Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Joy

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 9:58:36 AM12/1/05
to
And now for something completely different. As the holiday season
begins, a non-political post (from:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm)

The importance of Joy

Christmas time is one of my favorite times of the year, even though I
am not a Christian (see the series on science and belief to get a sense
of where I'm coming from). The emphasis people put on joy, family,
kindness, love, and peace on earth represents the best attributes of
humankind and human desires, and at least for a few weeks it's not
corny or naive to talk about love, caring, and joy. So my first blog
entry in December will be about joy.

It is my firm belief that joy should be a central component of every
person's life. Moreover, it is a component that we have far more
control over than we realize. Many people believe joy is absent
because they look for it from the world around them -- what their
friends do, what their job is like, how they are treated by others,
etc. They see an imperfect and at times cruel world, and feel that
life is a struggle. These types complain, are jealous, bitter, and
often fall into a world where the demands of society, their own
unachieved goals and the inadequacies of others create a life that is
more a burden than a joy. Especially in our world of material
prosperity, it seems as if a lot of people are unable to find joy,
perhaps because they look for it in material goods. Emblematic of that
is the violence that took place Friday as holiday shoppers greeted the
season with pushing, shoving, threats and violence. That wasn't the
norm, but the emphasis on buying and on materialism shows a kind of
dysfunctional culture.

To have a truly joyful life one has to first recognize that not every
minute will be pleasant -- people all face tragedies, and these can
sometimes be severe. The example earlier this fall of Chanda Luker's
experience as a Cambodian holocaust survivor (and her positive outlook
on life in its aftermath) provides a stark example of what life can be
(see blog entry for October 5). Joy is not good things happening, nor
is it a state of constant bliss and satisfaction regardless of what is
going on around you. No, what a joyful life requires is: a) an ability
to adapt; b) acceptance of responsibility for your life (don't blame
the system or others for your fate); c) perspective; and d) connections
with others. If you have a joyful life, you'll still feel the intense
pain when tragedy hits, but will be able to come through it more
easily, and with fewer long term consequences. More importantly,
you'll truly appreciate the beauty and wonder of each day and each
experience at times when things are going well.

Adaptability: Rigidity works against joy because it is essentially a
demand that the world and other people conform to your expectations and
desires. While that might be nice, it's not going to happen. People
will be petty, mean and incompetent at times, and the world will in
various ways meet out injustice. Adapt to it. That doesn't mean do
whatever the world or others demand, but simply build your life around
the world as it is, adapting to the imperfections and injustices in a
way that doesn't accept them (you still try to change what you can),
but which doesn't cause them to create anger and resentment in your
life. Those emotions obviously defeat joy, make you less able to
effectively counter the problems, and are pointless -- the world won't
change just because you are angry and resentful to it.

Responsibility: People who blame others for their situation are
usually not joyful people because they live in a world where they don't
have control of their life. But, of course, no one has complete
control. We are born into a world with certain limitations, both
physical and social. Some classes of people are in intense poverty,
often due to injustice and exploitation. Work to change that, but
recognize that we are responsible for how we act and react to
circumstances. Even in cases where one is wrongly imprisoned, or put
into the hospital by, say, a drunk driver, there is still that personal
responsibility to deal with the situation as best you can, taking
responsibility for how you deal with it. That won't cure the injustice
or take away the pain, but it provides a basis for joy; you can't have
joy if you aren't taking responsibility for who and what you are.

Perspective: This is so important. Most people who are angry or upset
are reacting to petty things. Whether its a policy at work, a bad
grade, a snide remark, or something in politics, people get worked up,
angry and emotional over things that really aren't worth it. Ask how
important something really is to your life and position. Ask if you'll
even remember this situation a year or two years from now. Understand
how others might be looking at it different than you, and try to figure
out their perspective, especially if its the actions of others causing
the resentment. Keep in mind all the good your life contains, and
don't let a few little problems or annoyances destroy your joy. It
isn't worth it. People often take things -- and themselves -- far too
seriously. Perspective is so important I'll make a whole blog entry on
it later, a person without perspective can rarely be joyful; if you
have perspective, many of the other things a joyful life requires fall
into place.

Connections: Humans are social creatures, and while true joy is
personal and subjective, connections with others give life a kind of
variety we need. We often think we need exciting new food, video
games, movies, or distractions, but we really need other people. To
play sports, play music, debate politics, share meals, talk about life
and our experiences and reflections, and recognize our own humanity in
others is essential. Another word for this is love. You cannot have
joy without love, you cannot have love without connections to others.
An inability to connect and share intimacy makes a joyful life
virtually impossible to have.

Joy is possible for just about everyone. One can imagine cases where
people are imprisoned, abused and mutilated to the point that these
ideas seem meaningless, and I'm sure that can be the case. But for
most people the lack of joy in life is a self-inflicted wound, while
living a joyful life is a result of how one thinks and behaves. So
aspire to joy this holiday season!

Martin McPhillips

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 10:33:03 AM12/1/05
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1133449116.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> And now for something completely different. As the
> holiday season
> begins, a non-political post (from:
> http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm)
>
> The importance of Joy
>
> Christmas time is one of my favorite times of the year,
> even though I
> am not a Christian (see the series on science and belief
> to get a sense
> of where I'm coming from).

Saints preserve us! Your horse-faced narcissism never
rests, does it Scott?


Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 12:28:08 PM12/1/05
to

"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PIEjf.23027$ek6....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...

> "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1133449116.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > And now for something completely different. As the
> > holiday season
> > begins, a non-political post (from:
> > http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm)
> >
> > The importance of Joy
> >
> > Christmas time is one of my favorite times of the year,
> > even though I
> > am not a Christian (see the series on science and belief
> > to get a sense
> > of where I'm coming from).
>
> Saints preserve us!

Poor Martin. Still living only to answer Scott Erb's posts. I wonder if
Scott appreciates the magnitude of your obsessions with him.

blazing laser

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 9:50:59 PM12/1/05
to
On 1 Dec 2005 06:58:36 -0800, "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:

>And now for something completely different. As the holiday season
>begins, a non-political post (from:
>http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm)
>
>The importance of Joy

Good post, Scott! (It -must- have been pretty good or else Martin and
Gandalf wouldn't have felt obligated to slam it!)

CS Lewis discussed his own definition of 'joy' in several of his
books. In fact one was -about- joy, 'Surprised by Joy'. I found it
very interesting and edifying, though I'm not a Christian either.

(The funny thing is, in his 50s Lewis finally met a woman and married
her. Her name was Joy and his friends said he was 'surprised by
Joy'.)

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 10:30:05 PM12/1/05
to

blazing laser wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2005 06:58:36 -0800, "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >And now for something completely different. As the holiday season
> >begins, a non-political post (from:
> >http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm)
> >
> >The importance of Joy
>
> Good post, Scott! (It -must- have been pretty good or else Martin and
> Gandalf wouldn't have felt obligated to slam it!)

