[split] Frankie goes to Obamaworld (again)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2013, 02:03 PM
[split] Frankie goes to Obamaworld (again)
I think you guys just don't want to face the fact that the reason why gays have been so oppressed is because of your belief system.

(12-12-2013 01:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So what. The point is what ? Cultural norms change all the time.

The point is that to a libertarian 'cultural norms' are irrelevant. The role of government is to protect everybody from violence, defend minorities against the tyranny of the majority, and protect those who violate 'cultural norms' from coercion.

You argue it's the opposite. Government's job is to use guns and jails to force minorities to follow the will of the majority and comply with cultural norms.

This is an awkward issue for you guys because not that long ago you were arresting, and even executing, gay people, convinced this was a proper response. Now you can see how tyrannical it was. But that brings up the painful question: who are you oppressing today that in the future will be seen as victims?

The law in India shines an unpleasant mirror on your past because these anti-gay laws actually originated with you guys and so you don't like it shoved in your face that not that long ago you guys were the tyrants that you now condemn.

(12-12-2013 01:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They are establishing laws which prevent the SAME free expression of innate, sexuality which gay people are BORN with, that straight people are FREE to engage in, that they are BORN with.

Total desperation. Now you're arguing that it's defensible because they were “BORN with it”. So then if someone was born straight, married, had a family, and later on in life happened to fall in love with a man, and still struggled with his “straight tendencies”, he should be denied the right to marry because it was a decision and not something he was born with? By your logic, then, if a pedophile can show that he was born with the tendency to rape children, then he too should have the same rights as gay people.

The libertarian position is MUCH more coherent and consistent: Any activity between consulting adults that's not directly harming others must be protected. Doesn't matter if you were 'born with it' or not.

(12-12-2013 01:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  BTW, didn't you forget to tie this in with Obama Care ? Isn't it terrible Obama Care has to cover butt buddies ? Tongue

You guys keep saying my contempt of Obamacare is irrational. However, I presented a spreadsheet proving that Obamacare will cost people like me who manage our own health care over $3 million. Sure, to YOU it may not be a big issue because YOU (foolishly imo) have been handing your $3 million retirement to the insurance companies all along and were going to continue doing so anyway, and you were already resigned to growing old and being dependent on government for survival. Since it's no skin off your back, and you guys are in the majority, and you have no sympathy for us minority, you don't give a fuck and tell us to shut up and deal with it.

BUT, this IS exactly what you guys also did to gay people 30 years ago. It was no skin off your back if gay people were being arrested or executed. You guys were in the majority, you had no sympathy for them, you didn't give a fuck about their rights, so you told them to shut up and deal with it.

To a libertarian these issues ARE all connected because they are all manifestations of your club-wielding tyranny, using violence to force people into doing (or not doing) things against their will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 04:21 PM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(11-12-2013 10:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  And constitutionality is the purview of the judiciary.

...

And that has exactly nothing to do with my point.

I don't know the Indian constitution. But in the US Constitution, there are a set of enumerated powers for the Federal government, everything else must be left to the states, and the Supreme Court's job is to strike as unconstitutional any laws that go beyond the enumerated powers. The issues is that 99% of all laws are outside the list of enumerated powers, and thus unconstitutional, and should be struck down unless the constitution is modified.

So, when the Supreme Court hand picks which laws it lets pass, and which it strikes, that really is legislating from the bench. To see this point, lookup the history of unanimous vs. split Supreme Court rulings. In the 19th century there were few split rulings, most were unanimous, because it didn't matter if a justice was liberal or conservative, they just voted based on the law. However, for the past 80 years or so, the justices seem to split among party lines. The original intent of the legislative branch is irrelevant.

