to the remark about looting.

It was not humorous or ironic in any way that I can discern. All it seemed to express was a feeling of injury at the hands of liberals who’ve somehow gutted the right of law-abiding Americans to defend themselves.

This is what I mean about scoring debating points: most of us have political philosophies, but we set them down when we’re not talking politics. I get the impression that, for you, the debate about libertarianism v. any and all philosophies more liberal than yours, is a debate that never takes a rest. So you put this bit that is really about how rotten the liberals are, in the midst of a completely unrelated discussion. Since the rest of us came to discuss what the thread was about, we have to either let your comment stand unopposed, or turn a discussion about something else into a libertarians v. liberals debate.

Which was why I responded to you the way I did in the Christianity and Materialism thread.

22

There was supposed to be a big, fat smiley after that comment about many talents and broad knowledge. Next time, I’ll remember to get all my codes in… :slight_smile:

23

Geez, Rufus, I’m honored.

So honored that I’m going to brag about this award so much that people will likely come after you with sticks for swelling my already massively inflated ego.

But as the Infuriated Millions pummel you to death, please keep in mind that you’ve made one young, relatively new, poster very, very happy.

See you in a couple of weeks!

JMCJ

Curmudgeon Of The Day Winner, 1/19/00
As Selected by RTFirefly

24

I hand John the existentional void setup on a silver platter and I don’t even get an honourable mention?

I think I’ll mosey on over to the Anti- American thread.

Keyboard not found. Press F1 to continue.

25

Well, Wally, I said was extremely honored for Rufus’ award.

Now, I shall mention that you handed me a great set-up line, and I thank you.

Does that count as a Honored Mention, at least?

JMCJ

Curmudgeon Of The Day Winner, 1/19/00
As Selected by RTFirefly

26

Yep, that’ll do it, John.

Thank yew veddy much.

I would put a smiley here, but ChiefScott might be patroling the board.

Keyboard not found. Press F1 to continue.

27

Firefly:

I held out in my previous post that my bias might be as strong as yours, but now I see that it isn’t. It turns out that you judge me (yes, judge me) coming from at least one point of ignorance and one false assumption.

If you didn’t know what the noncoercion principle is, something that is the topic of a whole thread in GD, something that I’ve mentioned what, oh, nine thousand times, why didn’t you just say so? Andros’ criticism of an aggressive arrogance is legitimate, but your criticism of something you don’t even understand is incredible.

In the matter of Jesus’ alleged looting, your bias really shows: you said that SwimmingRiddles comment was about “how [His] action would be [perceived] in today’s environment,” whereas my comment, you said, was about how His action (defending His house) would be perceived “in today’s political environment”. You say SwimmingRiddles’ comment was “about Jesus” (your italics), while mine as about “oneself”. You thought the connection was “very distant”, but Poly got it. He got it so well, in fact, that he posted a magnum opus to exhonerate Jesus. He understood my point that Jesus wasn’t the looter (or trespasser); the moneychangers were. Just because you could not discern the humor or irony, you ran over here to make your petty squabble with me public.

And so it is with the rest of your protests about the observations I make from time to time that you don’t like. Andros is right that I do tend to form them for maximum “sting”, but you are wrong that they are never appropriate.

In case you care to know, the noncoercion principle is the root of my ethic. It basically means that people who are peaceful and honest (noncoercive) ought not to be hassled by other people. It makes all sorts of ethical implications about consent, volition, and free will. It is not just about politics, particularly not your narrow view of what politics is.

I guess because you didn’t know what it was, you assumed that I was some sort of “conservative”, because you naively contrast “libertarians” with “liberals” — what you wrongly perceive as “a libertarians v. liberals debate”.

Well, let me tell you just how conservative I am. I am so conservative that I favor eliminating all laws of prohibition: laws against drugs, laws against prostitution, laws against sodomy. That makes me a regular Jerry Falwell, doesn’t it? I favor open immigration and an end to restrictions and quotas regarding who may come to America. Just like George Dubyuh, eh? I am against intrusion into people’s private lives; I favor legalizing gambling; I endorse the right of homosexuals to marry and receive the full recognition of their marriage. Why, you can’t tell me from Alan Keyes, can you?

Did you know that another name for “libertarian” is “classical liberal”? Of course you didn’t. Because your bias blinds you to what I’m really saying when I say what I say. You read whatever I post, looking specifically for a bashing of liberals, when, if you would wipe the thick film off your eyes, you would see an equal bashing of conservatives.