Well, Gandalf didn't slam it, he slammed Martin.

> CS Lewis discussed his own definition of 'joy' in several of his
> books. In fact one was -about- joy, 'Surprised by Joy'. I found it
> very interesting and edifying, though I'm not a Christian either.
>
> (The funny thing is, in his 50s Lewis finally met a woman and married
> her. Her name was Joy and his friends said he was 'surprised by
> Joy'.)

As a pun lover, that's great. It does sometimes amaze me how we are
living in absolute material prosperity in the industrialized West.
Even putting aside the question of whether or not this exploits other
people or destroys the planets ecosystem, the amazing thing is how
little it really creates true quality of life. People are stressed
out, mental disorders are as high as ever, people are depressed, and
totally not enjoying the kind of prosperity that gives even the
relatively poor among us a lifestyle that is more comfortable,
convenient, and secure than even the wealthiest on the planet for most
of history.

Sometimes I wonder if we're not suffering a kind of spiritual poverty
which mirrors the material poverty of the third world.

Oh well, it's the holiday season, gotta go worship at my local shopping
mall...

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 10:35:21 PM12/1/05
to

"blazing laser" <none> wrote in message
news:tadvo1l2a3o2iuph5...@4ax.com...

> On 1 Dec 2005 06:58:36 -0800, "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >And now for something completely different. As the holiday season
> >begins, a non-political post (from:
> >http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm)
> >
> >The importance of Joy
>
> Good post, Scott! (It -must- have been pretty good or else Martin and
> Gandalf wouldn't have felt obligated to slam it!)

How did I slam Scott's post? Slamming Martin continues to be a
responsibility, but I've got nothing but respect for Scott.

penny

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 11:41:46 PM12/1/05
to
On 1 Dec 2005 06:58:36 -0800, "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:

" Ivan Denisovich", by Alexander Solshenitsyn is a story about a
common carpenter who was one of millions imprisoned in the USSR for
many years on baseless charges and sentenced to the nightmare of the
Soviet work camps in Siberia. Even in the face of degradation and
depravation where his life was reduced to a bowl of gruel and a rare
cigarette the author shows that there is room for humour and hope..

As for joy, it came to Ivan on the rare occasions he managed to get
extra rations. It meant he could survive for that much longer.
His happiness came shining through the pages of that book like
nothing else I have read.

Joy to the world ! And gather ye rosebuds while ye may...old time is
fast-a-flyin' (Robert Herrick)

Penny


Foxtrot

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 1:29:55 AM12/2/05
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:

>And now for something completely different. As the holiday season
>begins, a non-political post (from:
>http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm)
>
>The importance of Joy
>
>Christmas time is one of my favorite times of the year, even though I
>am not a Christian (see the series on science and belief to get a sense
>of where I'm coming from). The emphasis people put on joy, family,
>kindness, love, and peace on earth represents the best attributes of
>humankind and human desires, and at least for a few weeks it's not
>corny or naive to talk about love, caring, and joy. So my first blog
>entry in December will be about joy.
>
>It is my firm belief that joy should be a central component of every
>person's life. Moreover, it is a component that we have far more
>control over than we realize. Many people believe joy is absent
>because they look for it from the world around them -- what their
>friends do, what their job is like, how they are treated by others,
>etc.

True, joy comes from having the right perspective.

>No, what a joyful life requires is: a) an ability
>to adapt; b) acceptance of responsibility for your life (don't blame
>the system or others for your fate); c) perspective; and d) connections
>with others.

This criteria would explain why libs tend to be so bitter and
hostile. They seriously lack three of the four things.

>Adaptability: Rigidity works against joy because it is essentially a
>demand that the world and other people conform to your expectations and
>desires. While that might be nice, it's not going to happen. People
>will be petty, mean and incompetent at times, and the world will in
>various ways meet out injustice. Adapt to it. That doesn't mean do
>whatever the world or others demand, but simply build your life around
>the world as it is, adapting to the imperfections and injustices in a
>way that doesn't accept them (you still try to change what you can),
>but which doesn't cause them to create anger and resentment in your
>life. Those emotions obviously defeat joy, make you less able to
>effectively counter the problems, and are pointless -- the world won't
>change just because you are angry and resentful to it.

Libs are typically very inflexible. They believe that if they
can't find good jobs, it's the government's responsibility to
give them handouts. If they were flexible, they'd adapt and
accept the jobs that are available.

>Responsibility: People who blame others for their situation are
>usually not joyful people because they live in a world where they don't
>have control of their life.

Liberals are the epitome of irresponsibility. They believe that
if poor single women get knocked up, the government is
responsible for their reckless behavior, and should provide
food and housing for them and their illegitimate children.
They also believe that drunks and dope addicts should be
rewarded via the Americans with Disabilities Act (thanks a
toiletload for going along with that stupid idea, Daddy Bush).

>Perspective: This is so important. Most people who are angry or upset
>are reacting to petty things. Whether its a policy at work, a bad
>grade, a snide remark, or something in politics, people get worked up,
>angry and emotional over things that really aren't worth it.

The left believes that convicted violent criminals shouldn't be
subjected to the death penalty, indeed they should be given
generous benefits like conjugal visits and expensive legal
libraries. And yet they believe that it's perfectly acceptable
to suck the brains out of partially delivered babies.

That is a seriously deranged sense of perspective.

>Connections: Humans are social creatures, and while true joy is
>personal and subjective, connections with others give life a kind of
>variety we need.

How joyous it would be to have connections like Marc
Rich!!

>Joy is possible for just about everyone. One can imagine cases where
>people are imprisoned, abused and mutilated to the point that these
>ideas seem meaningless, and I'm sure that can be the case. But for
>most people the lack of joy in life is a self-inflicted wound, while
>living a joyful life is a result of how one thinks and behaves. So
>aspire to joy this holiday season!

Let's put this in simpler terms that even embittered libs
can understand: Quit whining so much and be grateful for
what you have. Then you'll find joy.

Foxtrot

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 1:43:04 AM12/2/05
to
"Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:

>"blazing laser" <none> wrote

>> "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> Good post, Scott! (It -must- have been pretty good or else Martin and
>> Gandalf wouldn't have felt obligated to slam it!)
>
>How did I slam Scott's post? Slamming Martin continues to be a
>responsibility, but I've got nothing but respect for Scott.

Sheesh. Gandolt and Blooming Loser have their lips firmly
affixed to Erb's butt. Would somebody please explain to
me why the libs kiss up to him so much? I suppose it's the
same reason they adore Clinton so much--they're easily
duped by somebody with a smooth line of feel-good bullshit.

