Complaining about me in the Pit and having people laugh at you must’ve been traumatic, because you keep throwing it at me like you caught me doing something. Are you Marley Boat Veterans for Truth? :smack: You and Max are the only people in the 7800+ posts I’ve made here who have such complaints about my style, so until the silent majority comes out of the woodwork - because, you know, people here are so shy when it comes to voicing their dislike for others - I’m gonna guess I’m not the problem.
The Difference, Which I’ve Already Explained, Is This:
I do not attack people for ‘not holding a liberal position.’ I do not hold ‘standard’ liberal positions myself, for example, on hate-crime laws. I think those laws are pretty ridiculous. On First Amendment issues in particular I tend to be pretty libertarian. I don’t hold the most liberal position on getting troops out of Iraq and split with the anti-war movement because of it when “bring the troops home now” became a popular slogan.
So, I can’t be attacking people for not holding to the liberal party line, and I think most people here know I can disagree with somebody without attacking them. I’ve already done it in this thread, and I did it in the thread Max cites as proof of my nastiness.
Max makes it sound like - and probably says flat-out, but I’m not running through this whole thread to check - that liberals attack people not because they disagree with them, but because they have a real problem with it whenever anyone breaks from the liberal ‘party line’ in any way. I don’t do that, and the fact that I don’t hold the liberal position on anything should make this obvious.
Does this not make sense in some fundamental way I’m not grasping?
Wow, speaking of misconceptions… If wealthy corporations and oil tycoons were contributing to libertarian causes and think-tanks, libertarians would be viable competitors on the political stage. They are not. You do the modus tolens. I don’t know how you manage to look over the shoulders of libertarians in the voting booth, but when I vote, it is typically this way: I vote for all Libertarian Party candidates no matter who they are (with rare exceptions); then, in races without libertarians, I vote Democrat for social offices like Sheriff or Judge, and Republican for fiscal offices like Auditor or Teasurerr.
Maybe it sounds like I’m double-talking here. But it’s true. Like Dawkins says, ignorance is not a crime. Sometimes you don’t know stuff. We usually don’t call that ignorance because it’s developed a negative connotation, but it is. I’m very ignorant on almost any subject related to engineering, for example. Don’t know jack about it.
It probably is, yes. But he’s not saying all creationists are wicked, he’s saying that he wonders if some are are being dishonest to mislead people. I think this would apply more to speakers and people who have something to gain by convincing people to support them.
Regarding your independent clause, you have no reason to be sure of that, at least none that you’ve cited. Note that Pew’s analysis said that there were only certain issues on which the liberals leaned libertarian, such as mistrust of government. And frankly, one need not be a libertarian to take a cautious approach to a faceless bureaucracy with enough arsenal to destroy the earth. Regarding your dependent clause, it is a factual error.
It is always upon presentation of compelling argument or logic that I do indeed change my mind and admit error. I do speak passionately about my philosophy, but I am amply capable of defending it by the rigorous test of reason. If you find a flaw in my logic, then point it out specifically. Otherwise, do not assume a disparity where none exists.
Like I’ve always said, and no one was laughing, you make assumptions about people in your posts that you have no business making unless you are “The Amazing Randi.” Since Day 1. And you still don’t get it.
Yes. Maybe you have a few minority non-line liberal positions, but I never see you attacking people on first amendment issues. I haven’t seen you attack anyone except on issues that were far-left liberal… or personal.
But, of course, with your mentality, I’m sure you would say that this:
Go ahead and find the other people complaining about me then. You didn’t hesitate to chime in that you think I’m a jerk, why would anyone else? The business you’re upset about was in a Pit thread devoted to YOU.
Read the thread linked to and you’ll find me talking to someone who argues “we have too much freedom,” which I think is inconsistent with what you said about me earlier.
Nope, it’s a joke. :eek:
I guess you’re saying I attacked you unprovoked just because you said people who think like me are “obnoxious, offensive, controlling, fascist, communistic, anti-freedom and totally bonkers.” In which case, I agree, making a Swift Boat Vets joke was way out of line. :dubious:
But we just don’t know, do we, right? And according to the prevailing conservative meme, “could be” is just as good as “must be”, so until you prove otherwise, there must be some classic liberals in that poll.
‘The liberal is only willing to debate against a person who holds the stereotypical right-wing conservative position.’
‘Why do liberals react with such hostility to an educated, enlightened person with progressive views that happen to be slightly different than their own?’
‘Why has liberalism evolved into an ideological straightjacket that mostly attracts dangerously fanatical demagogues?’
