Posted on 07/28/2002 12:03:58 PM PDT by BADJOE
Free Republic and Liberty Post.org
To all:
I would hope your appearances and posting on these pages states your desire to undo years of liberal policies in this land I hope we all dearly love. I would hope that a hundred successful LibertyPost.org and FreeRepublics would advance the cause we all hold near and dear.
From what I have read here it seems many are more interested in fighting each other than they are in advancing the cause of individual liberty and limited constitution government as envisioned by our forefathers.
If my second paragraph is the truth, shame on you.
Let us stop the petty bickering about crap that doesn't amount to a hill of blue beans and get on with the job at hand.
---------------------------------
"But I've found consistently that certain posters start up on threads such as pedophilia and bestiality and blame Libt.'s out of nowhere."
Many conservatives who have carefully thought the matter through and judged it against everyday experience have come to the conclusion that libertarian ideology, if consistently followed, must neccessarily tolerate such perversions to the extent that "consent" serves as the polestar moral justification, because "consent" is such a slippery word.
Libertarians may vigorously oppose such perversions and find them personally repugnant beyond belief. But in the next breath they hasten to add with an odd self-righteous sniff and smug wink, "But what a person does in the privacy of his (home)(pigsty) (morgue) is none of my business."
The proponents of these perversions capitalize on this goofy, brainless "see no evil" tolerence and make these perversions the basis of highly visible civil rights movements that guarantee that none of these things stays private but is served up in the popular culture and media 24/7.
In the end, the libertarian "see no evil" tolerence merely guarantees that the pukingly private is made outrageously public. We get more and more of whatever deviant behavior we tolerate.
Libertarians hate to have this pointed out. They accuse libertarian critics of "lying" when such commonsensical observations are made. In the libertarian view, this amounts to an vicious attack in violation of forum rules. - Kevin Curry -
So what you're saying is we should fight the Dems and support hold the Republicans accountable to conservative principles?
Maybe. What was the point you were trying to make?
Go on!
I understand your opinion on libertarianism, although I disagree with it. I am not saying that you do not have the right to engage in discourse, but I would like to point out that using personal insults do nothing to advance your cause, nor change the minds of more neutral type people.
To bring Libt. up out of the blue when never being referenced in a conversation as a direct cause is unfair and rather dishonest intellectually. One can reduce something to whatever they want to, but it doesn't mean it's right. Rather than blaming Libt. for drug use, I could make the argument that it is repressive social mores that cause people to use drugs rather than be honest with their feelings of depression, and so forth.
Since we most definitely do not have a libertarian society, the fact that these issues exist cannot be blamed solely in libertarianism.
In addition, many people have stated things that counter what you say, but you continue to use these arguments. For example: When you start one of your diatribes against libt.s for being pro-legalization, you refer to them as druggies or pro-pot druggies, etc. However, many have stated that they ae anti-drug while being pro-legalization. I am one of those people. Yet you ignore this and continue the name calling and insulting.
While I would not mind having discussions about libt., there is a time and a place, as well as a manner of discussion. You sir, blatantly ignore all 3 points.
Your tone, words and manner are what I consider typical of (but not in this post) "vicious attack in violation of forum rules", not the content of your statements.
BWAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha!!!!!!
... nazis or drug warriors or socialists or fascists or jihadists or idiots ...
One BIG dfference, CJ. I have NEVER seen a libertarian 'come out of nowhere' on a thread, and start calling anyone such names. -- You ... do it ad nauseum, constantly.
By 'ad nauseum' you shouldn't have any trouble linking to even one instance.
In other words, this was written by someone who's made a career out of the War of Drugs. (And thus someone who'd be unemployed were recreational drugs legalized!)
Materialist ideologues of any stripe,
from Marxist to libertarian,
see only a material reason to all actions,
and never a values-based reason.
[he] ... made a valid initial reply to the #1 post, - and you came out of no where with your usual baseless anti-libertarian bull.
My response was not an attack with name-calling. I never called him or you a socialist or a jihadist or an idiot, as you have to me often enough, ironically. I made the valid point that materialists always see a material-based reason for any action rather than a values-based reason. His comment could easily have been: "Cops are against achieving a world without theft or rape or murder, 'cause then they'd be out of a job!" I am sorry if you find the similarities between the various humanist-based and materialist-based ideology-based philosophies unsettling.
My response was not an attack with name-calling.
You were 'baiting' libertarians, as you do ad nauseum.
I never called him or you a socialist or a jihadist or an idiot, as you have to me often enough, ironically.
Fool yourself with rationalizations, if you must. But spare us more bull.
I made the valid point that materialists always see a material-based reason for any action rather than a values-based reason. His comment could easily have been: "Cops are against achieving a world without theft or rape or murder, 'cause then they'd be out of a job!"
You are really begging the point. - His comment had basically *nothing* to with your anti-libertarian reply.
I am sorry if you find the similarities between the various humanist-based and materialist-based ideology-based philosophies unsettling.
I have no problems with your joke versions of 'philosophies'. I only object to your lies about libertarians.
And what is a "lie" about libertarianism? Any candid statement or commonsensical observation about the warts on the face or boils on the behind of libertarian ideology.
Of course this enrages them. Such things are terribly ugly to see.
Things get heated, and insults fly. What I was pointing out, and I am not aware if you read my initial post, is that you and your buddies *start* it, typically being the very first to even mention libt. Can you deny that? And the mention is typically fraught with insult.
There's no need to reflexively attack. Flaming only brings the level of this forum down. And no, I don't think that you being called names is fair either.
those same oh-so-principled ideologues you are defending today. Considering that I am one of the idealogues, I do consider myself princpled, so that slam will pass right by me.
As I mentioned in my previous post, that, for example, to be pro-legalization is to be a druggie. I am not a druggie, I disapprove strongly of illegal drug usage, as well as the use/abuse of other legal drugs (nicotine springs to mind).
But I am pro-legalization. Wehether you agree or disagree with my reasoning, the fact that you insist on calling all pro-legalization posters druggies is a blatant insult. Now, having said this more than once, might you let that sink in?
And to the post you pasted, consider that source.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.