SandySandfort on September 04, 2010, 06:50:11 pm
While intellectually honest, authoritatively support, well thought out disagreements do sharpen any debate. Negativism, willful misrepresentation and  rationalization, do not. Trying to score "points" without regard to the truth is intellectually dishonesty and nothing more than mental masturbation. It obscures rather than illuminates.

Here are some good rules of thumb on how to ethically disagree with people on this or any other forum:

  • If you think (for example) that market anarchy is flawed, back that opinion up with evidence and rational arguments.
  • Graciously admit your error if others present better evidence and reasoning.
  • Avoid attributing any generalizations about a group to individuals which whom you disagree. Maybe your opponent is a Nazi or a commie. So what? The only relevant issue is the validity of his evidence and logic.
  • Don't make shit up.

I have discussed this before; I will discuss it again. Let's all try to practice forum hygiene, okay?

"What are the facts? Again and again and again what are the facts?  Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"-- Robert Heinlein

wdg3rd on September 05, 2010, 05:41:14 am
While intellectually honest, authoritatively support, well thought out disagreements do sharpen any debate. Negativism, willful misrepresentation and  rationalization, do not. Trying to score "points" without regard to the truth is intellectually dishonesty and nothing more than mental masturbation. It obscures rather than illuminates.

Here are some good rules of thumb on how to ethically disagree with people on this or any other forum:

  • If you think (for example) that market anarchy is flawed, back that opinion up with evidence and rational arguments.

I'm waiting.

Quote

  • Graciously admit your error if others present better evidence and reasoning.

I've admitted several errors, usually because of poor research.  "My bad".

Quote
  • Avoid attributing any generalizations about a group to individuals which whom you disagree. Maybe your opponent is a Nazi or a commie. So what? The only relevant issue is the validity of his evidence and logic.

I've been called any or all of those too many times to count.  I'm an individualist anarchist and yes, I like to watch porn.

Quote

  • Don't make shit up.


That spoils all the fun.

Quote

I have discussed this before; I will discuss it again. Let's all try to practice forum hygiene, okay?

"What are the facts? Again and again and again what are the facts?  Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"-- Robert Heinlein

Forum hygiene is a bit tricky, few even admit their hands might need cleaning.
I follow the advice of one of the fathers I adopted and wash my hands after any attempt at poetry or other fiction.  (My other two fathers were Richard Fuller and Julius Marx).[/list]
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

ContraryGuy on September 11, 2010, 01:04:17 am
While intellectually honest, authoritatively support, well thought out disagreements do sharpen any debate. Negativism, willful misrepresentation and  rationalization, do not. Trying to score "points" without regard to the truth is intellectually dishonesty and nothing more than mental masturbation. It obscures rather than illuminates.

Here are some good rules of thumb on how to ethically disagree with people on this or any other forum:

  • If you think (for example) that market anarchy is flawed, back that opinion up with evidence and rational arguments.
  • Graciously admit your error if others present better evidence and reasoning.
  • Avoid attributing any generalizations about a group to individuals which whom you disagree. Maybe your opponent is a Nazi or a commie. So what? The only relevant issue is the validity of his evidence and logic.
  • Don't make shit up.

I have discussed this before; I will discuss it again. Let's all try to practice forum hygiene, okay?

"What are the facts? Again and again and again what are the facts?  Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"-- Robert Heinlein

I suspect Sandy was pointing this at me, because I had recently said I was attempting to be Devil's Advocate and perhaps not doing a very good job at it.

But, if i dont poke holes in peoples inflated image of themselves and their arguments, who will.
I know that a lot of people on this forum are serious about this subject and would like to see serious discussion spread among educated and uneducated people alike.

So, if I can get this forum to address what i see as errors in thinking or just oversights, then so much the better, correct?
How much better will your arguments be if you have overcome every objection thrown in your way?

An example would be: How do you educate people on the difference between classical anarchism and popular anarchism(such as the Eugene Anarchists, motorcycles gangs and 4chan)?

Most of what I have seen is very wonkish discussions of economic systems; such as the difference between classical econ and the Austrian School.  And the differential qualities of full reserve and fractional reserve banking.

How will you come up with a concise description of how your anarchy and freedom of business will make peoples lives better?  Concise meaning less than one page, and words no more than two syllable long.  Maybe three syllables once in a while.

I know how Sandy will react, but that kind of reaction only turns people away rather than converting them.

How will the rest of you answer these basic questions?

This is the role of the Loyal opposition.