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 2:29:26 AM12/2/05
to

"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
news:ffqvo11s3su6m1h1m...@4ax.com...

> "Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"blazing laser" <none> wrote
> >> "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> Good post, Scott! (It -must- have been pretty good or else Martin and
> >> Gandalf wouldn't have felt obligated to slam it!)
> >
> >How did I slam Scott's post? Slamming Martin continues to be a
> >responsibility, but I've got nothing but respect for Scott.
>
> Sheesh. Gandolt and Blooming Loser have their lips firmly
> affixed to Erb's butt. Would somebody please explain to
> me why the libs kiss up to him so much?

It probably has something to do with the fact that Dr. Erb is intelligent
and McPhillips is a full-blown psychotic.


Kurt Nicklas

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 7:13:22 AM12/2/05
to

"Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:438fbfae$0$28455$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...

>
> "blazing laser" <none> wrote in message
> news:tadvo1l2a3o2iuph5...@4ax.com...
>> On 1 Dec 2005 06:58:36 -0800, "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >And now for something completely different. As the holiday season
>> >begins, a non-political post (from:
>> >http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm)
>> >
>> >The importance of Joy
>>
>> Good post, Scott! (It -must- have been pretty good or else Martin and
>> Gandalf wouldn't have felt obligated to slam it!)
>
> How did I slam Scott's post? Slamming Martin continues to be a
> responsibility, but I've got nothing but respect for Scott.

You hang around Scootter just like flies around a 'necessary', Ricky.

Sheeesh.


2111 Dead, 25 since Hunter resolution

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 8:31:58 AM12/2/05
to

Maybe we like Scott because he's willing to discuss basic, elemental
aspects of being human such as feeling joy, whereas all you have to
offer is sizzling outrage that anyone would read Scott against your
will.

He's right, you know. What he says about Joy. It comes from within.
You can't buy it, you can't reliably expect to be given it by others,
but it's something every human can experience.

Every year, I write a piece about hope for solstice. Hope, unlike
joy, CAN be given to others, and those pieces are the most popular
ones I write. People like to have others reach out to them.

In your ideological rage, you've forgotten that.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 8:52:55 AM12/2/05
to

Gee, can't someone say something nice about another person's post with
out being accused of having "lips firmly affixed" to a butt? Is
complimenting somebody somehow a bad thing?

Eagle Eye

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 10:57:56 AM12/2/05
to

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 2:19:15 PM12/2/05
to

"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1133531575.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

It's all about hate for these people, Scott. Hard to accept, especially
when I interact with people on a daily basis from all walks of life and find
so much common decency and kindness in the average person. But here in the
groups we're faced with either an extreme edge of humanity that is more or
less 'hidden' in the general population, or we're dealing with a hidden
aspect of personality that these posters are too fearful to show to the
world. The raw hatred that one finds here is difficult to explain in any
other way. Most of it has absolutely nothing to do with "politics." It's
personal, nearly mindless and virulent.

The closest psychological match I've found to this is the "poison pen
letter" movement that broke out in England [and America to a much lesser
extent] after the end of the second world war. Pathologically, you have to
look at the elements of the virtual world wherein this all occurs to get an
idea of what's going on....i.e., the attributes of the internet. Consider
an arena in which a person can say nearly anything they want without being
held responsible for what they say, but in which there is no physical
contact. There's a sense in which the newsgroups are like a crank call on
steroids. But unlike a true crank call, in which the caller can actually
hear your response and in which the threat of actual physical contact is the
"subtext" of the message, the crank newsgrouper is denied even the illusion
of personal satisfaction. Unless you respond to them, they can't even be
absolutely sure that they've achieved any effect on you at all [and for a
crank caller, the effect is 90% of the motivation].

What I'm saying is that the newsgroups provide a personally safe, cheap and
easy outlet for the impotent rage that is a key element of the 'crank
caller,' but the newsgroups also prevent [for nearly the same reasons] that
rage from being completely outletted. I think that's the reason we see so
much virulence from the usual fraction of posters who indulge in intentional
offensive personal attacks. Responding to them [and I freely plead guilty
of this in some cases] tends to feed the rationalization of "justification"
that is so often used as an excuse for people like Nicklas, McPhillips,
RCMan, Tiberius, Silverbullet, Dana, Beck, and the other posters who indulge
in pretty much nothing here but personal-attack crank posting.

Happy Holidays
>

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 6:27:40 PM12/2/05
to

Yes, though clearly there are many who just want heated debate and
treat this as fun, and some who simply are playing roles. But there
are a few who show a kind of psychological pathology.

It's a more benign version of the kind of thing that makes atrocities
like Rwanda and the holocaust possible: abstractification and
objectification of the other as something without redeeming qualities,
inherently and unamibuously evil or dishonest. They thus believe they
are representing the good, true and honest against dispicable and
dishonorable sub-human scum.

For instance, when I try to be friendly, and put a human side to the
conversation (to have a heated disagreement without having to
personally dislike each other), I was derided as Mr. Rogers. In other
words, to them, any attempt to be friendly is deceit, and attempt to
appear to be what I'm not, or to trick them. When I out argue them in
times they engage in debate, they then called me "Mr. Mercury,"
suggesting that I really didn't out argue them on substance (since they
are convinced they are self-evidently right), but just am able to play
word games better. I think some posters with strong ideological
beliefs have placed so much self-identification in their ideology (to
the point of even severely limiting life possibilities) that they
cannot allow their world view to be challenged, as that would lead to
disturbing questions about whether or not their life has been lived
based on false beliefs. Others, I think, have low self-esteem, and the
usenet is a form of therapy.

But it is a kind of dysfunctional therapy since usenet flames are
impotent -- they are on the screen, then gone. So they try over and
over, seeking some kind of validation through response or anger
directed back at them (a person who is angry likes to try to arose
anger in others). When they don't get that response, it feeds their
frustration.

I do think that's a small minority, evidenced by their penchant for
personal obsession, a belief that somehow insults on this kind of forum
matter, and an inability to show real humor (other than belittling
others) and engage the other person in personal/human ways. They have
a caricatured image of me (and you, Zepp, and others), which is filled
with negative views on what our character, ideology, and personal
attributes. We are objects, rather disgusting ones at that, in their
eyes, with more the value of a cockroach than a human.
-scott

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 8:18:17 PM12/2/05
to

"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1133566060....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

No need for you to answer this, but you really hit it here. The
objectification is precisely the process that has to be gone through to
create a fully functioning psychopathic killer. Ultimately, no attempt to
put a human face on "the enemy" is possible.

And I agree with you that it's a relatively small fraction that seems large
because of the freedom that these forums allow for such dysfunctional
personality types. But for all of that, it's an interesting "culture dish"
we have with the newsgroups...an opportunity to witness clearly damaged
personality types and how they act under stress.