In case you don’t know, this is name-calling. There are millions of liberals around the World – you have given no evidence to justify such wild assertions about them.
And it is a infantile and unpleasant trick to insult liberals, then say ‘liberals automatically take a negative view towards anyone who holds different views’.
How about I state that Max Castle is ‘stupid’ and ‘prejudiced’, plus he always disagrees with me?
Presumably you are going to disagree with that?
Well that ‘proves’ I was right.
Thanks for the apology. If you want to discuss things with people, don’t start out by insulting them.
Well that apology didn’t last, did it?
It seems blindingly obvious to me that Max Castle just spouts biased stereotypes.
Cite? Your postings in this thread.
If you had said “I’ve spoken to a few acquaintances, and they were all unwilling to debate”, that would be based on your personal experience. We could discuss e.g. whether your location, or the level of education of your acquaintances made a difference.
Since the phrase ‘I’m talking mainly about the SDMB’ was missing, plus a complete lack of cites, yes that wasn’t clear.
And now for your ‘evidence’:
WOW! These guys are members of the UK Liberal Democrat party?!
Or didn’t you even bother to follow my link?
Gosh. Well you posted it as an example of what you believe.
How many of your beliefs other are meaningless?
In case you missed it, nuclear weapons have been used in conventional warfare.
And it’s fascinating how your mind works.
You mean that any dictatorship is not legitimate and has no right to defend itself?
What splendid logic and understanding of history.
You’re saying that because Gandhi led an extensive pacifist campaign, the British were scared of a war?!
How do you think the US general population became aware of the raw deal? Could it have anything to do with Martin Luther King’s non-violent protests?!
Perhaps your graduate studies could include a dictionary:
Pacifism: the belief that war **and violence ** are morally unjustified and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means
Egalitarianism: the principle of equal rights and opportunities for all
Do please explain how your ‘real differences between individuals’ applies in your ideal society. Who should have less rights and opportunities? How do we tell them apart?
Nonsense. Do you honestly mean to say that — in Great Debates at Straight Dope of all places — you are willing to leap from “we just don’t know” to “there must be”? Rebutting that would be like kicking a corpse. What else you got?
Well, I guess we are using the term in a different way. I don’t really care too much about the libertarian party which honestly doesn’t have much of influence on American politics (not surprising given that pure libertarianism is IMHO a eutopian political philosophy that communism that few people subscribe to). I am talking about libertarian-leaning think-tanks like Cato and National Center for Policy Analysis which have a large influence on American politics. These folks probably aren’t interested in supporting the libertarian party because that wouldn’t give them diddley-squat worth of influence and they can get a lot done by getting the Republicans to do their bidding for them on economics issues which, as I noted, seems to be what the issues that they really care about.
Well, most people with a strong point of view tend to think that others who don’t share it need to be educated to come around to it. (Look at Liberal and his libertarian comrades who want to re-educate practically the entire Western world to the virtues of libertarianism since the entire modern Western world has turned down the “wrong path” toward a fairly strong government that provides many services and social safety nets.)
But, I find it quite ironic to hear you making this statement in light of the current administration, which has the same contempt but in a much more pernicious and dangerous way. Not only do they think that they know what’s right and we don’t but rather than trying to educate us, they are actually trying to keep us ignorant. They have done this through many means including:
(1) Unprecedented secretiveness, including a re-interpretation by Ashcroft of responding to FOA [Freedom of Information Act] requests which can roughly be summarized as “when in doubt, don’t release.” (Under Janet Reno, the interpretation was “when in doubt, release.” Another example is the classification of most of the details of the missile defense tests, which had previously been unclassified and had allowed groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists to point out the obvious flaws in the tests.
(2) Attempts to limit Congressional oversight (one example again being of the missile defense program).
(3) A lowering of the public discourse with unprecedented use of deceptive rhetoric and semantic abuse to mislead people.
(4) Attempts to withhold (or edit) scientific information from the public on issues such as global warming and various public health issues, as documented by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
So, yes, liberals may sometimes be condescending about people being ignorant of certain facts and such and may want to try to educate them. However, it is primarily from the conservative side that we have seen an unprecedented attempt to keep people ignorant, to actively mislead them, and so forth. This to my mind is much more destructive to our democracy.
Strangely, I am carrying on two concurrent discussions. In one, I am told that classical liberalism so permeates the nation’s pool of journalists that a reputable and credentialed polling agency like Pew has inexplicably failed to account for them all; and in the other, I am told that it is a pie-in-the-sky philosophy popular only among a small band of fools.