A perfect example was Bush v. Gore because it was the only time I know of when the Democrats benefited by taking the Republican's position (ie arguing in favor of state rights), and the Republicans benefited by taking the Democrat's position (ie arguing in favor of stronger central control). Sure enough, the justices not only ignored the law, they simply ruled in the way that benefited their political party, even though it meant throwing their values in the trash. It was comical to see Ginsberg and Stevens defending state rights against an oppressive "federal assault on the Florida election procedures".

It would be like a reconsideration of Roe v Wade, but the liberals find their 401k's are heavily invested in religious institutions, and the conservatives in abortion clinics, and then you hear Clarence Thomas start talking about a woman's right to choose, and Ginsberg arguing that the bible tells us to respect the life of the unborn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 04:24 PM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2013 04:37 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(12-12-2013 02:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The point is that to a libertarian 'cultural norms' are irrelevant. The role of government is to protect everybody from violence, defend minorities against the tyranny of the majority, and protect those who violate 'cultural norms' from coercion.

You argue it's the opposite. Government's job is to use guns and jails to force minorities to follow the will of the majority and comply with cultural norms.

Are you mentally ill ? I never said, or argued ANYTHING of the sort Ranting-Projecting man. It really IS so important for you to pigeon-hole people into your little pre-conceived boxes, isn't it ? You just contradicted what you said in the prior post.
I never advocated "arresting" and "executing" gays. First of all. I'm 20 fucking years old. Secondly, I am gay, you idiot. Project that up your "libertarian" ass.
The question is "who are YOU, (oh self-righteous one) oppressing today ?" What a fucking joke.

(12-12-2013 02:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The law in India shines an unpleasant mirror on your past because these anti-gay laws actually originated with you guys and so you don't like it shoved in your face that not that long ago you guys were the tyrants that you now condemn.

Thanks for making a complete fool of yourself. Bowing

(12-12-2013 02:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Total desperation. Now you're arguing that it's defensible because they were “BORN with it”.

I NEVER "argued" anything different. Nice try at painting yourself as morally superior with THE WORST strawman TTA has EVER seen. Congratulations. LMFAO.

(12-12-2013 02:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You guys keep saying my contempt of Obamacare is irrational. However, I presented a spreadsheet proving that Obamacare will cost people like me who manage our own health care over $3 million. Sure, to YOU it may not be a big issue because YOU (foolishly imo) have been handing your $3 million retirement to the insurance companies all along and were going to continue doing so anyway, and you were already resigned to growing old and being dependent on government for survival. Since it's no skin off your back, and you guys are in the majority, and you have no sympathy for us minority, you don't give a fuck and tell us to shut up and deal with it.

BUT, this IS exactly what you guys also did to gay people 30 years ago. It was no skin off your back if gay people were being arrested or executed. You guys were in the majority, you had no sympathy for them, you didn't give a fuck about their rights, so you told them to shut up and deal with it.

To a libertarian these issues ARE all connected because they are all manifestations of your club-wielding tyranny, using violence to force people into doing (or not doing) things against their will.

You are mentally ill. Thanks for demonstrating it.
I wasn't fucking ALIVE 30 years ago.
3 million dollars, in a country where BILLIONS will be saved . waaa waaa waaa

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 05:11 PM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(12-12-2013 04:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Are you mentally ill ? I never said, or argued ANYTHING of the sort Ranting-Projecting man.

Bucky, grab the dictionary. "You", in addition to the 2nd person singular, refers to the plural. Yes, I was dividing the people into 2 camps: those who adhere to the non-aggression principle and reject the use of force to coerce people into doing things against their will vs. those who advocate the use of force to coerce minorities into complying with the majority.

It pretty much is a black & white distinction. Just take an example where everyone in the latter camp almost universally agrees on the need to use force: Say a town desperately needs a bridge to connect to the neighboring city, and the only thing in their way is some family that refuses to sell their property, even though the town has offered above market value.

Q: Should the town be able to invoke eminent domain and force the family to sell?

1) No, the role of government and the police is to protect the family from the town's attempted to force them to sell their house.