As always, I salute your ability to carry on and retain your spirit.

Cheers.

Foxtrot

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 10:32:31 PM12/2/05
to
"Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:

>"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote
>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>> > "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote

>> > > Foxtrot wrote:
>> > > > "Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >"blazing laser" <none> wrote
>> > > > >> "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> Good post, Scott! (It -must- have been pretty good or else
>Martin
>> > and
>> > > > >> Gandalf wouldn't have felt obligated to slam it!)
>> > > > >
>> > > > >How did I slam Scott's post? Slamming Martin continues to be a
>> > > > >responsibility, but I've got nothing but respect for Scott.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sheesh. Gandolt and Blooming Loser have their lips firmly
>> > > > affixed to Erb's butt. Would somebody please explain to
>> > > > me why the libs kiss up to him so much? I suppose it's the
>> > > > same reason they adore Clinton so much--they're easily
>> > > > duped by somebody with a smooth line of feel-good bullshit.
>> > >
>> > > Gee, can't someone say something nice about another person's post with
>> > > out being accused of having "lips firmly affixed" to a butt? Is
>> > > complimenting somebody somehow a bad thing?

It's not bad to say something nice. But fer chrissakes, some
attempt should be made to contribute something to the
discussion. Add some analysis, insight, humor, *anything*
of possible value to the debate, not just empty flattery.

>> > It's all about hate for these people, Scott. Hard to accept, especially
>> > when I interact with people on a daily basis from all walks of life and
>find
>> > so much common decency and kindness in the average person. But here in
>the
>> > groups we're faced with either an extreme edge of humanity that is more
>or
>> > less 'hidden' in the general population, or we're dealing with a hidden
>> > aspect of personality that these posters are too fearful to show to the
>> > world. The raw hatred that one finds here is difficult to explain in
>any
>> > other way. Most of it has absolutely nothing to do with "politics."

LOL, you're exaggerating how important you are to others,
Gandolt. I doubt that anybody takes you seriously enough to
hate. Plenty of us see you as silly, but that's hardly the same
as hatred.

>> Yes, though clearly there are many who just want heated debate and


>> treat this as fun, and some who simply are playing roles. But there
>> are a few who show a kind of psychological pathology.
>>
>> It's a more benign version of the kind of thing that makes atrocities
>> like Rwanda and the holocaust possible: abstractification and
>> objectification of the other as something without redeeming qualities,
>> inherently and unamibuously evil or dishonest. They thus believe they
>> are representing the good, true and honest against dispicable and
>> dishonorable sub-human scum.
>
>No need for you to answer this, but you really hit it here. The
>objectification is precisely the process that has to be gone through to
>create a fully functioning psychopathic killer. Ultimately, no attempt to
>put a human face on "the enemy" is possible.
>
>And I agree with you that it's a relatively small fraction that seems large
>because of the freedom that these forums allow for such dysfunctional
>personality types. But for all of that, it's an interesting "culture dish"
>we have with the newsgroups...an opportunity to witness clearly damaged
>personality types and how they act under stress.
>
>As always, I salute your ability to carry on and retain your spirit.

>> For instance, when I try to be friendly, and put a human side to the

Both of you are overreacting. Can't somebody simply ask that
others try to post things worth reading without causing a bunch
of indignant introspection about atrocities in Rwanda?

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 10:56:52 PM12/2/05
to

Well, as far as this thread is concerned, my initial post was an
attempt to add insight into the need all of us have to find a way to
have real joy in our lives -- we live in material prosperity, but too
many people seem not to appreciate life. I certainly can understand if
people think it sounds a bit preachy or something, but if you look
through this I think those responding with personal attacks are, quite
definitely, NOT responding to the content of the post or adding any
analysis.

blazing laser

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 2:20:35 AM12/3/05
to
On 1 Dec 2005 19:30:05 -0800, "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:

>> Good post, Scott! (It -must- have been pretty good or else Martin and
>> Gandalf wouldn't have felt obligated to slam it!)
>
>Well, Gandalf didn't slam it, he slammed Martin.

(Oops! Sorry, Gandalf.)

> It does sometimes amaze me how we are
>living in absolute material prosperity in the industrialized West.
>Even putting aside the question of whether or not this exploits other
>people or destroys the planets ecosystem, the amazing thing is how
>little it really creates true quality of life. People are stressed
>out, mental disorders are as high as ever, people are depressed, and
>totally not enjoying the kind of prosperity that gives even the
>relatively poor among us a lifestyle that is more comfortable,
>convenient, and secure than even the wealthiest on the planet for most
>of history.

I don't think people realize how much our culture has been 'steered',
how the values we believe are 'traditional' are really imposed on us
by opinion-makers in the last century or so.

>Sometimes I wonder if we're not suffering a kind of spiritual poverty
>which mirrors the material poverty of the third world.

Interesting thought!

blazing laser

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 2:21:07 AM12/3/05
to
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:35:21 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
<Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:


>How did I slam Scott's post? Slamming Martin continues to be a
>responsibility, but I've got nothing but respect for Scott.

Yes, I blew it. My apologies.

blazing laser

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 2:23:28 AM12/3/05
to
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:43:04 -0800, Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:

>Sheesh. Gandolt and Blooming Loser have their lips firmly
>affixed to Erb's butt. Would somebody please explain to
>me why the libs kiss up to him so much? I suppose it's the
>same reason they adore Clinton so much--they're easily
>duped by somebody with a smooth line of feel-good bullshit.

I enjoyed Scott's post because he said something interesting and
thought-provoking. When YOU say something interesting and
thought-provoking, I will say something nice about you too.

My dad used to say that there's nobody in the world so smart that you
couldn't teach him something, and nobody in the world so stupid that
you couldn't learn something from him. What could I learn from you,
Foxy?

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 1:02:23 PM12/3/05
to

"blazing laser" <none> wrote in message
news:jqh2p1dvc1ii4jg8s...@4ax.com...

No problem. I've done it myself.


Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 1:14:43 PM12/3/05
to

"blazing laser" <none> wrote in message
news:tlh2p1lqs53d986jf...@4ax.com...

> On 1 Dec 2005 19:30:05 -0800, "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> Good post, Scott! (It -must- have been pretty good or else Martin and
> >> Gandalf wouldn't have felt obligated to slam it!)
> >
> >Well, Gandalf didn't slam it, he slammed Martin.
>
> (Oops! Sorry, Gandalf.)
>
> > It does sometimes amaze me how we are
> >living in absolute material prosperity in the industrialized West.
> >Even putting aside the question of whether or not this exploits other
> >people or destroys the planets ecosystem, the amazing thing is how
> >little it really creates true quality of life. People are stressed
> >out, mental disorders are as high as ever, people are depressed, and
> >totally not enjoying the kind of prosperity that gives even the
> >relatively poor among us a lifestyle that is more comfortable,
> >convenient, and secure than even the wealthiest on the planet for most
> >of history.
>
> I don't think people realize how much our culture has been 'steered',
> how the values we believe are 'traditional' are really imposed on us
> by opinion-makers in the last century or so.

