That makes no sense. All my history is under the name “Liberal”. Why not just be honest and admit that you didn’t know that, just like you didn’t know that what you meant to pit was the poisoned well fallacy. Incidentally, if you think it will somehow bother me that you call me by the wonderful name of “Libertarian”, you are once again mistaken. I am proud to be called that. And I am not ashamed that medication has helped me to be a more emotionally stable person.
:rolleyes:
Yes, I knew why you chose that name, Libertarian. But the fact that, when you’re trying to be clear, you use the term “classic liberal” rather than just “liberal” belies your stated intention: if clarity were truly your goal, youd’ve changed your name to “classic liberal,” since as someone else pointed out, “classical liberal” is to “modern liberal” approximately what “classical music” is to “modern music.”
In other words, as you well know, 99% of the people who see your username will assume the current definition of the word, not the archaic one you claim. Obfuscation is pretty clearly your goal here, not illumination.
I have no arguments with this. I’m in agreement. I just appreciate how you make your points now more than when you were a dirty commie pinko Libertarian. Um, er…maybe a liberal? Shit, who the hell knows anymore. My favorite President is Lincoln, whom was pretty liberal himself. I’d love to throw full support behind a liberal party. It’s just that the Dems have given the term a bad name. (Bon Jovi!)
For now Bush is as close to my views as there is that has a chance to have any power. So going with him.
Now to another topic. We’ve completely hijacked this thread. All apologies for my part in this.
What the fuck do you know about what I know? I am thoroughly familiar with both of these things. Whatever “sub” fallacy you wanna more specifically label this particular form of ad hominem is your business. My initial, and remaining point, is that it offers an excuse to focus on the messenger rather than the message. Your current variation is to derail it into a discussion of semantics, thereby further deemphasizing the actual content of the discussion at hand. Another of your classics.
And I’m not trying to “bother” you, I’m just not buying into your ploy to disassociate yourself from your previous postings. And though I know perfectly well that all your previous posts now carry your newer name, if I were to search them out and view them onscreen. That’s very clearly not what I was talking about. I have plenty of my own memories of you and your idiocies, and I’m not gonna play the game of pretending there’s a whole new you, of which I’ve seen no evidence.
A bit thick, there, Lissener. I very much doubt anyone is going to be fooled for very long, simply because one slaps a new label in place. If friend Sam Stone changed his cognomen to Flamin’ Naderite, would you be fooled?
I had been kinda hoping it was one of those moments of conversion, like Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, maybe Lib saw a vision of Walter Mondale saying “Lib, Lib, why do you persecute me?”, and the scales fell from his eyes and he instantly converted to the Light.
Either that, or it was Yoko Ono.
I agree, elucidator. I’m just doing my bit to keep the veil a littl bit to the side.
I got a real gripe you assholes who are using this word—retarded—in a such detractive manner. Y’all know that retardation is a medical condition, do ya not? Its use in this manner is something I find particularly reprehensible. If people are ignoramuses, or dumbasses, then call 'em that. What you jerks are doing here is kinda like calling a polio victim a physically defective klutz. lissener, this is particularly appalling coming from you, a gay man, who militantly demands the full and equal social treatment accorded to heterosexuals, despite having a condition over which you have no control and affects a minority of people.
lissener, no personal attack here. But can you please explain this? 
You’re not trying to tell us that yodelling shit is art, are you?
Are you?!
[Colonel Klink]
Vee have vays of making you talk!
[/Colonel Klink]
Well, they do walk kinda funny.
Well, one, when responding to someone, I tend to use the same adjectives and terminology they use… I have an adaptive speech/writing pattern that way.
And two, “retarded” has a long pedigree as generic slang for ‘stupid’ amongst folk of my generation.
I acknowledge that some people may be offended by that - it is not my intent to offend. But neither is it my obligation to change my speech/writing patterns on their behalf - I don’t much care for the notion of political correctness.
I mostly agree, UB. But I would never use the word “retarded” to describe an actual “retarded” person. I consider it an archaic word, like idiot, that once had a medical definition, but has become nothing but a generic, slang insult.
Different strokes. I paid full price for the career retrospective box set when it came out, and would pay collectors’ prices for it now if I had to.
eek! sounds contagious!
Oh, so first you mock the mentally challenged, and then you heap scorn and derision on people who have cerebral hemorrages! Is there no end to your perfidy!
Sorry; meant only to heap scorn and derision on left-handed masturbators.
:snort:
Just for the record lissener, my mother is a special ed teacher and i assure you, calling a retarded child retarded is in no way a slang insult, it’s a classification of their disability. Some children at the school are autistic, some are blind, some are retarded. It’s an actual term.
Funny how you derail your own thread about the evils of ad hominems to a long, if pathetic, ad hominem at Liberal. But while we’re at it. lissener I think you are a pathetic little whiner. But go ahead and throw a Buffy quote my way. I’m sure I’ll be absolutely crushed. Stupid wanker.
Now THAT’s funny.
FWIW, Rune, if you’ll read my posts more carefully, I’m not suggesting it’s unacceptable to express negative feelings about anothe individual. I have called Moore a propagandist and a polemicist (what do I, gotta put it in my sigline?). I was pointed out the stupidity of ignoring certain facts simply because they are presented by someone you don’t like.
My “attack” of Libertarian, while I’ll certainly acknowledge it was an attack, does not discount any facts due to my prejudice against Libertarian, which I freely admit. He’ll have to go a long way before I have much respect for his opinion, but I’ll strive to keep that separate from any facts he may present.