Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 3, 2004, 09:13 pm

No...it's never been tried.

There has always been government interference.

Mia · Mar 3, 2004, 09:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
No...it's never been tried.

There has always been government interference.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

But in the wild, wild west where it was small...it didn't look so good in the movies.

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 3, 2004, 09:43 pm

The wild west wasn't even free. They had police back then that worked for the government.

There were many men that tracked down famous out-laws like billy the kid even though billy had done nothing to them. They simply did it because the government told them Billy was an out-law and had to be killed.

Poetic_Justice · Mar 3, 2004, 10:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
No...it's never been tried.

There has always been government interference.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

But in the wild, wild west where it was small...it didn't look so good in the movies.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

In the wild wild west, white men thought they were better than indians, that of course led to problems, racism causes lots of problems... but govt. didn't make it better, it jsut changed the balance. From natives kicking ass, to govt. kicking ass. In either case someone was being oppressed, and only because of racism... However in the long run, less would have died without govt. interference and relationships would have been better. Because eventually people could have realized trying to kill off indians was a bad idea, and worknig with thme was smarter...

From Freddom, Prosperity
Dave

koi · Mar 4, 2004, 11:50 am

Mia, since you seem to be under the impression that living in a free society is "dumb" "insane" and "just won't work"
http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp#Murray%20N
Murray Rothbard shall speak for me. I know you don't like to read "long stuff" but sometimes we must all make sacrifices in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
start with whatever you wish but I recommend various chapters of his book "For a New Liberty" specifically the three chapters concerning the private sector. they are fairly short summations of rebuttals against the most common and mundane attempts to refute the logic of Libertarianism

LiveAndLetLive · Mar 4, 2004, 01:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (koi,)
Mia, since you seem to be under the impression that living in a free society is "dumb" "insane" and "just won't work"
http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp#Murray%20N
Murray Rothbard shall speak for me. I know you don't like to read "long stuff" but sometimes we must all make sacrifices in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
start with whatever you wish but I recommend various chapters of his book "For a New Liberty" specifically the three chapters concerning the private sector. they are fairly short summations of rebuttals against the most common and mundane attempts to refute the logic of Libertarianism<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I think Rothbard WAS an excellent philosophical and economic thinker. However, he was a poor strategist. He was often dogmatic and karping; anything short of Liberty was "evil," anyone who didn't buy his extreme vision was "evil."
This is why I started this post. I think those that want liberty are still laboring under Dr. Rothbard's extremist posturing.
Liberty IS right and natural. I want more of it, and less State. But I can't imagine getting the whole loaf in one fell swoop.

koi · Mar 4, 2004, 01:17 pm

most of the Libertarians I know, outside of this site which is infested with minarchists, want the final realization of Rothbard's teachings. HOWEVER, being reasonable people with a good grasp of human nature and the way things are currently run, we know it won't happen all at once. This does not mean we will change our views, merely our tactics. Do pascifists say "well, ok, a -little- violence is ok because people are so used to it"? no, they stand by their point, even though they know it won't change overnight. As long as one voice crys for freedom there is hope. and as long as there is hope we will believe

suijurisfreeman · Mar 5, 2004, 08:01 am

To me "liberty" is my freedom in action. Back in 1993 I gave myself permission to live my life as a free Human Being and have done so ever since. I exercise my natural, inherent and inalienable rights on a daily basis, I haven't been arrested for doing so since September of 1995.
I am not a member of the body politic, I have never registered to vote, I therefore have never voted, I never delegated authority to any agent to represent my interests or pass any laws on my behalf in any congress assembled. I never gave my explicit consent to be governed and any implied consent presumed by any and all governmental agencies was revoked in 1993.
I believe in and practice individualist-anarchism. Only you can set yourself free!

LiveAndLetLive · Mar 5, 2004, 06:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (koi,)
most of the Libertarians I know, outside of this site which is infested with minarchists, want the final realization of Rothbard's teachings. HOWEVER, being reasonable people with a good grasp of human nature and the way things are currently run, we know it won't happen all at once. This does not mean we will change our views, merely our tactics. Do pascifists say "well, ok, a -little- violence is ok because people are so used to it"? no, they stand by their point, even though they know it won't change overnight. As long as one voice crys for freedom there is hope. and as long as there is hope we will believe<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The "pacifist" model seems to be what you are adopting...so be it. It strikes me as a lone wolf approach, and not effective. I look at it the other way...I'm opposed to ALL coercion, but I don't advocate ending ALL coercion tomorrow. It's my judgment, surely, but to advocate an "end game" that most cannot fathom undercuts the very goal, which is more freedom, leading to complete freedom, if possible. Pacifists are just as ineffective, because virtually all people intuitively believe that defensive force is justified. They are discounted as wild-eyed idealists, and I agree, THEY ARE.