Absolutely. Just look at the evolution of the way Americans celebrate
"Christmas" and the traditions we associate with it. Look at the
commercialization of many of our card holidays. Mother's Day is a case in
point. It started out as a anti-war day. Now, it's just another
greeting-card-and-flowers op. Likewise the association of "capitalism" and
"free world" in the mind of the average American. That's a fabricated
association, not a natural association.

>
> >Sometimes I wonder if we're not suffering a kind of spiritual poverty
> >which mirrors the material poverty of the third world.
>
> Interesting thought!

Amen. The Tao working its will on the social evolution of the globe, trying
to find a balance.

>


SilverBullet

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 2:31:11 PM12/3/05
to

"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote ...

Wow, I made it on scotti's hit list!
Though I'm wondering why gary roselle doesn't show up on your 'black list'
of personal-attack crank posters. Why is that?
Have you been blocking his posts or is there some personal level of approval
and satisfaction you get from his posting behavior?


blazing laser

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 5:24:11 PM12/3/05
to
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:14:43 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
<Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:


>> I don't think people realize how much our culture has been 'steered',
>> how the values we believe are 'traditional' are really imposed on us
>> by opinion-makers in the last century or so.
>
>Absolutely. Just look at the evolution of the way Americans celebrate
>"Christmas" and the traditions we associate with it. Look at the
>commercialization of many of our card holidays. Mother's Day is a case in
>point. It started out as a anti-war day. Now, it's just another
>greeting-card-and-flowers op. Likewise the association of "capitalism" and
>"free world" in the mind of the average American. That's a fabricated
>association, not a natural association.

Did you see The Daily Show Thursday? Jon Stewart announced that it
was International AIDS Day. Then he said 'and I think this is one of
the worst ideas Hallmark has ever had!'

But the association between 'capitalism' and 'freedom' or 'capitalism'
and 'democracy' is mirrored in the unquestioned connection so many
Americans have between 'terrorism' and Saddam. 8^)

>>>Sometimes I wonder if we're not suffering a kind of spiritual poverty
>>>which mirrors the material poverty of the third world.

>> Interesting thought!

>Amen. The Tao working its will on the social evolution of the globe, trying
>to find a balance.

I like that idea. It suggests (to me) that the pendulum can only swing
so far in one direction. Hopefully we won't have to swing as far to
the right as Germany did in the 1930s before we start going the other
way.

DNC_TN

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 6:29:56 PM12/3/05
to
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:24:11 -0800, blazing laser <none> wrote:

>Hopefully we won't have to swing as far to
>the right as Germany did in the 1930s before we start going the other
>way.

Swing as far right as nazi germany? You do realize that nazi germany
was a socialist government?
Exactly how is socialism a "right wing" position?
Go ahead and explain it, I have all year..


************************************
http://www.dubyareport.net/
New and Improved...No More Sillyness

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 6:31:51 PM12/3/05
to

Gandalf Grey wrote:
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1133566060....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> > It's a more benign version of the kind of thing that makes atrocities
> > like Rwanda and the holocaust possible: abstractification and
> > objectification of the other as something without redeeming qualities,
> > inherently and unamibuously evil or dishonest. They thus believe they
> > are representing the good, true and honest against dispicable and
> > dishonorable sub-human scum.
>
> No need for you to answer this, but you really hit it here. The
> objectification is precisely the process that has to be gone through to
> create a fully functioning psychopathic killer. Ultimately, no attempt to
> put a human face on "the enemy" is possible.
>
> And I agree with you that it's a relatively small fraction that seems large
> because of the freedom that these forums allow for such dysfunctional
> personality types. But for all of that, it's an interesting "culture dish"
> we have with the newsgroups...an opportunity to witness clearly damaged
> personality types and how they act under stress.
>
> As always, I salute your ability to carry on and retain your spirit.
>
> Cheers.

Danke, gleichfalls!

In a seminar earlier this year on International Relations theory, we
spent a lot of time discussing why ideologies that seem utopian in
their goals end up embracing the worst evils imaginable.

There are a variety of reasons, of course, but one is the way people
think when they buy completely into an ideology. I think a lot of
people whose lives are driven by their ideological outlook on politics
tend towards a kind of extremism that allows objectification of the
other since by rejecting the ideology (Marxism, or Islamic extremism
- religions can be like this) the other has rejected (in their view)
the truth. They are either ignorant or dishonest, and thus unworthy.

The more I study social science, the more obvious it is that anyone who
thinks they have discovered an ideology that can crystallize the truth
down to a basic "ism" is deluded. Reality is too complex and
diverse to allow such a thing. That's why "isms" crash and burn,
and those who cling to them ultimately are disappointed.

I recall when I tried making this point to some of the Ayn Rand true
believers (and given how weak her philosophy is, I'm surprised she
generates much of a following - I think it's because she's a good
fiction writer and emotionally tugs at the sense of independence and
self-reliance we all strive for), they either accused me of trying to
say that there was no truth or no way to know anything. They didn't
allow themselves to comprehend that saying that a single packaged
"ism" generated about all of social life is almost surely imperfect
is not the same as some kind of post-modernist nihilism.

Ideology is dangerous if you take it too seriously. They provide
frameworks to look at politics and social life in different ways, but
once they get treated like secular religions, it becomes easy for many
to follow a slippery slope objectifying the other who denies the
ideology as dangerous or expendable. This is true even when the
ideology would seem to expressly forbid it (look at religious
extremists, massacres in the name of Christ, etc.). If you have too
strong an identification with an ideology or "ism," then it's
easy to treat politics and debate less as an exchange of ideas between
equals trying to figure out what is right, and more like political
jihad.

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 6:34:30 PM12/3/05
to

No big deal, but I think it was Gandalf's list you're talking about.
(Read back through the attributions)

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 6:38:00 PM12/3/05
to
So you think I'm really not a liberal since you say my perspective is
contrary to what liberals believe?

The truth is, your view of liberals is as caricatured as the one people
often posit of conservatives as being closet racists who mock the poor,
have no heart or compassion, and live only for greed and power. In
reality, conservatives and liberals are often very, very similar, they
just have different views about some political issues. It's best to
avoid caricaturing either side, such caricatures aren't accurate and
only make reasoned discussion of political issues more difficult.

