[split] Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 02:37 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 02:27 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Those are indeed very interesting questions, and do not admit of simple or universal answers.

The point I originally made, which led to this derailment by a certain someone, was that it is incredibly unproductive to cast inevitable differences of opinion as innately better or worse.

And yet, that does seem to be the crux of the argument. You seem to see them as mere differences of opinions, and he seems to see them as tied to a sort of "objective" social or political morality, in which case some differences are innately better or worse. Cultural relativity is a common debate in relation to morality, and this argument seems directly comparable... is politics culturally relative and mere preference of the individual or society or not?

(16-05-2014 02:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It becomes relevant when one makes such claims as "my opinion is factually correct because [historical misinterpretation]".

Indeed, however, even if that argument is conclusively won, I'm not sure that actually proves anything.

One of the common defenses given for government surveillance and searches are that they make us safer. Why are we even discussing that? So what? Universal 100% surveillance and random searches of anything, anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, would also solve a lot of crime and make us safer, but I don't really care. Safer isn't the ultimate point or value. That whole discussion is, therefore, mostly irrelevant.

Similarly, I don't know that those claims of his you refer to are really worth discussing. The real driving force behind accepting or rejecting libertarianism isn't faster trains, or better bridges, or such. You could make an absolutely perfect case for a totalitarian and centrally planned government delivering the best outcomes in terms of infrastructure quality, crime reduction, social equality, etc, and it would make any difference. That isn't their ultimate point or value. Those are just the arguments to support the foregone conclusions.

Actually, the crux of the argument in this thread is that frankksj misrepresents facts in support of his foregone conclusion.
He is either a willful liar or so invested in his ideology that he can't even see that he is lying.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 02:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, the crux of the argument in this thread is that frankksj misrepresents facts in support of his foregone conclusion.
He is either a willful liar or so invested in his ideology that he can't even see that he is lying.

Ah, well, if that is the debate, then my comments don't apply. I was under the impression that this was somehow supposed to prove or disprove the underlying foregone conclusions....

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 02:56 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 02:42 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, the crux of the argument in this thread is that frankksj misrepresents facts in support of his foregone conclusion.
He is either a willful liar or so invested in his ideology that he can't even see that he is lying.

Ah, well, if that is the debate, then my comments don't apply. I was under the impression that this was somehow supposed to prove or disprove the underlying foregone conclusions....

I'm sure many of us are perfectly willing to discuss the issues regarding libertarianism, but not with frankksj. He has proved incapable of honest debate.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
16-05-2014, 02:57 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 02:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:42 PM)djhall Wrote:  Ah, well, if that is the debate, then my comments don't apply. I was under the impression that this was somehow supposed to prove or disprove the underlying foregone conclusions....

I'm sure many of us are perfectly willing to discuss the issues regarding libertarianism, but not with frankksj. He has proved incapable of honest debate.




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
16-05-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 02:27 PM)djhall Wrote:  And yet, that does seem to be the crux of the argument. You seem to see them as mere differences of opinions, and he seems to see them as tied to a sort of "objective" social or political morality, in which case some differences are innately better or worse. Cultural relativity is a common debate in relation to morality, and this argument seems directly comparable... is politics culturally relative and mere preference of the individual or society or not?

Relativity is one thing. Blustering incoherence is another. As is refusal or inability to understand others.

Many are the times I've affirmed that agreement in principle is trivial to come by; actual specifics are always more complicated.

(16-05-2014 02:27 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It becomes relevant when one makes such claims as "my opinion is factually correct because [historical misinterpretation]".

Indeed, however, even if that argument is conclusively won, I'm not sure that actually proves anything.

One of the common defenses given for government surveillance and searches are that they make us safer. Why are we even discussing that? So what? Universal 100% surveillance and random searches of anything, anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, would also solve a lot of crime and make us safer, but I don't really care. Safer isn't the ultimate point or value. That whole discussion is, therefore, mostly irrelevant.

That's not particularly true, though, is it? All such considerations involve the same choice - protection and restriction. We would be freer, in terms of lacking constraint, with no legal system at all. No one endorses that extreme. And no one endorses the opposite extreme either - bringing that up is irrelevant.

Since every possible act or circumstance has positives and negatives, the value of that will be subjective - as is all weighing of same, let alone which is which.

(16-05-2014 02:27 PM)djhall Wrote:  Similarly, I don't know that those claims of his you refer to are really worth discussing.

I dunno, I find lies, slander, and mischaracterisation somewhat irksome.

(16-05-2014 02:27 PM)djhall Wrote:  The real driving force behind accepting or rejecting libertarianism isn't faster trains, or better bridges, or such. You could make an absolutely perfect case for a totalitarian and centrally planned government delivering the best outcomes in terms of infrastructure quality, crime reduction, social equality, etc, and it would make any difference. That isn't their ultimate point or value. Those are just the arguments to support the foregone conclusions.

And again, broad agreement in principle is both trivial and meaningless. The specifics are subjective. I would further contend that no one is so ideologically rigid as to entirely disregard practical results in the name of raw, abstracted principle. Practicality matters.