In short, one CAN be a moderate and NOT be a minarchist. It's my view that BOTH "anarchists" and "minarchists" have it incorrect...it's NOT about advocating an "end game," but rather the next step.

Think about Jefferson's "government governs best which governs least." It is, when you think about it, asymptotically anarchistic. At any given point, the "correct position" is to lessen government, until government is effectively gone, "withered away". Fact is, however, the US is at 40+% of GDP, with other nation's higher. How do we get to 35%, then 30% and so on? By posing as an anarchist? Do you REALLY believe that?

Mia · Mar 5, 2004, 06:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (koi,)
Mia, since you seem to be under the impression that living in a free society is "dumb" "insane" and "just won't work"
http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp#Murray%20N
Murray Rothbard shall speak for me. I know you don't like to read "long stuff" but sometimes we must all make sacrifices in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
start with whatever you wish but I recommend various chapters of his book "For a New Liberty" specifically the three chapters concerning the private sector. they are fairly short summations of rebuttals against the most common and mundane attempts to refute the logic of Libertarianism<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Wow - a few of you really can't stand a dissenting opinion. So nasty in your responses. And before you tell me mine aren't good arguments, you react the same to people that do. I admit I have no desire to develop good arguments to your position. Do I need to waste my time on that? Why don't I waste my time constructing good arguments as to why the world is round while I'm at it?

I read "long stuff" all the time. I don't like to read long, ranting posts of arguments posing as strictly logical, factual "debate points" but really filled with personal insults and mere repitition of things already stated.

Especially the childish chanting of "logical fallacy, red herring, etc." Have all of you never heard these terms before and you find them so neat they have to be said over and over again? Or do you think it actually means something when you do and somehow bolsters your position?

This is in response to something on another board but I only want to write once to all you: as far as personal attacks, you have to expect them back if you're going to dish them out. This doesn't exonerate me for mine, I'm just pointing out that a few of you spew them all the time on anyone who disagrees with you, not just me.

I don't really care, as I won't be engaging in conversation with you, but it's an annoyance when I'm trying to read about these different viewpoints and I have to get bogged down in playground-sounding rhetoric.

Poetic_Justice · Mar 5, 2004, 07:03 pm

I haven't attacked you personally once, and yes I do know what red herrings are, I'm a philosophy major, I should know.

Your response that you don't need to give good arguments because the earth is round is called a 'weak analogy' fallacy.

I don't see why you feel like you don't have to build good arguments, could you please enlighten me?

From Freedom, Prosperity
Dave

Mia · Mar 5, 2004, 07:20 pm

Actually, I wasn't referring to you. I didn't mean everyone. Kyran and Lightbearer and Koi.

I didn't mean to infer I don't "have to" construct good arguments. I was saying I didn't care to on every topic under the sun and this is one of them.

I'm not a forum person, but the ones I've participated in before allowed people to discuss different viewpoints in a manner allowing for differences of opinion. It was not required to get into a heated debate over everything and sit down and spend the time to "win".

I have come to understand that is required in here so I will stay out of those types of conversations and just follow them.

As far as the world being round: I just meant that if someone tells me it's flat, I'm not going to go and dig up the proof and have a big debate with them over it. Same for a couple of things in here that I find too obvious to argue over.

ALSO, there are some things that two people can argue about until eternity and never agree. Each one can have an equal number of equally complelling points. These are pointless discussions to engage in for me.

Mar 5, 2004, 07:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Especially the childish chanting of "logical fallacy, red herring, etc." Have all of you never heard these terms before and you find them so neat they have to be said over and over again? Or do you think it actually means something when you do and somehow bolsters your position?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There is no childishness in pointing out the fatal flaws of arguments which you pretend refute the points already proven to be true. While the errors in the arguments which are supposed to refute the given positions, do not themselves strengthen the original position, in pointing out those fatal flaws, we do remove any pretense of refutation being offered.