2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 7:34:34 PM12/3/05
to
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:29:56 -0500, DNC_TN <DNC...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:24:11 -0800, blazing laser <none> wrote:
>
>>Hopefully we won't have to swing as far to
>>the right as Germany did in the 1930s before we start going the other
>>way.
>
>Swing as far right as nazi germany? You do realize that nazi germany
>was a socialist government?

Oh, look, it's another moron who knows nothing of political science
and thinks a government run by corporations is socialist.

Do you think Saddam was in the GOP because he had the Republican
Guard?

>Exactly how is socialism a "right wing" position?
>Go ahead and explain it, I have all year..

Let me guess: you have no clue what socialism is, either.


>
>
>************************************
>http://www.dubyareport.net/
>New and Improved...No More Sillyness

blazing laser

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 9:04:44 PM12/3/05
to
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:34:34 -0800, "2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter
resolution" <zepp2128#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:


>Oh, look, it's another moron who knows nothing of political science
>and thinks a government run by corporations is socialist.
>
>Do you think Saddam was in the GOP because he had the Republican
>Guard?

So, Saddam was socialist too! 'Socialist' means anything DNC_TN
doesn't like.

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 9:16:00 PM12/3/05
to

2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:29:56 -0500, DNC_TN <DNC...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:24:11 -0800, blazing laser <none> wrote:
> >
> >>Hopefully we won't have to swing as far to
> >>the right as Germany did in the 1930s before we start going the other
> >>way.
> >
> >Swing as far right as nazi germany? You do realize that nazi germany
> >was a socialist government?
>
> Oh, look, it's another moron who knows nothing of political science
> and thinks a government run by corporations is socialist.
>
> Do you think Saddam was in the GOP because he had the Republican
> Guard?
>
> >Exactly how is socialism a "right wing" position?
> >Go ahead and explain it, I have all year..
>
> Let me guess: you have no clue what socialism is, either.

Hitler's NDSAP did have a left wing, headed by the Strasser brothers.
Hitler was known to lead the right wing of the party, who ultimately
fashioned ties with German business and conservative parties. Hitler
tolerated the left wing because it was needed to create a kind of
utopian workers ideal that could compete for recruits with the
Communists. Ultimately, the left of the party (and the Strassers) were
exterminated and eliminated.

Fascist ideology is most assuredly far right, not far left -- though
the extremes either direction aren't too pleasant (and that relates to
the bit I wrote earlier about those who take ideology too seriously).

2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 9:27:08 PM12/3/05
to

Yup. Used the Strassers to rope in the trade unions, the
intellectuals, and even some Jews. Much the way the present regime
tries to rope in Christians with phony displays of religiousity.

DNC_TN

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 10:26:22 PM12/3/05
to
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:34:34 -0800, "2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter
resolution" <zepp2128#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:29:56 -0500, DNC_TN <DNC...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:24:11 -0800, blazing laser <none> wrote:
>>
>>>Hopefully we won't have to swing as far to
>>>the right as Germany did in the 1930s before we start going the other
>>>way.
>>
>>Swing as far right as nazi germany? You do realize that nazi germany
>>was a socialist government?
>
>Oh, look, it's another moron who knows nothing of political science
>and thinks a government run by corporations is socialist.
>
>Do you think Saddam was in the GOP because he had the Republican
>Guard?
>
>>Exactly how is socialism a "right wing" position?
>>Go ahead and explain it, I have all year..
>
>Let me guess: you have no clue what socialism is, either.

No I know what it means. It is you that cannot bring yourself to admit
you are dead wrong in comparing nazi germany to an American right wing
government.

They are not and never will be the same. Period.

Go ask a jew who survived nazi germany, then ask them does modern
america remind them of nazi germany.

I bet I know what they will say to you.
Hell, you might get punched for even asking such a stupid idea, or for
even thinking it.

DNC_TN

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 10:27:50 PM12/3/05
to


If the current right wing gov't is like a nazi, then go ask a JEW who
survived nazi germany if it feels the same?

ahhhhh, see. gotcha!!!

me 1 you zero

DNC_TN

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 10:32:08 PM12/3/05
to

So we are experiencing a form of nazi germany in America under Bush?
Please cite examples of mass graves, rounding up of undesirable people
and taking over of major industry. I was not aware, for example, that
bush was on a mission to take over major corporations and place them
under his direct control. Can you cite some examples that prove the
bush administration is in any way similar to nazi germany?

Foxtrot

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 11:44:31 PM12/3/05
to
"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:

>So you think I'm really not a liberal since you say my perspective is
>contrary to what liberals believe?
>
>The truth is, your view of liberals is as caricatured as the one people
>often posit of conservatives as being closet racists who mock the poor,
>have no heart or compassion, and live only for greed and power. In
>reality, conservatives and liberals are often very, very similar, they
>just have different views about some political issues. It's best to
>avoid caricaturing either side, such caricatures aren't accurate and
>only make reasoned discussion of political issues more difficult.

I'm not caricaturing, I'm just saying that in general terms your
criteria for joy conflicts with modern American liberalism.
Especially when it comes to adaptability and flexibility. If libs
were able to adapt, they wouldn't be using trial lawyers to
change so many aspects of our lives. And if libs were flexible,
they'd accept modest changes in the health care system,
but instead they want to completely overhaul everything (at
least every proposal I've heard so far from the left wants to
completely change health care, eg HillaryCare).

And consider some anecdotal evidence. Listen to Limbaugh
or Hannity for a couple of hours, then listen to Air America
for a couple of hours. While it's true that some on the right
tend to whine or be pompous, the real venomous hatred
these days comes from the left. There can't be much joy on
the left when there's so much anger and bitterness.

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 12:30:59 AM12/4/05
to

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:dmpdo...@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:438fbfae$0$28455$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...

> >
> > "blazing laser" <none> wrote in message
> > news:tadvo1l2a3o2iuph5...@4ax.com...

> >> On 1 Dec 2005 06:58:36 -0800, "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >And now for something completely different. As the holiday season
> >> >begins, a non-political post (from:
> >> >http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm)
> >> >
> >> >The importance of Joy
> >>
> >> Good post, Scott! (It -must- have been pretty good or else Martin and
> >> Gandalf wouldn't have felt obligated to slam it!)
> >
> > How did I slam Scott's post? Slamming Martin continues to be a
> > responsibility, but I've got nothing but respect for Scott.
>
> You hang around Scootter just like flies around a 'necessary'

And another crank-caller raises his ugly head right on cue.


Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 12:44:44 AM12/4/05
to

"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1133652711.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

I've been thinking about this. There's an interesting idea that arises in
all of it. The very idea of a utopia requires a mind-set that can envision
an entirely different world. A entirely different world is, by definition,
entirely different from this one, with all its nasty flaws and human error
and individual foible.

