I was hesitant to chime in on this thread since I don’t have a doctorate in giving advice. But I just want to let it be known that I am considering taking course at my local university on giving advice. If I take and pass the course, I’ll come back here and give a lecture with appeals to experts and all. Btw, I’d expect most of you to sit quietly while I give the lecture. You’ll be able to ask question afterwards, but no questions on elementary stuff.
I appreciate that Lilburne. You’re a good mod and I respect you.
How is an ad hominem to observe that he somtimes completely ignores 99% of the substance in a post he tries to rebut? Seriously. I do not know if you have had a conversation with him but he won’t read anything you link him, any quotations longer than a couple of sentences, or acknowledge anything that threatens his worldview. For what its worth, Liberty Student thought he was a psychopath.
See the other thread on sex offenders. Force is only a very very short term tool for successful institutions.
And I really don’t think anyone forgets that you have to obey the law… we do live in States. We know whats expected of us.
I have no obligation to read your tl;dr essays Snowflake. Either way, I usually do read most of them, I just respond to the things that I think I need to respond to. Liberty Student did think I was a psychopath but he also thought it was immoral to play violent video games so…
“Force is only a very very short term tool for successful institutions.”
Oh well maybe they’ll all go away then. I won’t be holding my breath though.
This is why people say you don’t address things.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of his opinion. Regardless, LS is a respected member of the forums for good reason.
"
This is why people say you don’t argue well. Its a lazy response to something that directly challenges your worldview.
But again, my hypothesis is that you ignore anything that might make you change your opinion, or admit you were wrong about something. Preserve the ego.
“This is why people say you don’t address things”
I mean it’s true, I don’t address things unless I think they’re relevant.
" Regardless, LS is a respected member of the forums for good reason."
I never said he wasn’t. I’m just saying, yeah he thinks I’m a psychopath, big deal.
“It’s a lazy response”
It’s an adequate response. We will find out whether or not force is a “very very short term tool” by how long force is used to uphold the law. I personally don’t think force is going anywhere anytime soon because it works. That’s why I said I wouldn’t be holding my breath. But hey, maybe you’ll be right and force will just go away.
“You ignore anything that might make you change your opinion”
You’ve never presented anything that would make me change my opinion Snowflake, you give yourself too much credit.
You are mistaken in what you think is relevant then.
I don’t think you read the passage. If you did, you didn’t understand it. This kind of tunnel vision/self absorbtion is why you don’t seem to learn anything ever.
I meant others too. But seriously… the only work you consistently reference is machiavelli, its a philosophy teenagers can grasp. On the surface, you might think out of the many erudite posters on these forums, anyone could learn something.
“This kind of tunnel vision/self absorbtion is why you don’t seem to learn anything ever.”
I learn plenty, just not the things you want me to learn.
“Machiavelli, it’s a philosophy teenagers can grasp.”
And jiu jitsu is an art that 6 year olds can grasp, that doesn’t make it any less effective.
Pssch i don’t have like a program called rehab for amoral statists. You jsut defend your positions without understanding what you’re arguing against. Even if I don’t agree with something, my rebuttal demonstrates that I understand (most) of what my opponent is getting at. Your’s don’t.
I’m saying that machiavelle isn’t very complicated. There’s room to grow.
When did simplicity cease being a virtue?
“You jsut defend your positions without understanding what you’re arguing against. Even if I don’t agree with something, my rebuttal demonstrates that I understand (most) of what my opponent is getting at. Your’s don’t.”
I think I know exactly what you guys are getting at, Snowflake, it’s not complicated.
“Machiavelli isn’t very complicated”
Complexity has nothing to do with efficiency or effectiveness. Again, jiu jitsu is a simple art. Its simplicity is in fact what makes it so effective. Progressing from the simple to the complex only has value to me if I think it’s necessary. In this case, I don’t think it is.
Also, I don’t think libertarianism is particularly complex. Economics is certainly complex though.
Now that I’m thinking about it, understanding human action isn’t very complex.
Thank you, this.
I’m not attacking him for believing in machiavelli, which i very well could do. I’m saying that once you’ve mastered the basics, you can move on.
In this one thread, maybe. Even then i’m not so sure.
" mastered the basics, you can move on."
First of all, I am no master. Second of all, I see no reason to move on.
Of Machiavelli? Then I weep for you.
Your ideas about things are limited to purely mechanical descriptions. Your comments on violence are no more illuminating than the physics of projectile motion. No one here is impressed by this. If this does not matter to you, fine. But you may as well speak to a brick wall.
Machiavelli is simple but deep, mastering it is not as easy as reading it once and getting the gist of it. Libertarianism is similar in that it is fairly easy to understand but truly mastering all the concepts could take a lifetime, or maybe two lifetimes.
I actually take pride in my attempts at purely technical descriptions.
I thought Machiavelli was satire…
I tire of your vacuous pontification. I don’t think i’ve ever seen you try and rigorously prove any proposition. Donno why I even engage you anymore. Guess I’m easy to bait.
You mean The Prince was satire? I don’t think so. I think he wrote it for Lorenzo de Medici as a way of garnering political favor.