I am also quite familiar with the notions of reason; I have taught logic and sound reasoning. No reasonable person could believe that I have only come recently to the nature of reason.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
This is in response to something on another board but I only want to write once to all you: as far as personal attacks, you have to expect them back if you're going to dish them out. This doesn't exonerate me for mine, I'm just pointing out that a few of you spew them all the time on anyone who disagrees with you, not just me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I have pointed this out several times, but clearly it needs to be pointed out again since you continue to put forth these false claims. I have not insulted you on any occassion. I have even asked you on more than one occassion to offer up evidence to support these false accusations. Thus far nothing has been offered, nor will anything be offered for nothing exists for you to offer. So out of a spirit of civility, and intellectual honesty, as well as basic respect, I would ask that you cease such false accusations.

Mar 5, 2004, 07:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I didn't mean to infer I don't "have to" construct good arguments. I was saying I didn't care to on every topic under the sun and this is one of them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Sure you do not have to give sound arguments, but understand that when you fail to do so, then you doom yourself to never refuting any argument which has been offered. So when you proclaim that everyone but you is mistaken, but offer nothing to support this proclamation, when you have no evidence, and you refuse to employ reason, then you have undermined your own proclamations.

As for the misplaced notion of "winning" in honest civil intellectual discussion, as has already been noted there is no importance on who offers the sound reasoning, rather the focus in on TRUTH. This is part of the reason why I and others have continued to appeal to you to cease the insults and personal attacks. We do not insult you with the refutations or with the criticisms of the proclamations you make, or the flawed arguments that you have offered.

The only way to lose in honest civil discussion is when you resort to personal attacks and abandon or avoid reason. When you chose this path, you lose but worse yet everyone loses. When the discussion remains civil, and when truth is the objective then everyone wins, regardless of whether you leave the discussion with the same belief with which you entered into it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Same for a couple of things in here that I find too obvious to argue over.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

But the problem has been that the analogy here would be that you take it for obvious that the world is FLAT, rather than round, and others have proven beyond a shadow of a hint of a doubt that it is not flat, yet you simply respond with insults and denials of the objective verifiable proof and sound arguments.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
there are some things that two people can argue about until eternity and never agree.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Perhaps but these topics are extremely rare for honest civil individuals. But because so many can be distracted so easily from a path which leads to truth, we embrace reason and reality so that we can have a common ground from which to make clear critical observations and verifiable statements.

koi · Mar 6, 2004, 12:24 am

... I was being polite and offering you a source of examin where I have drwn my beliefs and standpoints from...
now, if I were speaking to you in person I'm sure there would be a number of choice words and expletitives I would use to describe your stance, but as this is suppose to be a civil debate I'll simply say this.

you.
are.
a.
waste.
of.
time.

Mar 6, 2004, 03:15 am

BTW Mia, perhaps you should consult reality once in a while. For if you did you may well have to recognize that I in fact defended you against the slight chance of mistaken interpretation that could have on an off chance be taken as an isult.

Mar 6, 2004, 03:24 am

i have one question.

why do we assume we have inalienable rights?
oh sure it was cute when locke said it, and even cuter when jefferson reiterated

but why do we assume we have any rights at all?
least of all life, most of all liberty?

i dont want to sound like a facist, but to part of any organizationy ou must respect its rules, the rules which are implemented to protect the majority of members.

Impenitent · Mar 6, 2004, 05:18 am

autonomy gives us the immediate right of self liberty at any rate...

only when others are involved does it become a problem

Mia · Mar 6, 2004, 05:29 am

Lightbearer: Did you somehow read my posts to mean I believe the world is flat? I was saying it is clearly round, but if someone here wanted to state it was flat, would you take the time to debate it with them, complete with offering proof and citing sources?

What if they brought up the 269 websites with evidence that it is flat. Would you take the time to look at them and respond to what they say and disprove each thing one by one?

Did you miss this?: "I'm not a forum person, but the ones I've participated in before allowed people to discuss different viewpoints in a manner allowing for differences of opinion. It was not required to get into a heated debate over everything and sit down and spend the time to "win".

I have come to understand that is required in here so I will stay out of those types of conversations and just follow them".

I was saying mea culpa for joining in under incorrect assumptions about the nature of discussion expected in here.

If you still don't understand, then just heap on some more insults and I'll just let them be.

Koi:

You

are

an

asshole.

Mia · Mar 6, 2004, 05:37 am

Lightbearer, also, I mistakenly tried to address the three of you at once and of course you are not all three the same. Kyran especially and Koi as well love the personal insults.