In order to buy into any utopia, you have to buy into a complete change in
your vision of humanity that rejects the human condition as it is. From
that, it's really not such a huge leap to beginning to see human beings as
not much more than pawns that are either to be played on your side or to be
gotten rid of in the course of the game. Pawns aren't human, they aren't to
respected regardless of what "side" they're on...they're just wonderfully
"disposable."

So in this case the ideology just gets in the way of the ability to see
human beings for what they are: fragile, fallible, frustrating and
irreplaceable. It's easy to "hate" when you've allowed your mind to poach
in a game that's more important than the pieces.
And, after all, what game is less important than its pieces? When it comes
right down to it, Utopians are not much different from the average Dungeons
and Dragons player whose brain has been turned into mush. It certainly
explains libertarians like Eagle Eye who get all misty-eyed talking about
the individual even while they're arguing for a society that would crush
most human beings into powder under the weight of trigger happy warlords
disguised as "free-marketeers."

2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 3:04:35 AM12/4/05
to

We're experiencing similar tactics in the form of phony appeals to
groups they don't really care about, and propaganda and intimidation
for the rest of us.

>Please cite examples of mass graves, rounding up of undesirable people
>and taking over of major industry. I was not aware, for example, that
>bush was on a mission to take over major corporations and place them
>under his direct control. Can you cite some examples that prove the
>bush administration is in any way similar to nazi germany?

Actually, in most fascist regimes, the leadership are under the
control of the corporations. In Hitler's case, he maintained
autonomy, but was careful to ensure that German corporations got all
the slave labor and plunder economy goods they wanted.

>
>
>************************************
>http://www.dubyareport.net/
>New and Improved...No More Sillyness

2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 3:06:16 AM12/4/05
to
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:26:22 -0500, DNC_TN <DNC...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:34:34 -0800, "2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter
>resolution" <zepp2128#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:29:56 -0500, DNC_TN <DNC...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:24:11 -0800, blazing laser <none> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hopefully we won't have to swing as far to
>>>>the right as Germany did in the 1930s before we start going the other
>>>>way.
>>>
>>>Swing as far right as nazi germany? You do realize that nazi germany
>>>was a socialist government?
>>
>>Oh, look, it's another moron who knows nothing of political science
>>and thinks a government run by corporations is socialist.
>>
>>Do you think Saddam was in the GOP because he had the Republican
>>Guard?
>>
>>>Exactly how is socialism a "right wing" position?
>>>Go ahead and explain it, I have all year..
>>
>>Let me guess: you have no clue what socialism is, either.
>
>No I know what it means. It is you that cannot bring yourself to admit
>you are dead wrong in comparing nazi germany to an American right wing
>government.

Ah. So you don't know what socialism is, or fascism.

Thank you. You may sit down now.


>
>They are not and never will be the same. Period.
>
>Go ask a jew who survived nazi germany, then ask them does modern
>america remind them of nazi germany.

It's "Jew" with a capital J. And America and Germany are also
capitalised.

>
>I bet I know what they will say to you.
>Hell, you might get punched for even asking such a stupid idea, or for
>even thinking it.

Actually, my Jewish friends don't hesitate to compare Putsch to
Hitler.


>
>
>************************************
>http://www.dubyareport.net/
>New and Improved...No More Sillyness

Kurt Nicklas

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 6:48:39 AM12/4/05
to

2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 18:24:33 -0500, "Kurt Nicklas"
> <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>
> >
> >"2111 Dead, 25 since Hunter resolution" <zepp2111#2211finestplanet.com@>
> >wrote in message news:2fj0p1deqtut0tiim...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 07:12:24 -0500, "Kurt Nicklas"

> >> <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:1133494205....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> >>>
> >>>> Sometimes I wonder if we're not suffering a kind of spiritual poverty
> >>>> which mirrors the material poverty of the third world.
> >>>
> >>>You say "we" but, as the number one condescending narcissist in this
> >>>group,
> >>>you really mean "you".
> >>
> >> Say, Knickers, as some sort of super-dooper christian type, aren't you
> >> supposed to be feeling joy, this being Advent and all?
> >>
> >> You don't sound very joyful there, chuckles.
> >
> >The only thing that makes you joyful these days, PigSnout, is the news of
> >more
> >American servicemen killed.
>
> Ho, ho, ho. Yup, old Knickers it right in that old Christian love and
> peace groove, isn't he?

"Ho, ho, ho."? Is that what you say when you see that more American
servicemen
have been killed, PorkRind? It must give you great JOY, right?

nevermore

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 7:21:33 AM12/4/05
to
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:06:16 -0800, "2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter
resolution" <zepp2128#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:

Truth is, the Jamieson's don't really have any friends... the closest
they get to friends are their neighbors in the trailer park.

--

Steve

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 7:32:40 AM12/4/05
to
Bottom line: you've created an imaginary opponent. I've heard Limbaugh
and Hannity, and their description of "liberals" is a weird caricature
that describes NO liberal I know. It's a kind of weird
mocking/demonization that has nothing to do with reality, or cherry
picks extreme cases and tries to make it seem the norm.

If you listen seriously to these ratings hounds, you've got a very
warped view of American politics and how people think.

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 8:25:51 AM12/4/05
to

Oops, forgot to mention AIr America. I haven't ever listened to it, so
I can't judge it (I don't think it's carried in Maine), but I suspect
that talk radio from both sides mirror each other, and each is more
about entertainment or giving red meat to the base than acknowledging
the reality that decent people can have different political beliefs.

nevermore

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 10:12:45 AM12/4/05
to
On 4 Dec 2005 05:25:51 -0800, "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:

>Oops, forgot to mention AIr America.

Most people have forgotten about air America.


>If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
>be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&

Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because
<LOL> line 13 on the 1040 form, shown below, is clearly where
you report your capital gains.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:VMjs-MLyEcsJ:www.irs.gov/pub/irs...

2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 10:52:52 AM12/4/05
to
On 4 Dec 2005 05:25:51 -0800, "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote:

>
>Oops, forgot to mention AIr America. I haven't ever listened to it, so
>I can't judge it (I don't think it's carried in Maine), but I suspect
>that talk radio from both sides mirror each other, and each is more
>about entertainment or giving red meat to the base than acknowledging
>the reality that decent people can have different political beliefs.

It depends which show you listen to. You might like Al Franken, who's
more sedate and reasoned. He'll have conservative and right wing
guests on his show, and he won't shout them down or try to bully them.
He broadcasts weekdays, 9 EST to noon. If Portland doesn't have an
AAR affiliate (and they might--they're up to 85 stations now), you can
catch it live at http://www.airamericaradio.com

2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 10:58:05 AM12/4/05
to
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 06:48:39 -0500, "Kurt Nicklas"
<kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:

Laughing at YOU Knickers.

But then, we all laugh at you, Knickers.