As a libertarian, I am perceived as extremely conservative on economic issues, yes, but I am perceived as extremely liberal on social issues. That perception is due to the simple fact that I think people ought to get their hands off of both your wallet and your zipper. As a classical liberal, I champion what liberals are supposed to champion: the unalienable rights of the individual.

When I was as close-minded and ignorant as you are, my guidance counselor in high school told me something that stuck with me for all these many years. “Your ignorance,” she said, “will be your downfall.” I took her advice to heart, and changed the way I let my prejudices and ignorance influence my views of other people.

I suggest you do the same.

28

I guess this is where people might get the impression that Libertarianism is akin to a religion, instead of a political philosophy. I believe that he was merely trying to point out your tendancy to put anti-liberal asides into non-political topics, which does seem to indicate that you filter every topic through your politics. When you add your style of posting, which is generally,“This is why I am right!”, instead of,“Is this right?”, which usually puts you on the indignant offensive from the onset, maybe you can see what we mean.

29

You’ve nailed it, *slythe. Nonetheless, I think I owe Lib a full reply to his last post, so here goes:

30

Lib, I am relieved to find I understand you all too well. True, I didn’t ‘get’ your ‘joke’, but was because of your delivery. Later on that.

On libertarianism, I understand you fully. AFAIAC, libertarianism is conservatism. It’s one that allows you to smoke pot and frequent prostitutes, but that’s frills. Falwell and Robertson aren’t conservatives; they’re just these guys who want to shove their Divine Weasel version of Christianity down everyone else’s throats. To them, government is great when they can use it as a tool, and lousy when it gets in their way. So forget about them. There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference, in principle, between libertarianism and free-market fundamentalism; perhaps there’s a shift in emphasis, but that’s it. And free-market fundamentalism is conservative; it’s about as conservative as you can get. It’s the essence, as far as I’m concerned; it’s the part about power. The sex and drugs is window dressing.

And while it may be classical liberalism, it’s no longer liberalism because Social Darwinism’s been done, and it didn’t protect anybody’s rights, except the right of the sharks to gobble up everyone else. We’ve already discovered that the libertarian approach to protecting the rights of individuals has as much to do with reality as The Lord of the Rings has to do with the power relationships in the medieval world.

Don’t worry, chum: when you’re “as close-minded and ignorant” as I am (one of the many things that convinces me you’re a kid, despite your engagement to a grandmother, is your willingness to jump to insult with such alacrity), your mind will be far more open than it is now.

31

Side issues:

(1) The ‘joke’. Yes, I didn’t get it. Might’ve been because I was caught up in a ‘what is this BS - did he miss the case of the Asian kid getting shot in the carport, or what?’ stream of thought. But the fact that trespassing had nothing to do with the case of Jesus in the Temple, as Poly pointed out, might’ve also had something to do with it. So if you can’t tell a 10-second diatribe attempting to be a joke correctly, don’t blame your listeners for only catching the diatribe.

(2) Noncoercion principle. Y’know, I don’t read every thread on GD. For instance, I’ve not even lurked on your libertarianism thread. (On the anti-infinity thread, IIRC, you accused me of following you around the SDMB. If I was, guess where the obvious place was to start? You might want to consider whether you like your words broiled or fried.) I don’t know which thread was devoted to a discussion of the NP. (I hope it’s now NP-complete. :)) Your post on this thread is the first time I can recall seeing the term, though I admit it might have floated by me on a thread where I didn’t need to know its definition, and let it slide.

To sum up, I did. And I got a bunch of seething in response.

I wasn’t criticizing the principle; I was merely pointing out that you were responding to my earlier post with an argument centered on terminology that was outside my ken, hence not very enlightening.

32

And that’s why you’re ignorant.

You decide, despite centuries of thinkers who have exposited libertarianism, that it is what you say it is. Now kindly leave me the hell alone. I’ve asked you to leave me alone before, but you have this weird obsession with me like some crazed stalker.

If you don’t like what I have to say, then ignore it. If you want to carry it further and talk others into sending me to Coventry or whatever the clique calls it, then do so. But this is the last time I entertain your Lib fetish.

33

Slythe:

Yes, I concede that I can be intellectually arrogant and bullyish, which aligns me with most of the other people here. Like all the rest of you, there are times when I firmly believe I am right, and there are other times when I do offer a mere opinion or ask a question.