2) Yes, the role of government is to force the family to comply with the will of the majority.

It's a fairly clear distinction. A small minority answer #1, and from that one answer alone, you can accurately infer that person's position on monetary policy, drug policy,
tax policy, and most any other political or economic subject.

The vast majority answer #2. Now, they won't agree on WHEN the government should use force, but based on their answer, it's clear they feel the role of government is to initiate force--not defend against it.

So, when I was referring to "YOU", I obviously meant in the plural, referring to all the people throughout history who pick answer #2. And, yes, "YOU" (the #2 group) are responsible for the anti-gay laws, because you believe the government needs to enforce cultural norms, morality, etc.

(12-12-2013 04:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I NEVER "argued" anything different. Nice try at painting yourself as morally superior with THE WORST strawman TTA has EVER seen. Congratulations. LMFAO.

It's a limitation of the English language. In other languages they have different words for 'you', but in English, it's the same word for specific 2nd person singular, as well as plural. Thus the reader is expected to understand based on the context.

(12-12-2013 04:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  3 million dollars, in a country where BILLIONS will be saved . waaa waaa waaa

First, I'll bet you whatever you want that health care spending will rise, so BILLIONS will be spent--not saved. Regardless, it's apples to oranges. The 3 million dollars number is PER PERSON. The "BILLIONS" is for the whole nation. So, you're argument that every individual has to forfeit $3 million, in order to save the nation "BILLIONS" is absurd. Do the math: $2 billion "savings" / 300,000,000 people = $7 savings per individual. So your argument becomes that you justify individuals forfeit $3,000,000 in order to save $7. I'm not going to hire you as my financial planner.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
12-12-2013, 07:07 PM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(12-12-2013 01:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-12-2013 12:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I think you're chasing a red herring because the actual issue highlights the flaw in your belief system. It's not an issue of equality.

Wrong.
They are establishing laws which prevent the SAME free expression of innate, sexuality which gay people are BORN with, that straight people are FREE to engage in, that they are BORN with. The real red herring here is your attempt to equate sexual expression by those who desire to engage in it, with sex by people who have no interest in it. The equality stems from the PEOPLE and THEIR innate sexuality, NOT the actual sexual expression. It is NO more equal to equate opposite sex expression for GAY people, as it would be to equate same sex behavior by straight people. Nice try, but fail. It's not "equal" treatment to fail to recognize people have different orientations.

(12-12-2013 12:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Today, being gay is socially acceptable, so you guys realize it's cruel to ban this activity. BUT, just 30 years ago, being gay was socially equivalent to being a pedophile. In 1986 the US Supreme Court ruled that anybody who had gay sex should be locked up in prison. Liberals and democrats were not defending gay people back then. They agreed it was revolting behavior that should not be allowed.

So what. The point is what ? Cultural norms change all the time.

(12-12-2013 12:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This issue is harder for liberals to accept because then the question becomes "What harmless, private behavior do liberals support criminalizing today, that in 30 years we will look back and see it as barbaric."

Off topic, ranting man. You really cannot help yourself can you. Maybe there are pills for that. Weeping

(12-12-2013 12:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The sad reality is that the anti-sodomy laws just show the immorality of letting the majority decide what is acceptable behavior for the minority, and even today there are thousands of banned "behaviors" that are harmless. So if you set aside societal acceptance, I don't see the anti-sodomy laws as being any more egregious than all the other positive laws.

Such as ? And so what again. What is your point ? If YOU don't care, who the fuck cares ? Millions of gay people do. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

BTW, didn't you forget to tie this in with Obama Care ? Isn't it terrible Obama Care has to cover butt buddies ? Tongue

If Obama has "butt buddies", that's his own business. He has every right to do his own thing .... after work, of course. "Live and let live" is my motto. I got no problem with it. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 07:09 PM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2013 07:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(12-12-2013 05:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(12-12-2013 04:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Are you mentally ill ? I never said, or argued ANYTHING of the sort Ranting-Projecting man.