And since theres only one of me, I had better start oppostion-ing, hadnt I?

terry_freeman on September 11, 2010, 03:07:44 am
So-called "popular anarchy" is a fiction devised a) for entertainment, and b) to spread confusion. We have no obligation to defend ourselves from the charge of being just like some stupid movie series; it is enough to point out that the series is fiction, not fact. This is similar to the Hollywood "wild west" myth; it is enough to point to the research which indicates that the anarchist West was actually more peaceful than contemporary Eastern cities.

Would you take the series "House" to be an accurate description of how medicine is practiced? Is there any series which accurately describes what the computer profession is like? Is Star Trek an accurate depiction of Vulcans and Klingons? Do Vulcans and Klingons actually exist?

Reality is too boring for show business. Imagine a series about life in the West, pre-government, where the murder rate is next to nothing, where disputes about claims are settled in five minutes by a couple guys jawing over a barrel in the saloon, where valuable articles can be left unprotected and not be stolen. Where's the drama?

SandySandfort on September 11, 2010, 07:35:08 am
While intellectually honest, authoritatively support, well thought out disagreements do sharpen any debate. Negativism, willful misrepresentation and  rationalization, do not. Trying to score "points" without regard to the truth is intellectually dishonesty and nothing more than mental masturbation. It obscures rather than illuminates.

Here are some good rules of thumb on how to ethically disagree with people on this or any other forum:

  • If you think (for example) that market anarchy is flawed, back that opinion up with evidence and rational arguments.
  • Graciously admit your error if others present better evidence and reasoning.
  • Avoid attributing any generalizations about a group to individuals which whom you disagree. Maybe your opponent is a Nazi or a commie. So what? The only relevant issue is the validity of his evidence and logic.
  • Don't make shit up.

I have discussed this before; I will discuss it again. Let's all try to practice forum hygiene, okay?

"What are the facts? Again and again and again what are the facts?  Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"-- Robert Heinlein

I suspect Sandy was pointing this at me, because I had recently said I was attempting to be Devil's Advocate and perhaps not doing a very good job at it.

But, if i dont poke holes in peoples inflated image of themselves and their arguments, who will.
I know that a lot of people on this forum are serious about this subject and would like to see serious discussion spread among educated and uneducated people alike....

Once again, you have succeeded in missing the point. Did you actually read my post and its suggestions? Basically, I asked for evidence, reason and intellectual honesty, not the unsupported parroting of the party line. (So much for being "contrary.") Is that so hard?

Your arguments supply none of these. You clearly lack the intellectual rigor and honesty to poke holes in anybody's arguments much less their egos. In fact, the only display of ego that I can see here is yours. You puff yourself up and make grandiloquent pronouncement without a shred of evidence, reasoning or intellectual honesty.

Yes, people on this Forum are serious about these subjects. That is why it is incumbent upon you to start getting serious about supporting your regurgitation of pro-government propaganda, with evidence, reasoning and intellectual honesty.

BTW, if you are having trouble with the four and five-letter words above, don't be such a lazy lizard, go here and expand your horizons:

     http://dictionary.reference.com/

J Thomas on September 11, 2010, 08:12:47 am
....
But, if i dont poke holes in peoples inflated image of themselves and their arguments, who will.
I know that a lot of people on this forum are serious about this subject and would like to see serious discussion spread among educated and uneducated people alike.

So, if I can get this forum to address what i see as errors in thinking or just oversights, then so much the better, correct?
How much better will your arguments be if you have overcome every objection thrown in your way?

This is a comic book forum. People are here because they like the comic.

If you make arguments they enjoy responding to then they will respond. If you succeed in puncturing their inflated images of themselves they probably will not enjoy that. And if you try and fail they still won't enjoy it.

Quote
Most of what I have seen is very wonkish discussions of economic systems; such as the difference between classical econ and the Austrian School.  And the differential qualities of full reserve and fractional reserve banking.

How will you come up with a concise description of how your anarchy and freedom of business will make peoples lives better?  Concise meaning less than one page, and words no more than two syllable long.  Maybe three syllables once in a while.

Sandy's comic does that. He's also telling fun stories, so he doesn't spend all his time preaching.

Quote
I know how Sandy will react, but that kind of reaction only turns people away rather than converting them.

If you read his comic and then attack the ideas, you probably aren't interested in being converted. He might prefer that you turn away and stop bothering him and his friends.

Quote
How will the rest of you answer these basic questions?

Sometimes when I ask basic questions people point me to reference books or suggest I read the old forums where other people discussed similar things. That's completely fair.

People are here to have fun. They like the comic and they like discussing it with their friends. They have no obligation to answer questions from confused or hostile people who disagree with them. They have no obligation to rethink their positions even if somebody shows that their positions are logically inconsistent.