Mar 3, 2004, 09:35 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) No...it's never been tried. There has always been government interference.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But in the wild, wild west where it was small...it didn't look so good in the movies. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 3, 2004, 10:21 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) No...it's never been tried. There has always been government interference.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But in the wild, wild west where it was small...it didn't look so good in the movies.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> In the wild wild west, white men thought they were better than indians, that of course led to problems, racism causes lots of problems... but govt. didn't make it better, it jsut changed the balance. From natives kicking ass, to govt. kicking ass. In either case someone was being oppressed, and only because of racism... However in the long run, less would have died without govt. interference and relationships would have been better. Because eventually people could have realized trying to kill off indians was a bad idea, and worknig with thme was smarter... From Freddom, Prosperity Dave

Mar 4, 2004, 11:50 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
koi Molten Ash Location: Edmonton Alberta Posts: 63	Mia, since you seem to be under the impression that living in a free society is "dumb" "insane" and "just won't work" http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp#Murray%20N Murray Rothbard shall speak for me. I know you don't like to read "long stuff" but sometimes we must all make sacrifices in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. start with whatever you wish but I recommend various chapters of his book "For a New Liberty" specifically the three chapters concerning the private sector. they are fairly short summations of rebuttals against the most common and mundane attempts to refute the logic of Libertarianism "Optimisim is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable" Voltaire "The point of sacrifice is giving up something you didn't want in the first place"

Mar 4, 2004, 01:13 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (koi,) Mia, since you seem to be under the impression that living in a free society is "dumb" "insane" and "just won't work" http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp#Murray%20N Murray Rothbard shall speak for me. I know you don't like to read "long stuff" but sometimes we must all make sacrifices in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. start with whatever you wish but I recommend various chapters of his book "For a New Liberty" specifically the three chapters concerning the private sector. they are fairly short summations of rebuttals against the most common and mundane attempts to refute the logic of Libertarianism<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think Rothbard WAS an excellent philosophical and economic thinker. However, he was a poor strategist. He was often dogmatic and karping; anything short of Liberty was "evil," anyone who didn't buy his extreme vision was "evil." This is why I started this post. I think those that want liberty are still laboring under Dr. Rothbard's extremist posturing. Liberty IS right and natural. I want more of it, and less State. But I can't imagine getting the whole loaf in one fell swoop.

Mar 4, 2004, 01:17 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
koi Molten Ash Location: Edmonton Alberta Posts: 63	most of the Libertarians I know, outside of this site which is infested with minarchists, want the final realization of Rothbard's teachings. HOWEVER, being reasonable people with a good grasp of human nature and the way things are currently run, we know it won't happen all at once. This does not mean we will change our views, merely our tactics. Do pascifists say "well, ok, a -little- violence is ok because people are so used to it"? no, they stand by their point, even though they know it won't change overnight. As long as one voice crys for freedom there is hope. and as long as there is hope we will believe "Optimisim is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable" Voltaire "The point of sacrifice is giving up something you didn't want in the first place"

Mar 3, 2004, 09:13 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	No...it's never been tried. There has always been government interference.

Mar 3, 2004, 09:43 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	The wild west wasn't even free. They had police back then that worked for the government. There were many men that tracked down famous out-laws like billy the kid even though billy had done nothing to them. They simply did it because the government told them Billy was an out-law and had to be killed.

Mar 5, 2004, 08:01 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
suijurisfreeman Molten Ash Posts: 91	To me "liberty" is my freedom in action. Back in 1993 I gave myself permission to live my life as a free Human Being and have done so ever since. I exercise my natural, inherent and inalienable rights on a daily basis, I haven't been arrested for doing so since September of 1995. I am not a member of the body politic, I have never registered to vote, I therefore have never voted, I never delegated authority to any agent to represent my interests or pass any laws on my behalf in any congress assembled. I never gave my explicit consent to be governed and any implied consent presumed by any and all governmental agencies was revoked in 1993. I believe in and practice individualist-anarchism. Only you can set yourself free! I am a free Human Being and I have the right to ignore the State. I know my rights, I declare my rights, I exercise my rights and I damn well will defend my rights! Freedom is contagious, knowledge is the source of infection. Infect knowledge! Long live individualist-anarchism!