Bucky, grab the dictionary. "You", in addition to the 2nd person singular, refers to the plural. Yes, I was dividing the people into 2 camps: those who adhere to the non-aggression principle and reject the use of force to coerce people into doing things against their will vs. those who advocate the use of force to coerce minorities into complying with the majority.

It pretty much is a black & white distinction. Just take an example where everyone in the latter camp almost universally agrees on the need to use force: Say a town desperately needs a bridge to connect to the neighboring city, and the only thing in their way is some family that refuses to sell their property, even though the town has offered above market value.

Q: Should the town be able to invoke eminent domain and force the family to sell?

1) No, the role of government and the police is to protect the family from the town's attempted to force them to sell their house.

2) Yes, the role of government is to force the family to comply with the will of the majority.

It's a fairly clear distinction. A small minority answer #1, and from that one answer alone, you can accurately infer that person's position on monetary policy, drug policy,
tax policy, and most any other political or economic subject.

The vast majority answer #2. Now, they won't agree on WHEN the government should use force, but based on their answer, it's clear they feel the role of government is to initiate force--not defend against it.

So, when I was referring to "YOU", I obviously meant in the plural, referring to all the people throughout history who pick answer #2. And, yes, "YOU" (the #2 group) are responsible for the anti-gay laws, because you believe the government needs to enforce cultural norms, morality, etc.

(12-12-2013 04:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I NEVER "argued" anything different. Nice try at painting yourself as morally superior with THE WORST strawman TTA has EVER seen. Congratulations. LMFAO.

It's a limitation of the English language. In other languages they have different words for 'you', but in English, it's the same word for specific 2nd person singular, as well as plural. Thus the reader is expected to understand based on the context.

(12-12-2013 04:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  3 million dollars, in a country where BILLIONS will be saved . waaa waaa waaa

First, I'll bet you whatever you want that health care spending will rise, so BILLIONS will be spent--not saved. Regardless, it's apples to oranges. The 3 million dollars number is PER PERSON. The "BILLIONS" is for the whole nation. So, you're argument that every individual has to forfeit $3 million, in order to save the nation "BILLIONS" is absurd. Do the math: $2 billion "savings" / 300,000,000 people = $7 savings per individual. So your argument becomes that you justify individuals forfeit $3,000,000 in order to save $7. I'm not going to hire you as my financial planner.

Lame failed attempt. YOU attempted to include me in the YOU, and you know it. You repeatedly used "you" and "you guys" interchangeably. Now you're trying to lie your way out of it. You were addressing ME, not some nebulous "you people". You are totally dishonest. I made no argument about 3 million. YOU did. I see your reading comprehension is pathetic. You don't HAVE 3 million dollars, you never will, and neither do most people, so your projection is patently, obviously false. Please get a grip on reality.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 07:26 PM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(12-12-2013 07:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Lame failed attempt. YOU attempted to include me in the YOU, and you know it. Now you're trying to weazle out of it. You were addressing ME, not some nebulous "you people".

Wrong. My exact words were: "You guys try to dictate..." "things you guys ban" "trying to convince you guys" "you guys realize"

Look it up in the dictionary: link 'you' in this context always means 'a group of people of which you are a part', or in the case of a debate like this, 'the folks on your side of the debate'. Sorry if your command of the English language is insufficient. My meaning should have been accurate. I never claimed or tried to claim that 30 years ago YOU, yourself, executed gay people. That's absurd. 'You guys' means those who think the role of government is to initiate violence against the people to coerce them into doing things against their will, and you have identified yourself as a part of that group.

(12-12-2013 07:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You are dishonest. I made no argument about 3 million. YOU did. I see your reading comprehension is pathetic. You don't HAVE 3 million dollars, you never will, and neither do most people, so your projection is patently, obviously false. Please get a grip on reality.