But no, there is no real discussion to be had with the likes of frankksj. He is not capable of it. He prefers to drive the trollercoaster through fields of constant fallacy and misrepresentation. More fool any of us for bothering to take a ride; optimism springs eternal, as they say.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
16-05-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 03:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Blustering incoherence is another. As is refusal or inability to understand others.
...
I dunno, I find lies, slander, and mischaracterisation somewhat irksome.
...
But no, there is no real discussion to be had with the likes of frankksj. He is not capable of it. He prefers to drive the trollercoaster through fields of constant fallacy and misrepresentation. More fool any of us for bothering to take a ride; optimism springs eternal, as they say.

As Chas helpfully pointed out, my mistake is reading this thread as a rebuttal and debate about the abstract principles. As a rebuttal and debate about frankksj and his claims, it makes much more sense.

I think I was just looking for something that wasn't actually here, kinda like when I was looking for an honest exchange of ideas about god and morality with Jeremy and didn't understand why people would just dismiss him as a "cunt". I tried to play nice with TrainWreck for a while too. Its a personality flaw of mine... Shy

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 03:22 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 03:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Blustering incoherence is another. As is refusal or inability to understand others.
...
I dunno, I find lies, slander, and mischaracterisation somewhat irksome.
...
But no, there is no real discussion to be had with the likes of frankksj. He is not capable of it. He prefers to drive the trollercoaster through fields of constant fallacy and misrepresentation. More fool any of us for bothering to take a ride; optimism springs eternal, as they say.

As Chas helpfully pointed out, my mistake is reading this thread as a rebuttal and debate about the abstract principles. As a rebuttal and debate about frankksj and his claims, it makes much more sense.

I think I was just looking for something that wasn't actually here, kinda like when I was looking for an honest exchange of ideas about god and morality with Jeremy and didn't understand why people would just dismiss him as a "cunt". I tried to play nice with TrainWreck for a while too. Its a personality flaw of mine... Shy

You're an optimist. Yes That's OK.




Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 03:53 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 12:59 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Or as the case turns out to be this time, ignoring my entire post, because I royally served you your fucking ass on a silver platter with all the fixings.

You don't seriously think that. The fact that your response to my posts is always 'fuck you, you fucktard', 'you fucking delusional twit', etc., etc. just proves I __REALLY__ nailed it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to resort to name calling. You'd just laugh and point out how wrong I was.

As far as your constant: "Misrepresentation". Not at all. Everything I said is 100% precisely what has transpired. THat's why it's gotten you so upset. This _IS_ about us libertarians wanting to flee you tyrants and just be left alone, and you guys being so dependent on us that you come up with all sorts of pathetic justifications for using force to make us stay and do what you tell us to.

The MOST laughable and pathetic is one you and Chas both said. When I asked 'why do you always try to draw the arbitrary jurisdictional lines for your laws precisely where they cover every square inch that your countrymen are allowed to live? Why not draw the line somewhere else, like at the state level, so people can up and move if they find your rules too oppressive?'

Both you and Chas said 'It's because moving is too expensive and impractical.' Remember, we're all just people. So imagine you're in my house, I refuse to let you move out and leave, and when you ask why, my justification is "Because moving is so expensive, and I care you about so much, that I don't want to give you that option, lest you spend money you cannot afford."

ROFL. That IS what you both said. Really pathetic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 03:56 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 02:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The point I originally made, which led to this derailment by a certain someone, was that it is incredibly unproductive to cast inevitable differences of opinion as innately better or worse.

Of course there's an inate difference. My position, and DJHall's, is that we all have differences of opinion and we all need to accept that and tolerate a system that allows differing opinions. Texans may want to do things differently than New Yorkers.

You keep saying that the libertarian "opinion" that all opinions are equal and should be tolerated is no different from the liberal opinion that their opinion is the only valid one and violence should be used to force everybody to do it their way. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 03:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 12:59 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Or as the case turns out to be this time, ignoring my entire post, because I royally served you your fucking ass on a silver platter with all the fixings.

You don't seriously think that. The fact that your response to my posts is always 'fuck you, you fucktard', 'you fucking delusional twit', etc., etc. just proves I __REALLY__ nailed it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to resort to name calling. You'd just laugh and point out how wrong I was.

As far as your constant: "Misrepresentation". Not at all. Everything I said is 100% precisely what has transpired. THat's why it's gotten you so upset. This _IS_ about us libertarians wanting to flee you tyrants and just be left alone, and you guys being so dependent on us that you come up with all sorts of pathetic justifications for using force to make us stay and do what you tell us to.

The MOST laughable and pathetic is one you and Chas both said. When I asked 'why do you always try to draw the arbitrary jurisdictional lines for your laws precisely where they cover every square inch that your countrymen are allowed to live? Why not draw the line somewhere else, like at the state level, so people can up and move if they find your rules too oppressive?'

Both you and Chas said 'It's because moving is too expensive and impractical.' Remember, we're all just people. So imagine you're in my house, I refuse to let you move out and leave, and when you ask why, my justification is "Because moving is so expensive, and I care you about so much, that I don't want to give you that option, lest you spend money you cannot afford."

ROFL. That IS what you both said. Really pathetic.

You know what? Fuck you, you lying cunt.

Show me where I said anything of the sort. Or just shut the fuck up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: