SandySandfort on April 20, 2010, 10:19:46 am
[RANT MODE ON]
One of the ugliest techniques people use to deceive others, or to win "debating points," is the intentional misuse of words. In 1984, Orwell demonstrated this concept to the extreme (e.g., "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"). FDR created his "Four Freedoms" out of whole cloth. Left-statist call hurtful word, "aggression" and right-statist willfully misrepresent the non-aggression principle as "pacifism."

Language is Man's most powerful invention. It has created everything good that humans enjoy. Unfortunately, like any other tool, it can be used for evil as well as good. Most posters on this forum realize this truism on a visceral, as well as an intellectual, level. They attempt to use their words as precisely and accurately as possible. Others--pseudo-intellectuals, trolls and agents provocateurs--pervert language for their own purposes.

I believe there is no place in rational discourse--including this forum--for such intellectual dishonesty. If you are a pseudo-intellectual, troll or agent provocateur, please peddle your lies elsewhere. If you believe that words have meaning and you respect the honest use of language, please help us promote intellectual hygiene on this forum. Count coup on any trolls, pseudo-intellectuals and agents provocateurs who try to obfuscate and subvert the honest use of language.
[RANT MODE OFF]

Rocketman on April 20, 2010, 10:40:38 am
Nicely put Sandy.  You might be interested in knowing that I watched Glen Beck yesterday and he had on a film clip showing Democrat operative Joe Klein saying on one of the talk shows, I think it was the Joy Benicha (sp?) show, that in Klein's opinion Glen Beck and Sarah Palin were right on the verge of committing "sedition" against the government.  Really.  Funny how he forgot to mention that during the Vietnam war he and others with a similar mindset was probably plotting to bring the government to it's knees through strikes and protests.  If this is what they think is going to work to convince the undecided American people that the left is correct then they are reallly in full  panic mode.  I guess their attempts to demonize the tea parties having backfired so badly this is all they really have left.  I feel so sorry (not) for them.  :'(

sams on April 20, 2010, 11:06:24 am
Some people are satisfied by caricature instead of intellectual conversation  >:(

and I think I located the BS comment that triggered you anger and I feel my self disgusted by the stupidity of it

Does being against invasion wars make you a peacenik idiot ? People who make those arguments are just dishonest

In the same line when you oppose public education they accuse you of being against education ... when you object the War on Terror you are a traitor
« Last Edit: April 20, 2010, 11:54:50 am by sams »

Heinlein Libertarian on April 20, 2010, 03:07:17 pm
I assume you are referring to the post I made on p.8 of "Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals" that is entitled "Ashamed?"

I picked a particularly poor quote to illustrate RAH's view that war was a necessity. The way the post was written, it does imply that libertarians/AnCappers are all a bunch of tree-hugging hippies. That was not what I actually intended, and I apologize. I've inserted a section in the post that explains the mistake, and includes an apology.

However, most of the rest of your post is nonsense. There are quite a few people on here who regularly make logical, thoughtful arguments about difficulties they see with AnCap. Quite frankly, they get a lot of condescension, insults and flip answers in return. "That will never happen," is not an answer. Nor is "Wild scenario!!" or "The market will inevitably provide for that!" There are real problems with the shunning mechanism that enforces most of the rules in an AnCap society. There are problems with arguing that "necessity" justifies something and that all will be forgiven later. There are major hurdles that AnCap has to face when dealing with terrorism. There are major difficulties that any AnCap society will face when it comes to fighting a war against a larger and probably more ruthless foe.

Pointing out flaws in AnCap is not pseudo-intellectualism or trollishness, it is an actual attempt to debate these points. Deal with them, and we can have an intellectual discussion. Smear us all as Orwellian newspeakers or agents provacateurs, and you are doing the same thing that Obama and friends are doing: Trying to shut down debate by claiming that those with objections are all just enemy agents motivated by hate or fear that don't have any logic on their side.

paulr on April 20, 2010, 03:34:00 pm
Well, while I might tend to you agree with you emotionally, free speech means idiots get to have their say too.  Nothing  demands that anyone else has to listen to them though.

Is there a "kill" or "filter" function that can be used so each person can filter out those they consider to be offensive, or too stupid to describe?

-Paul

Rocketman on April 20, 2010, 06:26:30 pm
In the interest of being both as accurate and honest as I can (a libertarian trate if their ever was one) I should note that since the time of my last post and now I read an article on the Joe Klein comment and it occurred on the Chris Matthews show and not the Joy Benicha program.  We now resume our regularly scheduled programming.   ;D

sams on April 21, 2010, 01:56:27 am
I assume you are referring to the post I made on p.8 of "Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals" that is entitled "Ashamed?"

I picked a particularly poor quote to illustrate RAH's view that war was a necessity. The way the post was written, it does imply that libertarians/AnCappers are all a bunch of tree-hugging hippies. That was not what I actually intended, and I apologize. I've inserted a section in the post that explains the mistake, and includes an apology.

However, most of the rest of your post is nonsense. There are quite a few people on here who regularly make logical, thoughtful arguments about difficulties they see with AnCap. Quite frankly, they get a lot of condescension, insults and flip answers in return. "That will never happen," is not an answer. Nor is "Wild scenario!!" or "The market will inevitably provide for that!" There are real problems with the shunning mechanism that enforces most of the rules in an AnCap society. There are problems with arguing that "necessity" justifies something and that all will be forgiven later. There are major hurdles that AnCap has to face when dealing with terrorism. There are major difficulties that any AnCap society will face when it comes to fighting a war against a larger and probably more ruthless foe.

