Apparently.
yawn
I enjoy your over-generalization.
Coincidentally, so do I.
“I enjoy your over-generalization.”
And it happens to rhyme with observation!
I like the Reptilian and other stuff.
I’d like for a Reptilian chiropractor to teach me Christian alternatives to vaccinations using the Bible Code. And of course to cure my AIDs, caused by Angra Mainyu, using healing crystals. But everyone knows that Reptilians only go around hating on the poor old Kennedys and meeting with the Obamas, Kerrys, Nixons, and Bushes at the Bohemian Grove owl cult camping spot. They have no time to fit me into their busy schedule.
You can be snarky and able to rationally defend yourself. It is not as if the two are mutually exclusive. I think your argument is implying that libertarians can and/or should explicitly sever ties with ‘conspiracy nuts’ which has not yet been explicitly defined in the first place. You gave general senitments but nothing showing where conspiracy ends and true begins. Even if you were, why should it follow that we should listen to your gripes about conspiracy nuts as opposed to listening to conspiracy nuts themselves? On a personal level, I have a mild dislike for excentric conspiracies such as aliens ruling the government, the government having a ‘stargate’, jews running the world or any other secretive cabal. I find some truth in imprisioning American citizens because honestly the government has done it in the past [ Japanese-Americans during WWII ] and I find it rational if they did it again if faced with some kind of civil unrest. However, beyond my mild dislike I think that libertainism implies a mindset that is reluctant toward committing actions which would lead to coerce. What can be seen as a ridiculous idea can quickly become a dangerous idea if basic libertarian theory is forgotten. This could be done by collective dehumanization or claims of mass insanity. So I don’t see why ‘conspiracy nuts’ should be denigrated to the point of severing ties so long as proper classification is given toward each definition so that misconceptions about such definitions are not adopted.
What is the purpose of government schools if not to indoctrinate?
Some, but not necessarily all. I suggest you don’t load posts with over-generalizations.
You can be snarky and able to rationally defend yourself. It is not as if the two are mutually exclusive.
Neither are screaming and being calm, but…
I think your argument is implying that libertarians can and/or should explicitly sever ties with ‘conspiracy nuts’
I think one should avoid promoting obviously crazy bullshit, regardless of its political motive. Perhaps especially because of its political motives, no worse damage you can do than to argue poorly after all. You can listen to conspiracy nuts, if you want. If you have any sense of the laws of probability or social organization you will quickly realise they are both crazy and irrelevant.
I prefer not to associate myself with anyone who believes crazy bullshit, whether it be Creationism or aliens. I’ll defend Gary North as an economist, but not as a theologian (and certainly not as a scientist, which he doesn’t even claim to be).
What is the purpose of government schools if not to indoctrinate?
To create a unified nation and the educational requisites for a free republic. The Progressives consider anything pro-market indoctrination. There are no virtually zero scheming villains, especially not in the public sphere. That’s just psychologically ludicrous, not to mention irrelevant.
‘Neither are screaming and being calm, but…’
But what? You can scream and be calm. I can open my window and scream ‘Hello neighbors!’ and remain in a state of calmness. That is unless you are going to argue that by increasing the volume of my voice that I am exacerbating my voice muscles and therefore unable to remain calm, calm being defined as a state without strenious activity or worry.
‘I think one should avoid promoting obviously crazy bullshit, regardless of its political motive. Perhaps especially because of its political motives, no worse damage you can do than to argue poorly after all’
Well your sentiments on an issue are your own personal observations. Some might not consider Alex Jones crazy. Also it does not follow that because you dislike others sentiments that they are just arguing poorly.
‘You can listen to conspiracy nuts, if you want. If you have any sense of the laws of probability or social organization you will quickly realise they are both crazy and irrelevant.’
I fail to see how probability factors into political sentiments on current events. Also how are you defining ‘social organization’ ? It is one where an individual is free to voluntarily communicate with other individuals without threat or act of coerce? If that is the case I fail to see how ‘social organization’ matters because whether or not I communicated with a conspiracy nut, I would still be apart of that social organization because I am voluntarily choosing who to communicate with like every other actor. Now if ‘social organization’ means more then that, then you are going to have to go into further detail.
‘I prefer not to associate myself with anyone who believes crazy bullshit, whether it be Creationism or aliens. I’ll defend Gary North as an economist, but not as a theologian (and certainly not as a scientist, which he doesn’t even claim to be).’
Ok, but you never answered my question of why should we listen and/or follow your sentiment of not communicating with ‘conspiracy nuts.’ If you are just trying to state your ideas on the matter, well that is what you labeled ‘conspiracy nuts’ are trying to do also. Should we sever you off also? If not, why not? A perceived correctness on the matter?
^^^^ That’s one hell of a conspiracy theory.
You are quick on your feet.
Okay, I am done talking to you about anything. That post doesn’t even make sense.
‘Okay, I am done talking to you about anything. That post doesn’t even make sense.’
What are you having problems making sense of?
The idea that people are guided by normal sociobiological impulses and ideological conditioning is a ‘conspiracy theory’. This is why I hate libertarians; hell, most intelligent libertarians I know hate libertarians.
‘The idea that people are guided by normal sociobiological impulses and ideological conditioning is a ‘conspiracy theory’. This is why I hate libertarians; hell, most intelligent libertarians I know hate libertarians.’
Oh ok so your talking about something I wasn’t talking about. I thought you were having trouble making sense of what I was saying but that was directed at someone else.
How it possible for you to hate the intelligent?
“There are no virtually zero scheming villains, especially not in the public sphere.”
You really should get out more. That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve read in this thread, a thread that contains Creationism and other wacky stuff. But that takes top prize. I have personally known “scheming villains” in my life and to think that none of their kind exist in the “public sphere” is incredible, to say the least.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant there?
You should learn something about psychology and signaling.
"…The official version of 9-11
I don’t agree, the people who believe it was detonated are just smoking crack…"
No, the people who really believe the official version are “smoking crack” , as you put it, including yourself obviously.
“…unless you just like speculating about things which frankly you have neither the technical knowledge nor the access to information to assess anyway…”
And you know this for a fact exactly how?
“The point is that what these people believe is ridiculous on both theoretical, scientific and factual grounds and lending credence to their theory basically makes you nothing but a lunatic shill. …”
Sez you. Outside of 9/11 , which I consider myself to have studied intensely for 7 years before reaching any [almost] firm conclusions, you might be right, but since knowledge is finite at any point in time, you could also be wrong. Bigfoot and Mothmen and whatever else it is that you consider to be lunacy on " theoretical, scientific and factual grounds" however unlikely they might seem, may well exist, I don’t know one way or another for certain, and, sorry to break the news, neither do you.
Regards, your lunatic shill, onebornfree.
Both sides: leave out the insults (crank, lunatic shill, etc).