First, according to my plan the $3 million is how much you will have when you hit 80. I already disclosed that I am only 40, HOWEVER, after 20 years of saving and investing (instead of spending on health insurance), I am already way ahead of where I should be on that spreadsheet, and at this rate my health care savings will be way over $3 million by the time I'm 80. You know nothing about me nor my finances. It shows how you just make up facts that suit you.

The bottom line is that, assuming you're 20 and reasonably healthy, today, were it not for Obamacare, you could start setting aside the cost of a 'platinum health care plan' into a tax-free HSA and, even if you make only safe investments in blue-chip stocks, and even if you have some expensive medical problems in the future, you will still have well over $3 million in your HSA when you hit retirement. Now you don't have the option; you have to instead give the money to an insurance company that will keep raising your rates every year until you're old and too high risk and then they'll cancel your policy. So YOU'RE the one who gets screwed by the ACA. It doesn't really affect me that much since I don't live in the US, I'm getting my 2nd citizenship, I already have my own business, and the few hundred/month I have to throw away on Obamacare won't have any material impact on me. My fury over it is simply that young people, like yourself, no longer have this option of starting to build a nest egg while you're healthy and don't have medical bills.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 08:36 PM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2013 09:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(12-12-2013 07:26 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(12-12-2013 07:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Lame failed attempt. YOU attempted to include me in the YOU, and you know it. Now you're trying to weazle out of it. You were addressing ME, not some nebulous "you people".

Wrong. My exact words were: "You guys try to dictate..." "things you guys ban" "trying to convince you guys" "you guys realize"

Look it up in the dictionary: link 'you' in this context always means 'a group of people of which you are a part', or in the case of a debate like this, 'the folks on your side of the debate'. Sorry if your command of the English language is insufficient. My meaning should have been accurate. I never claimed or tried to claim that 30 years ago YOU, yourself, executed gay people. That's absurd. 'You guys' means those who think the role of government is to initiate violence against the people to coerce them into doing things against their will, and you have identified yourself as a part of that group.

(12-12-2013 07:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You are dishonest. I made no argument about 3 million. YOU did. I see your reading comprehension is pathetic. You don't HAVE 3 million dollars, you never will, and neither do most people, so your projection is patently, obviously false. Please get a grip on reality.

First, according to my plan the $3 million is how much you will have when you hit 80. I already disclosed that I am only 40, HOWEVER, after 20 years of saving and investing (instead of spending on health insurance), I am already way ahead of where I should be on that spreadsheet, and at this rate my health care savings will be way over $3 million by the time I'm 80. You know nothing about me nor my finances. It shows how you just make up facts that suit you.

The bottom line is that, assuming you're 20 and reasonably healthy, today, were it not for Obamacare, you could start setting aside the cost of a 'platinum health care plan' into a tax-free HSA and, even if you make only safe investments in blue-chip stocks, and even if you have some expensive medical problems in the future, you will still have well over $3 million in your HSA when you hit retirement. Now you don't have the option; you have to instead give the money to an insurance company that will keep raising your rates every year until you're old and too high risk and then they'll cancel your policy. So YOU'RE the one who gets screwed by the ACA. It doesn't really affect me that much since I don't live in the US, I'm getting my 2nd citizenship, I already have my own business, and the few hundred/month I have to throw away on Obamacare won't have any material impact on me. My fury over it is simply that young people, like yourself, no longer have this option of starting to build a nest egg while you're healthy and don't have medical bills.

Bullshit. You fatuously included me in a group without knowing ONE thing about me, and by association accused and convicted me of all sorts of atrocities. You are dishonest. What an idiot. No insurance company under the ACA can cancel anyone because they are "too high a risk". Obviously you never read it, but would rather rant and rave. Insurance companies cannot under the ACA cancel people because of their age or history. I KNEW you actually knew NOTHING about all this. Thanks for proving it. The ACA will be tweaked for years to come. It's a START. No one says it's perfect. You assumption that people would save, is not founded in reality. YOUR generation did not do it, why would you expect another to ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 09:33 PM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(12-12-2013 08:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You assumption that people would save, is not founded in reality. YOUR generation did not do it, why would you expect another to ?