You’ll recall that the entire Atheist Religion thread was exactly that sort of inquiry. Not understanding why atheists think the way they do, I asked them to explain it to me. And I still don’t understand why you see things the way you do, and so I don’t ever start out saying something like, “Here’s what atheists think, and I’m right about it.”

Contrast that with Firefly presuming from an admitted ignorance to know what libertarians think, and then blasting me for it. He only sees the arrogance in me because of his own monumental arrogance. I have seen him respond to people who gave their opinions by quoting them and answering with a snide “Not.” I could go back and pull up examples of his offences if I cared to, but I don’t.

Anyway, I yam what I yam. I have faults. There are a lot of qualities about a lot of people I don’t like, and I find an awful lot of things said here to be offensive, but David’s advice was for me to put on a thick skin. Firefly just needs to heed the same advice.

34

Lib, welcome to the SDMB.

As I’ve previously explained to you, I’m hardly following you around this board. In fact, as I’ve made clear, I’ve avoided some threads where I knew I’d find you. But I see you still accuse me of stalking you. Don’t ask me what you base that on, since you haven’t presented any evidence, even though you’ve made the accusation twice now. If there’s a third time, you’d better back it up, if you expect to retain any vestiges of credibility in this community.

What I’m doing is posting to the places I would post if you didn’t exist. If you have a problem with that, it’s your problem, not mine. I’ve tried to keep this from getting quite so personal, but at least I’ve gotten it off the GD threads, this time. You’re welcome to stay on threads that I choose to join in on, or not, but I’m not going to avoid or follow you; I’m just going to go on as before.

One question, though: how would you have reacted if I’d started a thread on linguistics, claiming I had a way to upset the entire structure of semantics, syntax, or some other linguistic discipline, while presenting a bunch of garbage that showed I knew just enough linguistics to make a fool of myself? I don’t even want to think about the carnage that would have ensued. Now think about the anti-infinity thread.

35

Re libertarianism: I know what libertarianism’s about; I first heard of it thirty years ago, when I found it more attractive than I do now. You’re welcome to call me ‘ignorant’ of it, but you haven’t demonstrated that ignorance. All you’ve done is excoriate my categorization of libertarianism as conservatism, without challenging my argument for that. BFD.

Well, Lib, that ain’t the SDMB way. You’re welcome to find a BBS where most everybody agrees with you; I’m sure you’d be very happy there.

Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time. :wink:

36

I will concede that Firefly might know what libertarianism is, whereas John Locke, David Hume, Francois de Voltaire, Adam Ferguson, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Henry David Thoreau, Frederic Bastiat, Alexis de Tocqueville, Lao Tzu, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Ronald Coase, Gary Becker, Ludwig von Mises, and Nobel laureates James Buchanan and F.A. Hayek don’t.

37

LIB – You surely know that not all those people were Libertarians. Mill AND de Toqueville AND Lao Tzu? C’mon.

In any event, the point of this thread is not to discuss Libertarianism AGAIN – which, by the way, I full well know you are only willing to do on your own terms – but to point out that you tend to drag it into conversations where it really isn’t relevant. You’re like a guy who really loves Kool-aid, and whose contributions tend to be like this:

QUESTION: What’s the hottest temperature ever recorded in a desert?

KOOLAIDGUY: It might have gotten as hot as degrees, so a person in the desert would want to drink lots of Koolaid.

QUESTION: Why did the Roman soldiers give Jesus Christ vinegar to drink?

KOOAIDGUY: Well, they weren’t really trying to quench his thirst but to torture him; if they wanted to quench his thirst, they should have given him some Koolaid.

Your responses are not necessarily or even usually wrong; but they’re couched in terms of a philosophy that may well be irrelevant to the topic at hand. That’s the only point the ORIGINAL poster was trying to make. You did say you’d think about it; do you see the justice of this (relatively minor) criticism?

Jodi

Fiat Justitia

38

The ORIGINAL poster was whining about my bashing liberals, so I pointed out that I wasn’t bashing liberals, but that I was, in fact, bashing liberals and conservatives in equal measure. I can’t help that Libertarians are the only people who operate from principle and reason.

After all, God is a Libertarian, isn’t He?

39

Suddenly, I’m really hungry for red herring. I don’t know why.

We gladly devour those who would subdue us.

40

Oh yeah, like there’s any sort of argument to switch away from.