IMHO, that’s a perfectly good answer and doing nothing other than calling a question “false” is dodging.
That’s really pretty weak, isn’t it? You should be able to come up with something better than that; it’s clear that your a liar, a hypocrite, and not too bright, but you can usually at least come up with something amusing or something that looks like an argument.
You can shove your humble opinion up your ass for all I care; if Lib really wants an answer to those questions he can rephrase them without including a lie in them. I’m especially not going to answer false questions when they’re posed by someone as blatantly dishonest as Lib for, gosh, the reasons I detailed before.
Why, of course! If I’m interested in libertarian threads, get annoyed by Libertarian’s sanctimonious hypocracy, and respond to it, then OF COURSE the problem is that I have a hard-on for Libertarian!
I ‘screwed up’ threads in the sense that I called Lib on his the inherent contradictions in what he’s said or (horrors) didn’t simply agree with him outright.
This is just too funny. It’s a ‘discussion’ where you ignore anyone who disagrees with your fearless leader Libertarian, because disagreeing with His Holiness is just an attempt to get him riled up, not debate.
But, why don’t you enlighten us all. Take this thread where Lib claims that I want to murder him
What was the ‘damnedest to get him riled up’ that I did? Ohh, I dared to point out that there are people who identify themselves as libertarians but don’t agree 100% with Lib on everything, then used direct quotes from his cited material to back up my claim. It wasn’t even a significant part of what I posted, but I hardly think that using actualy facts in debate, even if they are facts that get Lib all riled up, is some sort of terrible thing.
Or how about the Ribo’s an authoritarian liar thread, where you can see how a failry long, reasoned response with specific examples prompted the response of “No, it wouldn’t. That’s a lie. What is it with authoritarians? Is it considered essential for their arguments to misrepresent and defraud?”. Well, maybe it wasn’t the meat of the response, maybe it was me pointing out yet again that what Lib advocates is the same thing as what anarcho-capitalists advocate except that he calls a ‘government’ the thing with the same definition and anarchist would use for ‘private protective service’.
Actually, Lib engaging in real debate instead of the various fallacial ‘debate tactics’ Lib normally uses would let all of us win. The problem with your ‘ignore that guy and he’ll go away’ tactic is that I’m interested in the threads on libertarian topics, not Libertarian (though your and others’ theory that I’m in love with him is rather amusing). When I see anyone, not just Lib, spout forth lies, contradictions, and doublespeak, then I’ll call them on it. Since that’s what Lib does on a constant basis, well…
I’m pretty sure you’re an idiot who’s got an actual hard-on for Lib what with the way you idolize him and whine about people daring to argue with him.
Boy, that apology sounds real sincere, since it doesn’t actually apologize for most of what you said, just one very specific item. Let me guess, it’s a set up so you can respond to this post by whining ‘ohh, I apologized, how could you possibly say anything mean to me after that, I’m so hurt, everyone pity the poor baby’?
Fenris
You’re right as usual.
I just gave him the same sort of response he gives me all the time no matter what I say to him: “Stop dodging my questions!” I could answer him a hundred times and forty ways from Sunday, and his response would still be: “Stop dodging my questions!”
He doesn’t debate. He just asks whatever pops into his mind and is already determined, before he reads any response, that he will multiply his few questions into hundreds. His only intent is to nip at my ankles and waste my time.
Unfortunately, the moderators of Great Debates do not require that participants in the forum actually debate. I used to have an ignore list, but someone made what I thought was a compelling argument that ignore lists were a bad idea, and so I changed my mind and restored all users.
I can’t tell whether Ribo is a bright and petulent fourteen-year-old or a stupid and bitter forty-year-old. But either way, you’re right that the proper thing to do is simply not respond to him at all in Great Debates. After all, if like a blind pig he should find something sensible to ask about, someone else will pick up on it and ask. And then I can answer them.
Thanks for the advice.
Oh, get down off the cross, Lib.
Ribo asks difficult but legitimate questions about how Libertopia would work. You consistently refuse to answer those questions directly. He could be nicer about it, true, but I can understand how your consistent refusal to engage him might make him a bit testy.
'Course, I may be a bit biased – Lib’s got a history of Pitting people just for asking difficult questions about Libertopia. I expect that this Pitting will go about as well for you.
Simulpost.
Dew-boy, you and Ribo make perfect bed-fellows. Enjoy.
What’s this, Lib, you’ve kicked people in the shins and now you’re running away? Use your spine Lib.
**
See? Right there: you’re obviously fascinated by him. You can’t even mention his name without frothing at the mouth. It’s kinda gross actually.