It can only happen if we fix the US system which currently is explicitly engineered to prevent people from saving and investing. Consider this article from Paul Krugman, one of the top Keynesian economists. NYTimes He insists we need inflation because if the inflation is too low it "discourages borrowing and spending and encourages sitting on cash". Of course "sitting on cash" is just a nasty way to say "save and invest". And Krugman is right. Inflation punishes people who save and invest, and encourages them to borrow and spend. The part where I disagree with Krugman is his claim that "borrowing and spending" is good, and "saving and investing" is bad. Having lived in Switzerland for many years now, they do the opposite of the US. They have 0% inflation, and this causes the people to save and invest--not borrow and spend. Now the Swiss have the highest household wealth in the world--$700,000 in savings on average per family. And unemployment and poverty are non-existent.

So you are right. The current generation will not save and invest. They will borrow and spend and live paycheck to paycheck like the previous generation. But this isn't an innate human tendency because if it were the Swiss would do the same thing--they do have the same DNA after all. It's a result of government policy.

(12-12-2013 08:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You fatuously included me in a group without knowing ONE thing about me, and by association accused and convicted me of all sorts of atrocities. You are dishonest. What an idiot.

If you read my post again, that was not my intent. I divided the population into 2 groups: 1) those who believe the government should defend the people from force, 2) those who believe the government should subject them to it. While I know very little about you, you HAVE already indicated you belong to the latter group. And, yes, the latter group HAS committed all sorts of atrocities.

In fact, I'll throw this challenge out to you. Think of the top 100 or so all-time worst atrocities ever committed (Khmer Rouge, Nazis, etc.). How many of those atrocities would have been committed if the government involved followed the libertarian non-aggression principle and refused to initiate violence against the people, but rather protected them against it?

How many atrocities have true libertarians (ie group #1) ever committed? What's the worst atrocity you can think of?

Serious questions, please try to answer them.

(12-12-2013 08:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No insurance company under the ACA can cancel anyone because they are "too high a risk". Obviously you never read it, but would rather rant and rave. Insurance companies canjoy under the ACA cancel people because of their age or history. I KNEW you actually knew NOTHING about all this. Thanks for proving it.

I will admit that I was under the impression the protections against cancellation and pre-existing conditions expired when you hit 65 and qualified for Medicare. However, from reading the provisions of the ACA (the cliff's notes on Wikipedia) it appears you are correct here, and I can't find anything about it the provisions expiring at 65. Mia culpa. I was wrong. You were right on this one.

However, the fact is ACA is thousands of pages long, has hundreds of provisions, and just because I was wrong about this one provision doesn't mean I know "nothing about it".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2013, 11:46 PM
RE: India Makes Gay Sex a Crime
(12-12-2013 09:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's a result of government policy.

You assume that. You can't make that assertion without testing it. You have not. You WANT it to be true, so you state it as such.

(12-12-2013 09:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If you read my post again, that was not my intent. I divided the population into 2 groups: 1) those who believe the government should defend the people from force, 2) those who believe the government should subject them to it. While I know very little about you, you HAVE already indicated you belong to the latter group. And, yes, the latter group HAS committed all sorts of atrocities.

Yes as usual you cooked up a simplistic paradigm, and very purposely included me in it. Now you're trying to back away form your idiotic assumptions. You cannot categorize people when you know NOTHING about them. And now you persis in attempting to tar me by association. You are a pathetic troll.

(12-12-2013 09:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  How many atrocities have true libertarians (ie group #1) ever committed? What's the worst atrocity you can think of?

No true Scotsman falllacy, and irrelevant, and off-topic. Nice try. Fail again. Attempted deflection.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: