jj@alice.UUCP (04/22/85)
>> Dan McK, I feel, does not realize the one fear that many people have >> of libertarianism<If he does indeed realize it, he is far too >> politic to explain it>, namely that under a libertarian philosophy, >..... >> have either been mislead or who, in fact, feel this terror would >> fare much better under a less restrictive and more individually responsible >> system. > >As long as we're on the subject of debating practices, jj, you should >know that attacks on the motives or character of participants is >considered very bad form. Even if your assertion were true (don't worry, >I'm not going to ask for *evidence*), what difference would it make? >Ideas have to stand on their merit. "Idea have to stand on their merit", indeed. I wasn't aware that sophistry had anything to do with merit, and the most effective (in practice) arguments against libertarianism that I've seen on the net have been sheer sophistry, and in fact have been attacks "on the motives or character of participants" directed at libertarians. I suppose that it is a sign of something that what's fair for the opponent isn't fair for the libertarian, but I'm not sure what. The conventional attack on libertarian philosophy has been that of --you callous, selfish, self-centered bastard, why don't you go (*&^(*&^(!". I have speculated about the reasons that some people attack libertarianism with such unreasoning hate, and have advanced what seems to be to be an explaination least requiring malice. <I like to think that people are not deliberately malicious.> Your complaints about "bad form" would be true in a formal debate, where both sides were playing by a set of rules. This forum, however, is dominated by people of apparant bad will and worse form, and one CANNOT expose such people without appearing to cast aspersions. (If one is to mention the bad will, etc.) If you are going to cast aspersions on my debating style, in all fairness you must be equally severe with all debators. I haven't been reading nut.politics enough to be able to say certainly that you haven't attacked the folks who have been using the emotional blackmail of "anti-women" against libertarians, but I don't recall you having done anything of the sort. > >> "I'm amazed that men like you can be so shallow, thick and slow" >> >> (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj > > (Baba ROM DOS) -- DO TEDDY BEARS HAVE OPINIONS? ASK YOURS TODAY! "Indian Lake is a scene you can make with your little ones..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/23/85)
>/* jj@alice.UUCP / 3:14 pm Apr 22, 1985 */ >The conventional attack on libertarian >philosophy has been that of --you callous, selfish, self-centered >bastard, why don't you go (*&^(*&^(!". I have speculated >about the reasons that some people attack libertarianism with such >unreasoning hate, and have advanced what seems to be to be >an explaination least requiring malice. <I like to think that people >are not deliberately malicious.> That may indeed be the most common form of attack on libertarianism, but I have not been attacked nor do I recall seeing other libertarians or their ideas attacked in this manner on net.politics. >I haven't been reading nut.politics enough to be able to say >certainly that you haven't attacked the folks who have been >using the emotional blackmail of "anti-women" against >libertarians, but I don't recall you having done anything of the >sort. I don't recall any such accusations. Could you cite an example or two? Michael Sykora
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (04/24/85)
> Your complaints about "bad form" > would be true in a formal debate, where both sides were playing > by a set of rules. This forum, however, is dominated by people > of apparant bad will and worse form, and one CANNOT expose such people without > appearing to cast aspersions. (If one is to mention the bad will, etc.) > If you are going to cast aspersions on my debating style, in all > fairness you must be equally severe with all debators. > > alice!jj Your article, which if you will recall was nominally about techniques of argumentation, was worth special attention because of the apparent hypocrisy with which you on one hand attacked your perceived opponents' use of specious "straw man" arguments and on the other hand offered an equally specious attack on their motives. Baba
jj@alice.UUCP (04/25/85)
It's tragic, Baba, that you don't realize the inherant paradox. Or do you? (If you do, then you're lacking a sense of the absurd, eh?) JJ -- DO TEDDY BEARS HAVE OPINIONS? ASK YOURS TODAY! "My mind is clearer now, at last, all too well, I can see, where we all, soon will be.." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj