And your current example is the same as complete ignorance.
If you ask me whether I’ve stopped beating my wife, I don’t have to answer “yes” or “no”. Your Neanderthal comprehension of reason does not constitute my negligence of the question.
Your myopia apparently causes you to say stupid shit.
The question wasn’t whether I favored attacking Iraq or helping AIDS victims. The question […slap… …pay attention…] was which do I prefer the muggers to spend their loot on, attacking Iraq or helping AIDS victims. My answer was that I prefer the muggers give the money back to the people they mugged.
You would need the brain of a cockroach to stretch that answer into an appearance of not caring about Iraq.
Yeah, and you’re one of those guys who think rape victims are culpable too, I suspect.
Liar. My “code” says that I am not bound by your fallacy.
Bullshit. You make it sound like my voice is something significant. I have a voice that is shut up inside a suitcase of tyranny. You don’t get a significant voice by paying taxes. You get a significant voice by having political clout — power and control over millions of votes.
Even a blind pig…
Did you just fall off the boat or something? I’ve been saying whoa for more than ten years. I’ve been saying whoa at Straight Dope for more than three years. I was saying whoa in the damn thread that you posted in.
What the hell does that mean!? I voted. What am I to do, assail the Capitol with a fingernail clipper and demand that everybody shape up?
Said the rapist to the woman who wore a red dress.
No, but you could be honest about not wanting to answer the quetsion. Duh!!
Since you provided a link to the thread, you might go back and read it. The whole point was whether we should spend on Iraq war or on AIDS. Read the OP.
You can read that in your language however you like.
Ah, perhaps I misunderstood. Do you in fact have an opinion about bombing Iraq?
Do you know my gender? As long as we’re stooping, I’ll assert that a true libertarian doesn’t belive in rape. I want to, so it’s OK, is your motto. Don’t let your stupid anti-rape law interfere with my freedom!
Grow up. If you believed that, you wouldn’t be expressing your opinions here either.
Do I have a code? I’m just arguing with you, dude. If you can’t keep it to the argument, why bother talking. Does it help your wounded pride to attack your intellectual superiors?
I can see a case of the sort that might be built by Lib that defense against force and coercion may be an appropriate government action while charitable work should be voluntary individual action.
Lib means me, Dipshit.
If I did, I wouldn’t waste my time expressing it to you. You would turn around and announce that I advocate killing read-headed people or something equally stupid.
The most interesting thing to me is watching how you can establish ever lower standards for intellectual honesty with every word you type. You’re talking about something — the Noncoercion Principle — that you know nothing about.
Oh, and I don’t give a damn what your gender is.
What the hell!? How many fallacies can you cram into a morning? A political voice and a rhetorical voice are not the same.
I answered your stupid question repeatedly, Asshole. Kiss my red ass.
Unless you can demonstrate a more accurate understanding of libertarian philosophy, then you should drop this before you come across as a total blithering idiot rather than a simple blithering fool.
No, you refused to answer the question and also refused to adimit that you refused to answer the question. Coward.
Surely that’s true. Why bother addressing the OP if you can broadcast your ideological drivel?
Did I claim to? I honestly said I’d stoop to your level-- meaning that I’d misrepresent you. But I guess you missed that. You might read what you’re quoting sometimes.
You repeatedly refused to answer very reasonable questions and now you think that means something about ME. Very logical. If you can’t win an argument, throw shit. Monkey-brain.
It could if indeed it were disingenuous and overly simple. If you assert that that was the case in the Sex thread, I respect you enough to accept your word and concede the point. I also offer my apology for participating in something that you perceive as trapping you with equivocation.
You rendered your opinion, in that thread, that the particular government being criticized for its spending priorities shouldn’t even have that money to spend because, in your opinion, they had stolen it and should return it to its rightful owners.
Poly replied:
In response, you declared that Poly, by lobbying for specific spending priorities instead of absolute return of all tax dollars, had “lost [his] moral soundness”. You went on to tell us that all who so participate in the setting of spending priorities, are pillagers and that working within the existing system means we are ethical Neanderthals.
When pressed, you admitted that you vote, you take advantage of government spending which benefits you, and you will continue to do both, but it’s OK for you to do that because you call our system “tyranny” while you do so.
Do you not see any dissonance between your standards for Poly and your standards for Lib?
I take exception to your paraphrases and characterizations, but to address your question, no. And I’ll let Poly answer for himself whether he believes that I put burdens (standards) on men’s shoulders or help to lift them off.
If you assert that that was the case in the Sex thread, I respect you enough to accept your word and concede the point. I also offer my apology for participating in something that you perceive as trapping you with equivocation.