Mar 5, 2004, 06:10 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (koi,) most of the Libertarians I know, outside of this site which is infested with minarchists, want the final realization of Rothbard's teachings. HOWEVER, being reasonable people with a good grasp of human nature and the way things are currently run, we know it won't happen all at once. This does not mean we will change our views, merely our tactics. Do pascifists say "well, ok, a -little- violence is ok because people are so used to it"? no, they stand by their point, even though they know it won't change overnight. As long as one voice crys for freedom there is hope. and as long as there is hope we will believe<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The "pacifist" model seems to be what you are adopting...so be it. It strikes me as a lone wolf approach, and not effective. I look at it the other way...I'm opposed to ALL coercion, but I don't advocate ending ALL coercion tomorrow. It's my judgment, surely, but to advocate an "end game" that most cannot fathom undercuts the very goal, which is more freedom, leading to complete freedom, if possible. Pacifists are just as ineffective, because virtually all people intuitively believe that defensive force is justified. They are discounted as wild-eyed idealists, and I agree, THEY ARE. In short, one CAN be a moderate and NOT be a minarchist. It's my view that BOTH "anarchists" and "minarchists" have it incorrect...it's NOT about advocating an "end game," but rather the next step. Think about Jefferson's "government governs best which governs least." It is, when you think about it, asymptotically anarchistic. At any given point, the "correct position" is to lessen government, until government is effectively gone, "withered away". Fact is, however, the US is at 40+% of GDP, with other nation's higher. How do we get to 35%, then 30% and so on? By posing as an anarchist? Do you REALLY believe that?

Mar 5, 2004, 06:21 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (koi,) Mia, since you seem to be under the impression that living in a free society is "dumb" "insane" and "just won't work" http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp#Murray%20N Murray Rothbard shall speak for me. I know you don't like to read "long stuff" but sometimes we must all make sacrifices in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. start with whatever you wish but I recommend various chapters of his book "For a New Liberty" specifically the three chapters concerning the private sector. they are fairly short summations of rebuttals against the most common and mundane attempts to refute the logic of Libertarianism<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Wow - a few of you really can't stand a dissenting opinion. So nasty in your responses. And before you tell me mine aren't good arguments, you react the same to people that do. I admit I have no desire to develop good arguments to your position. Do I need to waste my time on that? Why don't I waste my time constructing good arguments as to why the world is round while I'm at it? I read "long stuff" all the time. I don't like to read long, ranting posts of arguments posing as strictly logical, factual "debate points" but really filled with personal insults and mere repitition of things already stated. Especially the childish chanting of "logical fallacy, red herring, etc." Have all of you never heard these terms before and you find them so neat they have to be said over and over again? Or do you think it actually means something when you do and somehow bolsters your position? This is in response to something on another board but I only want to write once to all you: as far as personal attacks, you have to expect them back if you're going to dish them out. This doesn't exonerate me for mine, I'm just pointing out that a few of you spew them all the time on anyone who disagrees with you, not just me. I don't really care, as I won't be engaging in conversation with you, but it's an annoyance when I'm trying to read about these different viewpoints and I have to get bogged down in playground-sounding rhetoric. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 5, 2004, 07:03 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	I haven't attacked you personally once, and yes I do know what red herrings are, I'm a philosophy major, I should know. Your response that you don't need to give good arguments because the earth is round is called a 'weak analogy' fallacy. I don't see why you feel like you don't have to build good arguments, could you please enlighten me? From Freedom, Prosperity Dave

Mar 5, 2004, 07:20 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Actually, I wasn't referring to you. I didn't mean everyone. Kyran and Lightbearer and Koi. I didn't mean to infer I don't "have to" construct good arguments. I was saying I didn't care to on every topic under the sun and this is one of them. I'm not a forum person, but the ones I've participated in before allowed people to discuss different viewpoints in a manner allowing for differences of opinion. It was not required to get into a heated debate over everything and sit down and spend the time to "win". I have come to understand that is required in here so I will stay out of those types of conversations and just follow them. As far as the world being round: I just meant that if someone tells me it's flat, I'm not going to go and dig up the proof and have a big debate with them over it. Same for a couple of things in here that I find too obvious to argue over. ALSO, there are some things that two people can argue about until eternity and never agree. Each one can have an equal number of equally complelling points. These are pointless discussions to engage in for me. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 5, 2004, 07:37 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Especially the childish chanting of "logical fallacy, red herring, etc." Have all of you never heard these terms before and you find them so neat they have to be said over and over again? Or do you think it actually means something when you do and somehow bolsters your position?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There is no childishness in pointing out the fatal flaws of arguments which you pretend refute the points already proven to be true. While the errors in the arguments which are supposed to refute the given positions, do not themselves strengthen the original position, in pointing out those fatal flaws, we do remove any pretense of refutation being offered. I am also quite familiar with the notions of reason; I have taught logic and sound reasoning. No reasonable person could believe that I have only come recently to the nature of reason. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by This is in response to something on another board but I only want to write once to all you: as far as personal attacks, you have to expect them back if you're going to dish them out. This doesn't exonerate me for mine, I'm just pointing out that a few of you spew them all the time on anyone who disagrees with you, not just me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I have pointed this out several times, but clearly it needs to be pointed out again since you continue to put forth these false claims. I have not insulted you on any occassion. I have even asked you on more than one occassion to offer up evidence to support these false accusations. Thus far nothing has been offered, nor will anything be offered for nothing exists for you to offer. So out of a spirit of civility, and intellectual honesty, as well as basic respect, I would ask that you cease such false accusations.

