Smokers are drug addicts. I don’t understand why you hate smokers.
Maybe if you are claiming that they exist, you should prove it ? Oh wait. I’m supposed to prove a negative ? No problem. (Maybe I should also refute the existence of flying pigs…?)
I did answer what makes a libertine according to ‘popular wisdom’ - Please refer to a dictionary. If the standard definition doesn’t suit you, well, too bad.
I provided my own views on the subject : Libertinism is anything social conservatives don’t like. As such, it’s just an arbitrary category.
You then provided a list of actions and here’s my comment on them : considering things as drug use (includes wine and beer I suppose ?), prostitution and oral sex as libertinism is laughable. Happy now ?
May or may not ? So your comment may or may not be relevant ? And you may or may not be saying something meaningful ?
How can I answer what an imaginary creature would do ?
Entails for whom ? What exactly are you asking ? What exactly are you talking about ? What exactly is a ‘social convention’ ?
Correct about what ? If you don’t know what Molyneux thinks about a given subject maybe you should ask him ? Or google ? Or something ?
Haha. I know pretty well what this is all about – that doesn’t mean I’ve got to waste my time guessing your personal acronyms.
I don’t know. Since when A and not A are mutually exclusive ?
Are you serious, or is that a so-called flame-bait ?
No, I am asking you to flesh your definition out. Not to prove a negative. BTW, it is possible to prove a negative. In fact, that is a proof common in classical logic (–p = p), in addition to simpler things like proving my hair is not blue.
How can you proceed, on the basis of such vagaries as enunciated by that dictionary, to deny the existence of the libertine?
It’s a convenient way of avoiding saying just what it is Hoppe is conjuring up, here, though.
How about drug abuse? Alcohol abuse? Random sex with strangers? Would these count as libertine? If not, why not?
No, considering a concrete definition has not been offered, as of yet, it’s still an open question as to whether it relates to high TP or not. All you’ve done really is ranted about the alleged non-existence of a very vaguely defined individual.
Question-begging. You’re assuming what you’re trying to show.
Playing dumb, are we? Entails, for the libertine. A social convention is no less and no more than the mores of a given society, e.g. what it considers acceptable or not, what is likely to result in dissociation with members of this society and so on.
Or maybe I should put the idea out on a forum frequented by his followers. Which I did. Nitpicking, as usual.
PR is my personal acronym now? It’s standard shorthand for “public relations”…
-Jon
I don’t hate any drug users, I just don’t believe they belong in society. As for smokers, there’s a huge difference, for one thing tobacco isn’t a mind altering substance.
Why does it matter who you want in society?
Try stopping smoking. It does f*** with your mind.
So alkaloids such as nicotine are not mind altering ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
Because we don’t want any godless homosexuals or smack injectors or rock and roll RPG game players or politicians or people of different colours, or people of mixed breeding, or people who are too smart, and definitely not any people who are super dumb. We don’t want to be over run by men, or by women. No enviro-fascists, no liberals, no conservatives. Sick to death of the compassionate, and even more annoyed by Randians.
If there is a way to keep out mouth breathers and people who leave small tips or no tip at all, by all means, let’s jettison them too.
Screw the gold bugs and the Keynesians. In fact, if we could just keep a couple hot french maids to look after me, the rest of you can take a long hike off a short pier.
Not in low concentrations, no.
Newsflash : Smokers smoke tobacco because of the alkaloids tobacco contains and the effects those alkaloids produce in the smokers’ minds. Tobacco smokers are drug users. Maybe they should be ostracized ?
I am a carpenter by trade and I read economic books, and history books for fun. I also visit this site regularly but post in the forum sparingly. I enjoy football, beer, women, and politics. I am some what of an outcast at work due to my poor social skills and outright rudeness but I get along just fine. Does any of this qualify my as a nerd?
I thought a nerd was someone who is very passionate to the point of obsessivenesses in one or more pursuits knowledge during life. A marine biologist is a nerd when it comes to fish. Chris Berman is a sports nerd. Rothbard was an economics nerd. I am a carpentry nerd. Or is that called a geek?
I think the main problem in recruiting is we generally spend way too much time debating the accepted definition of words and established theories. It is a contrarian movement and many have a feeling of superiority and smugness towards those who disagree. This is easily seen when listening to the jokes told by Lew or any other contributer to this site and philosophy.
There’s still a large distinction between tobacco and heroin, so no need to ostracize smokers. Homosexuals and drug users will suffice.
That’s quite interesting. Both male and female homosexuals ? Or maybe only male homosexuals will ‘suffice’… ?
No, both.
Wait. Who cares at all who he wants removed from society?
Obviously, he’s just reacting bitterly and not really supposing theory here.
[
I thought you were joking. Until you mentioned the Randians. [:D]
Why do you care? As long as you’re free, why do you care how anyone else lives their life? Why do you care what they do in their bedroom?
Yeah, heaven forbid they make everyone gay, right!? [:O] Then what!
[8-)]
-Jon
No it isn’t. Having spoken to many self-described libertines, I can tell you that’s exactly what it means. They hold as virtuous any act which goes against social norms. They engage in promiscuity because it is reviled by mainstream society. They do drugs for the same reason. And they do it out of spite. They believe that nobody has the right to express disapproval of their activities. They are not anti-aggression, they are anti-assertion. It is an absurd philosophy, and epistimologically baseless. Yet it exists, and there are people who believe in it by name.