LIBERTARIANS; THE SOCIALIST'S BEST FRIEND

THE LOGICAL VIEW ^ | 11/06/02 | MARK A SITY

[missileboy]

Thanks for the post, Mr. Paine. It helps to bring up my next question. Per one of my previous posts to Jihad, I think it is safe to say that those who are imprisoned or those who lose thier lives, thier property, all in the name of the WOD - are suffering - even if they have no involvement in illegal drugs. Would they be suffering for the sins of the DEA?

[missileboy]

RE: hopefully something defensible

Yes, I've seen that you're quite adept at destroying the logic of my arguments. I think it was the simple statement that my views are founded in science fiction fantasy that destroyed me. You proudly posted that as if an actual debate ensued. As usual, you delivered nothing.

[tpaine]

HERE is a dour, bitter, and world-weary view:

"War, famine, drought, flood, pestilence, disease, all are caused by sin." - CJ

[Alan Chapman]

CJ also said,

"Okay, then by your standards we should legalize rape, or murder, or bank-robbery, since laws against rape or murder or bank-robbery rob people of their "inalienable right to choose evil."

[missileboy]

"War, famine, drought, flood, pestilence, disease, all are caused by sin."

Wow. This is heavy. Now we're getting into theology. I think there is plenty of biblical support for the idea that death and the like are the result of sin, as in "the wages of sin is death", but does this mean that all adversity is the result of sin?

For example, look at John 9, where Jesus heals the blind man.

(I'm using the NIV translation)- from 9:1

"As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus replied, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but his happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

This seems to suggest that not all adversity is the direct result of sin, thus putting Jihad's statement in question. We don't know why things happen, and sometimes God has a long term plan that we can't understand, or that we might never even conceive as just. But it's not always the direct result of sin.

[Roscoe]

Too bad CA has no such provison.

The last time an attempt was made to put such protections into our state constitution, there were halfwits claiming it wasn't necessary because of the Second Amendment.

[Roscoe]

The Republican failed to earn the necessary votes.

So by your reasoning, the F rated Democrat "earned" those votes, with some help from the LP.

[Alan Chapman]

So by your reasoning, the F rated Democrat "earned" those votes, with some help from the LP.

Not by my reasoning. Perhaps by yours.

How did the LP "help" the Democrat?

[Roscoe]

Not by my reasoning.

Good point. Nonsense can't be carried to a logical conclusion.

[tdadams]

Why do you insist on showing us how stupid you are? We already know it. You're a complete waste of brain matter.

[Ragin1]

At this point, I've only made it to post 341,

Thank you. What you are so gently doing, is what made FR the greatest spot on the web at one time. I miss that type of discourse.

[tpaine]

The only reason states need such 'provisions' is as an additional ` protection from prohibitionists like you, roscoe. - You anti-gun zealots use any excuse to subvert our system of constitutional checks & balances.

What is YOUR personal objection to possession of 'assault weapons', roscoe?

[Alan Chapman]

You didn't answer my question (not suprising). How did the LP "help" the Democrat?

[Alan Chapman]

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question from post #474. You made a claim which you can't seem to substantiate.

[Kevin Curry]

The simplest truths are often the most powerful, discomfiting, and the most quickly rejected because they are discomfiting.

Libertarian philosophy is not the same as libertarian reality. No political philosophy is flawless or without negative unintended consequences when implemented in the rough and tumble world of everyday life.

Any libertarian who cannot severely and honestly critique his ideology and identify very real and serious flaws within it is simply a shallow-thinking zealot, an idiot wheezing platitudes from a soapbox.

Over the past two years at FR, I have come across perhaps two or three libertarians at most who have even dared to honestly critique their chosen ideology. One of them has already jettisoned libertarianism; another is in the process of doing so.

On the other side of the rift, the most zealous and shallowest-thinkers have fled to Liberty Post or Liberty Forum to continue a group-think mutual masturbation session in the insanely funny and delusional belief that they have found the nirvana of "free thinking."

[Roscoe]

additional ` protection

Invention. Sourceless, meritless, pathetic.

[tpaine]

And on YOUR side of the rift, the most zealous and shallowest-thinkers have posted insanely funny and delusional beliefs such as the below:

"War, famine, drought, flood, pestilence, disease, all are caused by sin." CJ

You have supported such insanity. Can you honestly critique CJ's ideology and identify very real and serious flaws within it? Or are you simply another shallow-thinking zealot, kevin, -- an idiot wheezing platitudes from a soapbox?

[tpaine]

Your anti-constitutional stance is pathetic, roscoe. End story.

Can you defend CJ's stance on 'sin'?

[Roscoe]

On the other side of the rift, the most zealous and shallowest-thinkers have fled to Liberty Post or Liberty Forum

But they often return here with new handles, after regaining access by fraud.

[Roscoe]

Additional protection? What a lame attempt at a reply.