Do I win yet?
You win on Friday if no-one will debate you.
i could debate Giles in another ‘sideshow’ thread as a devils advocate.
my motive would be to determine how powerful an argument he has.
is this a joke ?
sure, why not.
No, this is serious business.
No, this is a joke. You’ve been refuted countless times. Also, I explained to Physiocrat why I wouldn’t take part in such charade and apparently he ignored my post.
You mean, “sure, it’s a joke”.
will there be more jokes under anarchy?
It looks as though our esteemed critics don’t like the idea of a debate as I’ve noticed they’ve rated the thread with one star. They like to make themselves look good don’t the?
another idea might be if Giles wanted to write a paper and submit it to Libertarian Papers.
Debates and stars are for the bourgousie, they will be abolished under left libertarianism.
On a happier note: http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/03/c4ss-fundraiser-time-running-out.html
I don’t care. You know what I am getting at.
Well if you read the OP you would see a substantial difference. Only two people allowed to debate a formal motion with limited replies and no arguments by links. It is very different and it will make a clear and easy reference point to view either side of the debate. It takes little thought to realise that anybody not debating Giles will not put your position in the best of lights.
I know that you’re interested in misrepresenting me. I say you’re thoroughly dishonest. One more reason to not waste time debating you and your ilk.
We’re up to 4 stars.
This is disappointing, I thought there was real potential for a good debate here, despite the pessimism; I suppose it’s just easier to give up then :\
I know, I was looking forward to something to distract me from lagrangian multipliers.
All the more reason to accept this challenge. This way, there can be no misrepresentation of your views. Unless of course you wish to continue to hide behind such obfuscations.
I don’t know what libertarian papers is, but yeah. All Giles needs to do is copy and paste his master’s (aka Hoppe’s) dogma.
Giles ‘arguments’ are not based on logic, but on emotion. He hates or dislikes homosexuals - emotion. He believes in religious fairy tales like the majority of conservatives - emotion. He fancies himself part of the ‘natural elites’ - arrogance. Giles has more or less admitted to being a racist - more emotion. And so on and so forth. So he favors a system that theoretically at least would letshim get rid of people he despises.
Problem is, you can’t debate people who argue for emotional reasons. I’d only point out that economic, political and ‘cultural’ libertarianism go hand in hand. I’d bet two cents that even Hoppe knows that but for some reason he’s now pandering to the conservatives.
I suggest reading Hoppe’s “Socialism and Capitalism”. In that book there is no mention of the virtues of ‘social conservatism’, and there’s praise for the french revolution(!) and approving references to Rothbard’s “Left and Right” paper. So, either Hoppe was wrong when he wrote that book, or he’s wrong now.
Also for people interested in the relationship between socialism, conservatism and libertarianism I highly recommend Molinari’s “Les Soirées de la Rue Saint-Lazare”
preview : http://praxeology.net/GM-RSL.htm
full text (french): http://herve.dequengo.free.fr/Molinari/SRSL/SRSL_0.htm
I said misrepresent me, not my views. I am not a cultural leftist and my views are not cultural leftism. As was pointed out countless times the conservatives’ main ‘argument’ is to tag things they don’t like as ‘cultural marxism’. I say they join the mccarthy club.
How would you even know? You’ve not read D:TGTF you’ve read but a few papers by him and even then I doubt you’ve given it a fair read.
If you want to make statements like that you’re going to have to back them up. But even so, no, it needn’t be an emotional response, I can explain it logically if you’d like. But for that, you’d have to accept a formal debate (or read what I’ve already written).
And yet, nobody has been able to prove that.
Nope, no emotions at all. And for those reading - I’m only a racist in the sense that Rothbard and Mises are.
Quotation, please.
As far as I’m aware he doesn’t mention gravity, I’m quite sure he thinks it exists anyway.
Make sure that before doing this you check the meaning of equivocation.