FYI, precisely this ‘entitlement to receive’ and psychological compulsion towards egalitarianism of results is transference of childhood psychology. immature with respect to both reality, and morality.
Which is the point I brought up earlier. If we just assume that the left-handers will resort to violence, we’re in essense calling them children who throw tantrums when they don’t get their way.
By the way, Angurse, did Mary Sue’s refusal increase the chance of you becoming violence?
The Mary Sue comment was a joke, I didn’t really expect anyone to take too seriously. And even in context, I was just stating that I was harmed by some one’s refusal of association. No more, no less.
Other than that, I don’t think I can say anything more. I think people are approaching things from completley different angles. I also think the longer these conversations go on the more entropy occurs and the focus on the main points tend to dissolve, or people tend to dig into their position too strongly to be productive.
you are using a rather frivolous definition of harm. which is not suitable for topics of discussion such as politics and morality etc.
Well, the real issue here is that maybe Mary Sue doesn’t want to have a relationship with a white guy (assume Dondoolee is white in this argument). So she is discriminating against him based on race. Or maybe it is just a coincidence that she rejected Dondoolee and he is white.
Juan, help us sort this out. Is Mary Sue a racist? If not, how did you determine that?
Also, doesn’t it seem incredibly sexist that Mary Sue rejects 50% of the population (women) by being a heterosexual? This broad is a real bigot!
It was a good joke, but seriously why can’t it have been “oppression”? The line is just arbitrary now, same thing for harm.
I’ve reiterated my original points multiple times now.
I’ll bet she was left handed, too! That’s why you started up a posse to go after all those poor lefties! Was it provocation enough to become violent? Did you cut off her left hand, or at least break it? Man you’re a nazi! [:O]
Because you’re using the word incorrectly. Sucks to be you.
Don’t try to play the victim here; it doesn’t suit you.
What if you define “mono-culturalists” as people who are inherently uncapable of respecting boundaries? To me a social conservative means a busy-body who wants to stop me from doing the promiscuous things I like to do.
But that view I think, is more consistent with multi-culturalists. Either way, I don’t think it is important for me to come out as pro or con a particular outlook. I say, if no one is hurting anyone else, property is respected and consent is the standard for participation, then we’re doing pretty darn good, whether it is a nations of the world food fair, or a KKK meeting.
That’s not what comes to mind when I think socon. Busy bodies are annoying, and they are left and right. Busy bodies who want to impose stuff are statists.
I don’t think one can be (genuinely) socially conservative and politically aggressive. I don’t think it is possible. The people who do that, are usually faking like Bush, or all out statists and panderers.
I consider myself socially conservative. That has to do with the fact I live a quiet modest life and enjoy it. It has nothing to do with wanting to bomb abortion clinics or forcing everyone to say the Lord’s prayer.
I hope your happy, I was unfortunatly reading this while drinking a scotch and it made me do a very real spit-take on my laptop.
You should take that up with Rothbard because he is the one who gave a history of communism using practical examples of that belief.
Intriguing.
Tues. 10/02/09 17:19 EST
post #1
This is not true.
From the racist’s point of view, prejudging people “based on … race” is virtuous.
From your point of view, it isn’t.
“Virtue,” like all value, is subjective.
What devil revived this topic?
Someone lock this quick!
Tues. 10/02/09 18:14 EST
.post #2
I did. I discovered the thread after discussing this very topic in an Amazon.com book review comments thread.
Here’s the thread:
It may be true that libertarianism is antithetical to racism
Please don’t. It’s an interesting and worthwhile discussion, in my opinion.
Ignore them, if anyone closes this thread because a newbie discovered it & wants to contribute relevant questions and/or arguments to the thread, I’ll un-lock it myself.
However, you might be better off starting a new one (this one was labelled Part X), which either re-states a similar OP (original post), or your own variation on the OP in an effort to get newer discussion & responses.
The link to the thread @ amazon.com is a good possible start for this, methinks.