Everything that happens here is voluntary. People do what they want to. Sandy might modify his behavior because he is here partly to make money -- and he probably makes more money if he concentrates on his actual work rather than argue in the forums. But the rest of us are here only because we want to be, and we do what we want to.  If enough people want you to go away, you might receive a whole lot of encouragement to go away like a cialis spammer.

So if your main desire is to see a truly serious discussion, maybe you should find a forum where people's first purpose is to have a truly serious discussion and not one where their first purpose is to have fun.

But if you like the comic and you enjoy the company, and you aren't too annoying, I'm sure you'll be welcome here too. And if you have honest questions people will probably point you to honest answers.

SandySandfort on September 11, 2010, 09:11:08 am
Sandy's comic does that. He's also telling fun stories, so he doesn't spend all his time preaching.

Correct. Entertainment is my first goal. Of course, my ideology affects what I consider entertaining, but my view has always been, if you want to send a "message," use Western Union.

Everything that happens here is voluntary. People do what they want to. Sandy might modify his behavior because he is here partly to make money...

From your mouth to Chaos' ear. Building up a following and making money might take some time.

and he probably makes more money if he concentrates on his actual work rather than argue in the forums.

That's partially true. I was on the debate team in high school and college, then I became a lawyer. So you see I am not averse to a spirited discussion. Sometimes, it even generates story ideas. However, the back story to the "inside joke" has caused me to waste time instead of doing my work. I thought I would have finished the story behind an upcoming arc by the end of the week, but I got distracted by the silly person involved. Never fear, though, I will soon finish "Camp Out," a Space Scout field trip to an unexplored planetoid.   :)

Bob G on September 12, 2010, 11:09:06 pm
I suspect Sandy was pointing this at me, because I had recently said I was attempting to be Devil's Advocate and perhaps not doing a very good job at it.

But, if i don't poke holes in peoples inflated image of themselves and their arguments, who will?

Have you been READING any of these threads? There are a lot of folk who 'call BS' when appropriate. And in a fairly reasoned and sincere manner, not simply for the purpose of stirring things up.

Quote
I know that a lot of people on this forum are serious about this subject and would like to see serious discussion spread among educated and uneducated people alike.

Then again, this is a forum about a webcomic. Maybe not the arena for wide-ranging in-depth expositions of An-Cap thought. And if you have questions about how An-Cap may work, maybe a little patience will be rewarded by an illustration in the comic.

Quote
So, if I can get this forum to address what i see as errors in thinking or just oversights, then so much the better, correct?
How much better will your arguments be if you have overcome every objection thrown in your way?

*Every* objection? If the objection is reasoned and principled, the responding argument will get better. If the objection is tantamount to setting up a straw man, knocking it down, and then strutting around clucking, "See how clever I am!", the objection and the objector risk getting ignored even at the risk of the objector claiming that a lack of response to the objection means that heorshe 'won'.

Quote
Most of what I have seen is very wonkish discussions of economic systems; such as the difference between classical econ and the Austrian School.  And the differential qualities of full reserve and fractional reserve banking.

Uh, yeah.

Quote
How will you come up with a concise description of how your anarchy and freedom of business will make peoples lives better?  Concise meaning less than one page, and words no more than two syllable long.  Maybe three syllables once in a while.

As you already noted, these things tend to morph into wonkish epistles. Still . . .

Quote
I know how Sandy will react, but that kind of reaction only turns people away rather than converting them.

Again, I don't think Sandy is trying to convert anyone, he's trying to give us a fun webcomic. If, in the event, he can make some of the unconverted go "Hmmmmm . . .", so much the better.

Quote
This is the role of the Loyal opposition.

And since theres only one of me, I had better start oppostion-ing, hadnt I?

Thing is, there isn't . . .
Whatsoever, for any cause, seeketh to take or give
  Power above or beyond the Laws, suffer it not to live.
Holy State, or Holy King, or Holy People's Will.
  Have no truck with the senseless thing, order the guns and kill.

The penultimate stanza of Rudyard Kipling's MacDonough's Song

Rocketman on September 13, 2010, 11:31:36 am
ContraryGuy:  There is a difference between playing "Devil's advocate" and being a "flamer".  The former makes logic arguments against what was said and points out different ways of looking at the issue, whatever it is.  A "flamer" does their best to stir up the other persons emotions to get the other person simply angry and/ or upset.  In the past I've had people on this site that I've disagreed with and tried to logically reason with them.  Sometimes they have admitted that I was right and sometimes after looking at it from their point of view I've admitted that I was wrong and they were right.  That's how it's supposed to work.   :-\

 

anything