Yes ... because declaring a libertarian society non-viable since it can't survive a nuclear holocaust from Grotesque reincarnation of Stalin is not extreme  ::) or the undead legions of Islam revived from the sands of the 13th century  ::)

Will there are people who indeed sometime give rude answers, like ''statist'' ... or sometime condescention ... but it is because this is not our first internet forum debate and it almost always finish the same way

If you want to debate go for it, but don't try to dessesperatly win by putting the stacks higuers at each post or refusing to consider anithing else than what currently exist
« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 02:05:12 am by sams »

terry_freeman on April 21, 2010, 01:47:02 pm
The terrorist incident which has today's neocon's panties all atwist was caused by 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters. They could have easily been stopped in any anarchocap society; armed passengers and crew would have tossed the bodies of the wannabe terrorists out the door.

Instead, the ineffective, expensive, socialist Pentagon failed to protect their own headquarters. This failure, instead of causing people to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the Pentagon, instead of underscoring their ineptitude, led to doubling down on a bad bet.

Is that insane, or what?

sams on April 21, 2010, 03:13:29 pm
The terrorist incident which has today's neocon's panties all atwist was caused by 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters. They could have easily been stopped in any anarchocap society; armed passengers and crew would have tossed the bodies of the wannabe terrorists out the door.

Instead, the ineffective, expensive, socialist Pentagon failed to protect their own headquarters. This failure, instead of causing people to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the Pentagon, instead of underscoring their ineptitude, led to doubling down on a bad bet.

Is that insane, or what?

No you don't understand ! they ARE TERRORIST !!!!!

They are GENIUS who use Swiss knives has weapons and exploit the security flaws of such high security sites like subways, and can take out planes full of passengers disarmed !

After them a legion of Islam Jihadist will invading the US in thunderous Camel CHARGE !!! ::)

I know it is insane but I feel that most people who fear terrorism engage in such paranoia internally ... there is nothing magic about Terrorist, they just eploit security flaws and unharmed victims .... like every other kind of criminals ... so what the fuss ?

I also can't take any more the crap about the war of worlds nonsense between the West and Islam ... I mean even if only the marines were on duty there is a ZERO change of any Islamic invasion even of Greece ::)

quadibloc on April 21, 2010, 09:16:22 pm
The terrorist incident which has today's neocon's panties all atwist was caused by 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters. They could have easily been stopped in any anarchocap society; armed passengers and crew would have tossed the bodies of the wannabe terrorists out the door.
A statist would not find it difficult to argue that if armed passengers were a routine part of air travel, this could well give terrorists more opportunities, not less.

Even if the pilots and stewardesses have superior training.

I had heard some news about Glenn Beck using doomsday rhetoric about Obama's medicare plans which some felt contributed to harassment recently experienced by Nancy Pelosi. I don't know how close he came to the limits of free speech, but what I have heard at least suggests that he has been irresponsible.

But not nearly on the same level as those who engaged in acts of domestic terrorism out of opposition to the war in Vietnam.

I'm hardly surprised, though, that Glenn Beck finds an audience; I suspect that aside from the occasional extreme comment, I would cheer most of what he has to say. Our society has changed very much from its former old-fashioned common-sense attitudes.

Rocketman on April 21, 2010, 10:22:06 pm
I'm hardly surprised, though, that Glenn Beck finds an audience; I suspect that aside from the occasional extreme comment, I would cheer most of what he has to say. Our society has changed very much from its former old-fashioned common-sense attitudes.
  Again quad, I'm going to disagree with you.  The reason that Beck finds an audience is because despite the fact that ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times and Washington Post loudly trumpet the liberal (transprog) agenda a fairly large percentage of Americans today have a healthy DISRESPECT for the government and it's lies.  While they're anger isn't focused the way it needs to be they can see with their own eyes just what socialism in America looks like and they want no part of it.  Beck is at the tip of the spear and while not everyone who listens to him totally agrees with him (I don't) they know that he's at least heading in the right direction to what they want America to return to.

terry_freeman on April 22, 2010, 12:18:01 am
Statists have no trouble inventing spurious arguments out of whole cloth, so what of it? Any terrorist who pokes his head into the cabin of a plane with two armed pilots, who have military training, is likely to emerge with a few extra holes which were not part of Allah's design for the human bod.

Rocketman on April 22, 2010, 12:34:03 pm
Statists play by only one set of rules.  DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN.  To them nothing is out of bounds if they are trying to get socialist legislation passed or trying to defend a statist objective.  Case in point, when Bill Clinton was in hot water for having sexual relations with Monica L.  and his supporters were trying to deflect some of the critizism from him. A socialistic professor over in England claimed that DNA evidence proved that Tom Jefferson had fathered children with Sally Hemmings who was a slave owned by Jefferson.  The newspapers were all quick to point that this was far worse than what Clinton had done.  One little problem was that for DNA can only work if their is a male heir and Jefferson only had two daughters.  Later after the crisis had passed the professor admitted that he made everything up.  Bet you didn't read about that part in the newspapers did you?   >:(
« Last Edit: April 22, 2010, 12:35:37 pm by Rocketman »

dough560 on April 23, 2010, 01:28:48 am
Like the history professor whose book claimed guns were not a part of American Frontier.  It took a while, but it was proven the professor made up his data.  The idiot had to return awards the book had been awarded.  Served him right.

Rocketman on April 23, 2010, 10:07:03 am
I don't know about you dough, but lying about a good and decent man like Jefferson after he's dead and not able to defend himself to me is beyond disgusting.  As bad as robbing a church poorbox or maining a helpless animal in order to watch it suffer.  He is one pathetic excuse for a human being.   >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(