**
**
No. You screw up those threads by turning them into a game of “Hey! Lib! Notice me!” until you drown out everyone else. Notice that Lib answers other people.
**
**
Regarding Lib being my “fearless leader”? Have you read my posts in those threads? I’m constantly questioning Lib on various aspects of his views, enough so that based on his post in the Dewey pit-thread, he feels I’m an opponent of libertarianism. (Whereas I’d consider myself a sympathizer).
**
**
See? Here again the casual reader can actually hear the bile in your voice as you consider the object of your obsession. You must really really be fixated to generate that level of spittle-flecked hysteria.
Is it just me or are Doper-crushes annoying?
And if you’re interested in libertarianism, might I suggest that you open a thread to discuss your views, rather than follow Lib around playing “Hey Lib! Have ya noticed me yet?”
**
**
Cite? For both assertions?
Keeping in mind that Lib just said that he thought I was “an opponent of libertarianism”? And you’ll notice that I’ve never participated in the Lib/Dewey feud.
**
**
Very GOOD Ribo! You get an A+ on reading comprehension and a cookie!
He don’t know me very well, do he?
Sorry, Chuckles, I still think you’re an asshole as regards Libertarian and I only apologized for one very specific thing because I only regretted the one specific thing: the possible “ignore list” violation. That was sincere. I value my membership on this board and try to avoid breaking the rules. I have no intention of apologizing for the fact that you act like a dick when you’re around Lib.
Fenris
Do you think it’s reached full-blown feud status yet? 
Errr…insert “really” between “you” and “think.”
If it hasn’t, we’re approaching it fast! 
Yee-haw! I’m gonna git myself a shotgun and head up to 'th shack in Kintuck. You git the still. Grab yer hats boys, there’s a feud on!
I’d like to take this moment to say that the feud scene in Huckleberry Finn still bothers me to this day. With the one family shooting the two boys as they try to cross the river and stuff. 
Get a room, you two!
Ahh, the Libertarian Big Lie yet again! You ‘respond’ by posting links that don’t support you, vague assertions that involve extremely nonstandard words or uses for words (for example, your ‘unary contract’ which doesn’t meet the ordinary definition of a contract), and long streams of text that boil down to sticking in synonyms instead of saying anything concrete.
For example, look at the thread that prompted this kick-him-in-the-shins-and-run thread. Libertarian made an assertion about child support in Libertaria. As usual, it was vague and full of holes, and his answers didn’t answer anything. “Parents have to provide for their children” is a wonderful saying, and it sounds all warm and fuzzy to the people who’s lips are locked tightly to Libertarian’s ass. But as we all know, deciding exactly who is responsible for a child is rather complicated in the real world, as is deciding exactly who is a child. How did Lib respond when asked about this? He threw in his whacko-words like ‘unary contract’, but it boiled down to ‘whoever we consider parents have to provide for whoever we consider children’ without any clarification on who is a parent and who a child, or how one goes about consenting to the ‘unary contract’ or getting out of the ‘unary contract’. Lib’s alleged ‘answer’ doesn’t even tell me whether under his system a woman getting an abortion at 2 months is the murder of a rights-bearing entity or a simple medical procedure.
Yet another outright lie from Libertarain as the links in my previous post demonstrate. The problem, as I’ve pointed out before, is that I debate all too well for Lib. One needs only look at the thread where he tried to claim to speak for all libertarians and I used his own sources to show that what he advocates is simply not what most libertarians believe.
Ahh, more complete and utter bullshit. Isn’t there a comandment about bearing false witness somewhere, or does that not apply to you personally?
If the moderators of GD required that people engage in debate, your pathetic, hypocritical whining would have been cut years ago.
I can’t figure out why Libertarian is so intellectually dishonest that he feels redefining a few words gives him a free pass to claiming sainthood, but I imagine spouting insults makes him feel better. Hell, let’s look at a few questions Lib has decided to not answer because they’re so, so terrible in the past:
On a thread where Lib reiterated the 'ol Ontological argument as proof for the god he believe in, answering ‘what relevance is there between the god of this argument and God from the Bible, who is has different characteristcs?’ was just too hard for him. Obviously, this question was grossly unfair because it showed one of the two fundamental problems with the ontological argument.
On the thread I referenced earlier, well, is it really so bad to ask ‘while it’s all well and good to offer platitudes about parents needing to pay for their kids, who count as ‘parents’ and who as ‘kids’?’
Oh what the hell, I’m getting bored with this. I think Lib’s outright lies about me are clear to anyone who’s lips are not hermetically sealed to his ass, so I’ll end the post.
Does this mean you’re going to find yourself a new trick?
So, Riboflavin, why don’t you tell us how you really feel?