or perhaps people are reading and responding to tsl and each other because thats how people discuss things on the internet and there isnt a problem. why do you feel the need to passively-aggress against dissenting opinions by setting up these strawmen? is it because youre not able to respond directly to what is being said? some libertarians might have a problem with tsl for stated reasons, and perhaps other libertarians could respond to them, and we could all learn from each other. is there a problem? perhaps people find their critiques (on whatever) unsettling, and are here discussing it. whether they “know they might be right” or not, is there somehow a problem with discussing these ideas? it seems like there would be more of a problem with dismissal without discussion.
do you have any thoughts on these items that you might want to share?
who is ignoring it? why does everyone have to be in ideological lockstep with you, a priori of any discussion? your statement on rape culture have been found wanting. you declined to answer critical enquiry on that subject, so you have no standing to act as though people arent willing to discuss it. as for application of the term “neo-confederates” I thought you were above such things, but you sound more and more like a spokesperson for SPLC, especially in light of your recent descent into religious intolerance.
actually the post was deliberately written to be ambiguous and I deliberately identified the most relevant ambiguities. you need to work on your reading comprehension if you think theres only one valid interpretation of statements like those I identified.
well perhaps they are relevant because they address vaccines. perhaps that would be obvious to anyone who has read, let alone participated in this little back-and-forth we just had. perhaps you should do more reading and less typing.
you still havent explained why you think I am being dishonest. if the relevance escaped you, perhaps you could ask instead of playing snarkapotamous and being difficult.
you seem to feel that, despite the literal ambiguity, there is only one valid interpretation of bier’s statement on vaccines. perhaps that is merely a symptom of your ignorance and you would do well to educate yourself, perhaps even by clicking on those links I posted and reading the webpages that result.
I think there is a difference. If you want to have a wall of shame kind of thing onto which you are going to pin offenders, so as to advertise that you had an emotional reaction upon reading their stuff, then that is pathetic. But if you are going to do something to try and counter what they have writen and point out the wrongs in it then that is another thing.