Mar 5, 2004, 07:46 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I didn't mean to infer I don't "have to" construct good arguments. I was saying I didn't care to on every topic under the sun and this is one of them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sure you do not have to give sound arguments, but understand that when you fail to do so, then you doom yourself to never refuting any argument which has been offered. So when you proclaim that everyone but you is mistaken, but offer nothing to support this proclamation, when you have no evidence, and you refuse to employ reason, then you have undermined your own proclamations. As for the misplaced notion of "winning" in honest civil intellectual discussion, as has already been noted there is no importance on who offers the sound reasoning, rather the focus in on TRUTH. This is part of the reason why I and others have continued to appeal to you to cease the insults and personal attacks. We do not insult you with the refutations or with the criticisms of the proclamations you make, or the flawed arguments that you have offered. The only way to lose in honest civil discussion is when you resort to personal attacks and abandon or avoid reason. When you chose this path, you lose but worse yet everyone loses. When the discussion remains civil, and when truth is the objective then everyone wins, regardless of whether you leave the discussion with the same belief with which you entered into it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Same for a couple of things in here that I find too obvious to argue over.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But the problem has been that the analogy here would be that you take it for obvious that the world is FLAT, rather than round, and others have proven beyond a shadow of a hint of a doubt that it is not flat, yet you simply respond with insults and denials of the objective verifiable proof and sound arguments. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by there are some things that two people can argue about until eternity and never agree.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Perhaps but these topics are extremely rare for honest civil individuals. But because so many can be distracted so easily from a path which leads to truth, we embrace reason and reality so that we can have a common ground from which to make clear critical observations and verifiable statements.

Mar 6, 2004, 12:24 am	#35 (permalink) (top)
koi Molten Ash Location: Edmonton Alberta Posts: 63	... I was being polite and offering you a source of examin where I have drwn my beliefs and standpoints from... now, if I were speaking to you in person I'm sure there would be a number of choice words and expletitives I would use to describe your stance, but as this is suppose to be a civil debate I'll simply say this. you. are. a. waste. of. time. "Optimisim is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable" Voltaire "The point of sacrifice is giving up something you didn't want in the first place"

Mar 6, 2004, 03:15 am	#36 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	BTW Mia, perhaps you should consult reality once in a while. For if you did you may well have to recognize that I in fact defended you against the slight chance of mistaken interpretation that could have on an off chance be taken as an isult.

Mar 6, 2004, 03:24 am	#37 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	i have one question. why do we assume we have inalienable rights? oh sure it was cute when locke said it, and even cuter when jefferson reiterated but why do we assume we have any rights at all? least of all life, most of all liberty? i dont want to sound like a facist, but to part of any organizationy ou must respect its rules, the rules which are implemented to protect the majority of members.

Mar 6, 2004, 05:18 am	#38 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	autonomy gives us the immediate right of self liberty at any rate... only when others are involved does it become a problem "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 6, 2004, 05:29 am	#39 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Lightbearer: Did you somehow read my posts to mean I believe the world is flat? I was saying it is clearly round, but if someone here wanted to state it was flat, would you take the time to debate it with them, complete with offering proof and citing sources? What if they brought up the 269 websites with evidence that it is flat. Would you take the time to look at them and respond to what they say and disprove each thing one by one? Did you miss this?: "I'm not a forum person, but the ones I've participated in before allowed people to discuss different viewpoints in a manner allowing for differences of opinion. It was not required to get into a heated debate over everything and sit down and spend the time to "win". I have come to understand that is required in here so I will stay out of those types of conversations and just follow them". I was saying mea culpa for joining in under incorrect assumptions about the nature of discussion expected in here. If you still don't understand, then just heap on some more insults and I'll just let them be. Koi: You are an asshole. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 6, 2004, 05:37 am	#40 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Lightbearer, also, I mistakenly tried to address the three of you at once and of course you are not all three the same. Kyran especially and Koi as well love the personal insults. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali