wait til you get to the point in which LS shares with us how he’s not a libertarian anymore.
yes - we’re all mad!!! Mad as Hell and We’re not Going to Take it Anymore!!
It’s merely a recognition of a pattern, with an implied subjective judgment that such habits are untoward.
What? You are aware that we are reading text on the Internet, which is subject to gross mis-interpretations since it lacks the ability to convey emotions, unlike human voices.
I could be typing this in a calm & cynical demenor, or in an over-heated angered fury.
You honestly couldn’t really tell the difference, at least not for sure.
I really think there is a lot of over-reacting going on around here.
oh lord - my head hits the keyboard. just kill me - I’m wrong, poor me…
For the third time, wilderness, being a subjectivist with regard to morals does not make one a subjectivist with regard to everything.
He quoted a hug comment I made and then rejected it. I was being humorous in my reply. If you reject a hug (which I thought implied love) does that mean hate? Hence the question.
And yet, this forum does not require (literally) that any and all people be libertarians accordingly to one definition. Shall we all go back to the more fashionable trend of belittling Giles at every single post he makes, regardless of the possible merits his posts may sometimes have?
Not all those interested in the austrian school are libertarians (few are strictly anarchist, more are minarchists of some sort, a few are small government conservatives, etc. etc. etc.), & if those who are interested in the austrian school wish to register & engage in conversation, then so be it.
I agree. We need a pool party.
oh, just when the guy is being killed is when you can’t speak up about, gotcha ya, thanks for the heads up
Sigh I miss those days…they were fun. [:P]
I agree, like I told Liberty. Just because he isn’t a libertarian doesn’t mean its the end of the world. I was just pointing out that it was strange that he went from what I would consider Blockian libertarianism to ‘ethical subjectivism’ and denouncing libertarianism in such a short time.
Or you could try to convince him of the “objective” nature of morality. See how far that gets you.
The real answer is to strike the man down without regret, since you feel justified in doing so according to your conscience. Also you call for help with other people with similar consciences.
Nitro.
I’m not mad cause LS isn’t a libertarian - lol - no. I was merely saying that cause so many people are up in arms - the flame war thingy.
I can’t even get him to agree to NAP.
Strike him down? For what?
God damnit! I told you it closes at 5:15!
Wrong. Legitimacy itself is a moral, and therefore a subjective, matter. Someone could have physical power over me, and yet I would still regard that power as illegitimate because it deeply offends my moral sense.
Well if I try to make the guy feel the regret I have - I’ve merely understood the objects, those feelings, and I embrace them. Why do you think objectivism isn’t about feelings? Why are you painting a false picture? It’s annoying that you don’t understand what objectivism means and then go on making these statements.
He’s just standing in the sun bathing.
Why not belittle Giles and laminustacitus who openly belittle libertarianism ?
What does the forum’s banner say ? Something about the scholarship of ‘liberty’ ? What might liberty be ? Well, whatever it is, it’s nothing ‘objective’ - that’s for sure.
Blatant strawman. I would morally condemn the gunman in my heart. And that would be a subjective judgment. Morals + subjectivity = ethical subjectivism. Stop trying to paint us as moral nihilists; it’s not convincing anybody who doesn’t already want to believe it.