Cato’s corporate sponsorship comprises only 25% of its operating revenue. The vast majority of its funds come from some 14,000 individuals. Regarding the perception that it is primarily concerned with economic issues is to equivocate over the term “economic”. It is concerned with the broadest possible economic praxes as described by Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises in his magnum opus, Human Action. He defines an economic praxis as any social transaction in which both agents exercise both freedom and volition. That means that there can be no coercive encumbrances on either party, whether laws of prohibition or central economic policies. Any social transaction that takes place without both the freedom and volition of both parties is an expression of some will other than their own. Cato places equal emphasis on both political and economic freedom. For Cato’s own take, see this page.
Strange. I’ve only started two pit threads, and neither one of them had anything to do with you.
In fact, YOU first complained about ME in the pit: complaining about something that had already been resolved by moderators in GD: in the 4th post of the thread! Using the same ‘passive aggressive’ techniques you accused me of.
Then, as I recall, you passive-aggressively told me to “Go fuck yourself” in the same thread in the pit. A real intellectual.
Looks like you are the one that is traumatized. You bring up the term, and you initiate personal attacks on me. That sounds like traumatized to me.
Funny, whenever I attack one of your posts, you turn around and make a personal attack at me. Haven’t you read the rules? “Attack the post, not the poster?” What does it take for you to get a clue?
I’m not sure if you do that out of insecurity, or to cover up that you can’t make a perfect answer to my allegations, or cause you are the one that is traumatized. I certainly am not.
I recall when this first started, you made a personal attack on me out of the blue, and people in the thread said, ‘What the fuck is his problem?’ I mentioned we had an argument (see next paragraph) and you were pissed off at me still and I would have left it at that, but you had to try and trash me to death. You needed your revenge, your justification.
You keep bringing up the same thing, over and over. OK, I called you an asshole in GD (passive-aggressively) because you seem to be fond of assuming things about people you don’t even know. (I see it as your M.O., still.) I was repremanded by the mods, I apologised and said I wouldn’t do it again.
Get over it.
Guess again.
I’d ask you to go for best two out of three guesses, but I don’t feel it’s fair to hijack this thread with your personal problems. If you want to try to trash me, go to the pit. I’m very trashable, so it shouldn’t be hard. Have fun playing with…
You’ve got a problem with understanding when people are being humorous.
We were in the Pit, which is not exactly a Parisian salon.
If the Mods think I said anything inappropriate, I trust they’ll tell me. Or report my post if you have a problem with it.
[quote]
I’m not sure if you do that out of insecurity, or to cover up that you can’t make a perfect answer to my allegations, or cause you are the one that is traumatized. I certainly am not.
You said you wouldn’t link to that thread (because you didn’t want to embarrass me further) and I called you on it.
Didn’t you just do it again now?
I’m not asking you to prove a negative. I’m asking you to find proof of what you’re saying.
Interpreting the JOKE I made as a personal attack is a little oversensitive of you. I do think "the people … that are representing themselves as “Liberals” (with a capital “L”) these days are obnoxious, offensive, controlling, fascist, communistic, anti-freedom and totally bonkers.
Cite? Check out this thread for starters" counts as a bit of a provocation.
You don’t have to look very far for an example of disparity between your rhetoric and reality. Read your post again. I spoke of opinion based on observation and you reduce that to mere assumption. Cute trick.
No…But, you are missing my point here. My point is that, while the libertarian party itself is small, the ideas of groups like Cato and others have been enormously important. And, they have a web of alliances with conservatives and Republicans…In fact, as I was trying to argue, the libertarian cause has been co-opted by these groups so that, while they give some lip-service to various civil libertarian issues, they spend most of their time on the sort of economics issues where they align with the conservatives and Republicans.
I would conjecture that if you actually looked at Cato’s influence on the political scene, whether it be by their cites in the media, testimony before Congress, or whatever, you would find that the large majority are in support of the “conservative” position on an economics issue, not a “liberal” position on some sort of civil liberties thing like drug legalization or what have you.
And, while it does seem to be true that direct money from corporations compromise a minority of Cato’s revenues, the individuals include some very wealthy individuals with corporate connections. One of the co-founders is David Koch, an oil baron and the Koch family foundations and in through at least the early 90s it was a big contributor:
More recently, their funding seems to have shifted:
And, while Cato has been critical of the civil liberties record of the Bush Administration, they have also occasionally had some strange reactions for a group that talks so much of liberty:
When I think of Cato, I don’t think of the ACLU out there defending civil liberties. I think of a group that has primarily made its mark by aggressive defense of property rights, attacks on government programs like welfare and affirmative action, and attacks on environmental and health regulations on issues ranging from smoking to climate change.
