Actually I think there is something that bothers me about Lib. When he is backed into a corner and can no longer offer a response (either because he has none or he has explained it as good as he can… and that’s a matter of perspective) he falls back on an appeal to authority. That bothers me; sure, I hate appeals to authority from everyone, but for him especially, he’ll quote a passage and then the response is only to say “tu quoque” or some other fallacy. So it is just that I perceive that as sort of strange.
Not that I’m some authority about debating, of course. Yeah, sure, I make some silly arguments now and again. No, really, I do! Honest!
This person in question started one of these threads about me. I didn’t like it. He called me names. I called him names. Do I get to call him more names now?
Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick, Lib and I get along so well he recently started a pit thread about me, and I think that the OP is just lame. Let him who is calling out roast cast the first coal, or something like that. I swear, I just popped in from the other thread, all fired up to slam on Lib, and that weak start just made me lose interest.
A libertarian is a person who opposes the initiation of force and fraud.
Mkl12 wrote
It all started with an old Life magazine (or it might have been Look) from the 1930s that I saw as a kid in the mid 1960s. It was an issue about Futurology. It had all the standard fare projections of an optimistic future: rocket cars, Mars colonies, and so forth. One particular illustration was a woman with what looked like a stocking stretch over her head, and a caption that read: “Women of the 1960s will wear helmet shaped hats made of celluloid.” Needless to say, that prediction turned out to be the very antithesis of 1960s women. For some reason, I thought it was very funny then, and I still do.
Thanks
…to everyone in this thread, both for your affirmations and criticisms. I’ve learned more from all of you than you will ever know.
Libertarian has the ability to push so many of my buttons at once that my mental circuit breaker kicks off, and I have no doubt that someday he and I will get into it, but this OP is just weak.
You gotta problem with Lib? Flame him. Criticize him, with links to what you’re talking about. Rip him a new one. But inviting everyone else to pile on because you have a number of vague, unspecified complaints? That’s just lazy.
The thing that annoys me most about Lib is the fact that he uses the word “quantum” in his Location listing. Sounds like an episode of Star Trek, the rat bastard…
One thing I hate about Libertarian is that he doesn’t provide me with beer, the lack of which renders me unable to understand half his posts - y’know, the ones with long words.
But the main reason I hate him is that I’m unable to write posts about things that concern me with even a hint of the skill and passion he can.
The literate bastard should have been Romani.
Also, despite much begging and pleading, he still refuses to adopt me.
OK, I was going to post this in a GD thread on Judgment Day but I thought that might be considered hijacking. I thought about creating a new Pit thread for lack of a better forum, but when I saw how many were already in existence I thought the addition of one more might make the poor guy’s head explode. So, in the hopes that you’ll find this post and respond to it:
Dear Libertarian,
Your concept of God, as I understand it, is very appealing, and I’m not interested in attacking your beliefs. However, since I come across your arguments in so many threads, I would like some help in understanding your reasoning. I don’t know Greek, I’ve forgotten most of my Latin and I’ve only taken a few months of formal logic many years ago, so please go easy on me.
You seem to say that biblical passsages that are incompatible with “God is love” must be incorrect. Would it be just as valid (recognizing that validity does not equal truth) to say “God is love” must be incorrect if it conflicts with other passages?
Some of your arguments seem to rely on personal revelation that is neither falsifiable or provable. Do you accept that this is outside the realm of logic and other people’s spiritual experiences are equally valid, even if they seem to contradict yours?
Again, I’m not interested in debting your theology, but in whether you perceive it as provable and opposing arguments as necessarily invalid and/or intellectually dishonest. If you feel you’ve addressed these questions in another thread, feel free to point me there. I just couldn’t search through 12,000 posts to find the one.
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a skeptical non-theist trying to keep an open mind
