What exactly is your problem with me? Why do I impress you as a witless fuck who banged his head on a brick wall yesterday and suddenly conceived the Most Evil Philosophy ® in the history of man? Why do you debate with nothing but questions and then balk so predictably when I answer them? Why do you tell lies about what I believe and then assign them to me? Why do you rehash the same old shit over and over and over and over?
Why do you think I should give you even the time of day, much less debate with you? Is this how you do things in real life? Do you walk up to strangers and start barking at them and chomping at their ankles because they’re libertarians? Do you go around taunting people just because they rightly think you’re crazy? Are you a jackass every waking moment, or only here at StraightDope?
Have you ever formulated a coherent argument in your life? Have you ever debated without blatant dishonesty? Do you kick people in the shin, and then run away yelling, “Ha, I’ve beaten you!”? Are you the completely unredeemable prick that you present yourself as, or is there a brain cell left in your head somewhere? Are you deliberately obtuse, or is it some sort of frontal lobe damage?
This is a better forum for you, isn’t it? After all, here you and I both can “debate” on your level, right?
Maybe you guys could wear pins and we could just hold up a little card or something? Nobody gets bitten, nobody gets shot, but the message gets passed along. It’d probably save a lot of time all around.
You’re a sanctimonious hypocrite who isn’t interested in real debate (though you pretend to be). This gets shown by the fact that you can’t handle it if someone fails to say ‘gosh, that Lib is right!’ by the second post in a thread; either they didn’t read some multiple-novels-of-text that you linked to, or they read it and used it to support their case, or they presumed the normal definition of a word was being used instead of the special Libertarian one, or committed some other crime in the eyes of Libertarian.
Further, people like you who say ‘Libertarianism is great, here let me show you how by redefining a bunch of words, making unsupported assertions, and using really screwed up arguments, and lets be sure that I tell you that Libertarianism is about privitizing roads and, by the way, I refuse to disclose any information on how we’ll get from the present system to Libertaria’ are one of the primary reasons why libertarian ideas in general, or the LP in particular, tend not to be widely accepted.
False question (I’ve never said anything remotely close to ‘Libertarianism is Evil’, just ‘it doesn’t work’ or ‘the scheme you’ve come up with is self-contradictory’), so I’ll follow up by asking why do you feel the need to lie about me so much?
What’s interesting is that although Libertarian’s Libertarianism is allegedly such a great way to promote liberty, Lib has to redefine the word ‘Liberty’ to say so.
False question again. Why do you constantly use words in nonstandard ways, then complain when someone asks what your definitions are? I mean, you still haven’t told us what a unary contract is, or explained the difference between a rights bearing entity not capable of meaningful consent and a collection of cells that can be removed in a medical procedure. There’s a whole host of other basic questions I’ve asked you and you’ve failed to answer if you really want me to dig them up, but somehow I suspect you’ll go on your usual whining retreat after another post or two.
Ahh, the Big Lie technique. What lies have I told about you?
Because you post the same old incorrect shit over and over and over and over.
Because that’s generally why someone goes onto a message board titled “Great Debates”. But to continue the question game, why should anyone adhere to Libertarianism as a philosophy of government if its proponents can’t explain how it would work or answer basic questions like ‘what the hell does that collection of words actually mean’?
When people get sanctimonious in real life I typically either challenge them or avoid them, yes.
hmm, can’t say that I do. I do argue with people I would describe as Libertarians (note the capital), but since I’m a libertarian myself (note the small l) it’s safe to say that I don’t bark and chomp my own ankles.
False question yet again.
False question as usual.
Yes, and you’ve even accused me of wanting to murder you for doing so!
Yes, in fact I always do. This is yet another Big Lie from Libertarian, I think my irony meter has broken from the amount of false charges of dishonesty.
Do you spout off about how evil everyone else is, then run away when they ask what your non-evil way of living is?
My, my. I’m a ‘prick’ for pointing out the gaping holes in the philosophy you use to justify your sanctimonious posturing?
Your problem is not that I’m obtuse, but that I’m not obtuse to fall into your rhetorical traps. First I try to argue with what you say, but you claim that all of your words mean something different than they normally do. Rather than keep doing that every time you rehash your nonsense, I started asking you what you mean. Predictably, you’re now whining that I ask you too many questions.
Why don’t we debate on your level of “In Libertaria, it would be good. You’re evil for not wanting to live in Libertaria. Read this huge mess of articles about how Libertaria would work. Ohh, you’re so mean for reading an article and pointing out how it contradicts what I said. Now I’m going to use some words in a really weird way and refuse to explain them. Finally, I’m going to whine about how bad you are instead of explaining how Libertaria works.”
A ‘false question’ is a question which presumes something false in the question, and requires that false item to be true in order to answer it in simple manner. The cannonical example of a false question is ‘have you stopped beating your wife’; which presumes that you have been beating your wife. A ‘yes’ answer means ‘I used to beat my wife, now I don’t’ while a ‘no’ answer means ‘I am still beating my wife’. When used in practice (especially by someone who combines pomosity and gross intellectual dishonesty like Libertarian), you can pin the false part of the question onto a person if they answer with a normal answer, or accuse them of dodging if the answer with something equivalent to ‘I do not now, and never have beat my wife’.
I think he did. With all due respect, Libsometimes it seems to me that you’re too fervent about the subject of Libertarianism to debate it well. On this subject, you sometimes do seem too quick to dismiss criticisms and to impute negative motives on your opponents.
Lib, why bother? Every time a libertarian thread gets interesting, he jumps in and shows that he has a hard-on for you.
He’s screwed up at least three threads so far (IIRC) proclaiming “I have the hots for Libertarian! Notice Me, Dammit!” and I’m frankly getting sick of it.
Just killfile him (but don’t discuss it if you do), and let’s let a libertarian thread get back to being a discussion/conversation as opposed to him doing his damnedest to get you riled up. Paying attention to his attacks just lets him win, because you get fed up (rightly, IMO) and leave which effectively kills the thread. Ignore him long enough and he’ll get bored and go away.
C’mon. Just Ignore-List him and move on. Otherwise, he’ll keep polluting the discussion.
*I’m pretty sure that urging someone to Ignore someone else is ok under the “Don’t discuss who’s in your own Ignore list” rule (since I’m not discussing my Ignore list at all) If it is a violation, I apologize to the mods. But I don’t think it is…
In retrospect, after cooling off a bit, this almost certainly is in violation of at least the spirit of the rules, if not the letter. I apologize to Lib, Riboflavin and the Mods/Admins, who I want to assure, this won’t happen again.