Francois Tremblay is sad, weird little man, the way he treats everybody on that forum is inexcusable. However it is great that many libertarian forums are becoming more civil. I’ve seen a significant improvement in manners on both sides, and makes me feel that we may have a chance as a movement.
You’re “strawmanning” me for “strawmanning.” I never said that you said that believe in positive obligations, but a “right to life” necessarily implies a positive obligation. This is why a right to self ownership is clearer - you own yourself, you decide what happens to you, there are no positive obligations.
I read you over there. I read responses to you. Looks like an extension of what goes on here, except you’re less radical than many of us but basically the same circular bickering and lack of respect.
http://libertarianleft.freeforums.org/anarcho-capitalism-is-monarchal-city-states-t234.html
Stop caring what the people on the damn forums say! Most are 18 or under (to include Giles) and have very little education. That is not to say that all there are ignorant and zombies, but many of the “loud voices” are not among the scholarly. So please - get off it and look at the texts.
Besides Giles, who else compromise the “most” that are 18 or under and have very little education? Could you identify who here you are talking about?
No it doesn’t.
No, that’s just your preferred terminology, which I don’t like. This is just semantics.
I don’t claim to be a saint or Malcom X and I have redacted or otherwise curbed any speech which was not civil - something I do not see from many who debate here or on the internet as a whole - all my posts over there back that up. I think am as radical as any - I am more measured however.
Read my debate with neverfox if you want or with anyone over there for that matter - in fact I even posted an apology for not being civil on one occasion, it may have even been that post - as I said there, it is not how reasonable people act.
When I talk about people who aren’t particularly scholarly or educated I am referencing this and this. Wombatron and Krazy Kaju to name two. BP in particular gets hung up debating them, as the context of that post shows. Source is important - no matter what anyone says because credibility truly is something tangible. There is a reason that in independent blind scholarly publishing the most educated get published frequently. BP doesnt take on the big writers - he takes on the forum dwellers.
We can debate all day on the merits and the biases of the current higher educational system that we all know is broken - however, better and more complete arguments come from those who are educated to the masters and doctorate level and wrong because of their biases than from those who are ignorant of their biases and correct.
Please dont misunderstand me. I think Giles, Womb, KK and others make some excellent points, are very salient and have complete thoughts for the most part - better than many others. However there is a breadth of experience that is lacking and you can see it in debates and positions which do not yield to reasonable debate, something that comes with experience.
These types of philosophical and complex economic debates take a measure of restraint and temperance like you see with Block, Kinsella and Carson and for BP to take on the members here who do not do those things, shows that he is not challenging the real argument but rather going for the easy targets - that is clear.
This has the stench of the bias doctrine. Truly, it does not matter from whom an idea or a point comes from, if that idea cannot be debunked then it must be respected as being so, referrencing the little educated,18-year olds who create them serves only as a character-assassination.
It seems Andrew has just made a lot of friends among the youngsters here…
I think we all understand you now.
See, I can respect this sort of attitude from somebody like GAP or Jon for example. But until I’ve seen anything of any worth from you on these forums, no.