Dance for us, Knickers. Sniff Clinton's penis and tell us where it's
been.

nevermore

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 11:17:10 AM12/4/05
to

So tell everybody again where you report your capital Gains, Jamieson.
--

>If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
>be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&

Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because

<LOL> line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where

Tom Betz

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 11:30:46 AM12/4/05
to
Quoth "2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution" <zepp2128#
2211finestplanet.com@> in news:7146p15bb87a1k592tnpa1fmb1ksp2kovi@
4ax.com:

> It depends which show you listen to. You might like Al Franken,
> who's more sedate and reasoned. He'll have conservative and
> right wing guests on his show, and he won't shout them down or
> try to bully them. He broadcasts weekdays, 9 EST to noon. If
> Portland doesn't have an AAR affiliate (and they might--they're
> up to 85 stations now), you can catch it live at
> http://www.airamericaradio.com

WLVP-AM 870 AM

--
| "There's no telling what new harm Bush might |
| do if he ever gets back up off the mat. |
| You have to keep your knee on his windpipe |
| until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau |


Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 2:54:10 PM12/4/05
to

"DNC_TN" <DNC...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
news:hlo4p11iok0hpf326...@lol.com...

Did someone say that? Isn't that a bit like asking if California is
experiencing a form of Illinois in 1932? Or is France experiencing a form
of Sweden in 1952? One nation probably can't really experience a form of
another nation.

It WAS said that America might be moving toward "a form" of the fascist
ideology that Germany experienced under Hitler. That's a legitimate concern
of many Americans, including Jewish Americans who survived the holocaust.
But even there, your attempt at comparative analogy is misleading. It's not
necessary to recreate the exact conditions of WWII Germany to create a
fascist state.

I can see in your rhetoric the beginnings of the usual self-aborting right
wing attempt at countering a charge of fascism. The first is based on a
literal reading of the face-value of a historical label. Hitler's use of
the word "socialist" is the first trench the right wing tries to take. One
counter example is sufficient to disprove the argument. "People's Republic
of China." Until you can demonstrate that the Chinese are all republicans,
your complaint about the literal meaning of "nazi" fails.

The second right wing fallacy is more creative but equally fallacious. The
general idea of this fallacy is to insist on exact point for point
equivalence before a comparison can be made made between the American Right
Wing and any other right wing ideology. This is called the "True Scotsman
Fallacy" and it's just another example of the dumbing down of the right
wing. In this fallacy, Bush is not moving toward fascism because there is
no holocaust in America. And Bush is not moving toward fascism because he
hasn't declared war on Britain. And Bush is not moving toward fascism
because he hasn't announced that America simply "needs more room." And Bush
is not moving toward fascism because he hasn't changed G.O.P. to NAZI. And
Bush is not moving toward fascism because he hasn't said nasty things about
Jews or Winston Churchill. To this I should also add that Bush has not
adopted a mustache and shows no signs of having learned to speak in German,
and when he bunkers down it's with a girl named Condi not a girl named Eva.

The actual fact is that, to become fascist, a country need not magically
turn into a Walt Disney fabrication of nazi Germany complete with
animatronic Gestapo agents. The growth of a virulent form of nationalism,
the growing control of corporations, the creeping loss of civil rights, the
gradual disappearance of a free and active media, the reliance on military
over diplomatic solutions to foreign relation problems, the emerging "cult
of the leader" are all symptomatic of a growing fascist government in right
wing America. No dead Jews or Swastikas are necessary.


Harry Hope

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 3:26:59 PM12/4/05
to

Eagle Eye

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 4:19:10 PM12/4/05
to
In article <43928106$0$28493$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
[...]

>Utopians are not much different from the average Dungeons and
>Dragons player whose brain has been turned into mush. It
>certainly explains libertarians like Eagle Eye

I'm not a utopian. I've explained this to you, over and over. Why
do you keep repeating the same lie?

>who get all misty-eyed talking about the individual even while
>they're arguing for a society

I do not argue for a "society", i.e., an organized system by which
to rule others. I've explained this to you, over and over. And
yet, here you are, repeating the same lie, once again.

What is wrong with you?

[...]

=====
EE

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 7:55:29 PM12/4/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005120421191...@nym.alias.net...

> In article <43928106$0$28493$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >Utopians are not much different from the average Dungeons and
> >Dragons player whose brain has been turned into mush. It
> >certainly explains libertarians like Eagle Eye
>
> I'm not a utopian. I've explained this to you, over and over. Why
> do you keep repeating the same lie?

Why do you keep running from your failed lies, Eagle Eye?


"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005112112040...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <437a878a$0$28501$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> >news:2005111522472...@nym.alias.net...
> >> In article <437a3af9$0$28472$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>


> >> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> >> >of human beings who can then prey on others without any
> >> >constraint?
> >> Who said there would be no constraints? Try walking into your
> >> neighbors' homes to take their valuables. See if you encounter
> >> any restraints.
> >If happens every day, you fool.
>
> Then you ought to stop breaking into homes.

Irrelevant comment in place of a rebuttal noted.

> >You think that every human being on the planet has an armed
> >security system?
>
> No

Lack of solution to this problem noted.

>
> If you want to buy a gun to protect yourself, I won't stand in your
> way.

Irrelevant comment noted.

> [...]
> >So "arm the world" is the answer.
>
> I'm not offering to buy other people weapons.

You're not offering much of anything, especially in the way of a logical
argument.

> [..]
> >> >> >No one's stealing money or looting from taxpayers. You
> >> >> >can't steal what is already yours.
> >> >> When did the politicians or I.R.S. agents show up to do my
> >> >> work for me?
> >> >Non sequitur. Doing your work for you is not a sufficient
> >> >condition of your owing them money.
> >> What else is a BETTER condition? How could someone who didn't
> >> do any of the work and never made any sort of contract with me
> >> make a rational claim on my money?
> >By way of laws.
>
> Appeal to authority. Appeal to tradition. Appeal to force.

You don't understand what any of those fallacies mean. You've already
proved that. Snipping my replies won't help you.

>
> >> >A landlord doesn't go to work for his renter, but his renter
> >> >does owe him money.
> >> Because of a MUTUAL, CONSENSUAL AGREEMENT.
> >Not if you have nowhere else to go.
>
> You always have alternatives.

Empty rhetorical comment. The parties to an agreement do not come to an
agreement from a position of equal power to make a mutually beneficial
decision. The wageslave has the right to die rather than "agree" to serve
the lord, but that's not really a viable alternative, and even liars like
you know that.

> [...]
> >> >> >If you don't like them, you live in a country where you can
> >> >> >lobby to change those laws and where you can vote for
> >> >> >like-minded representatives.
> >> >> I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good
> >> >> place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A
> >> >> man has not everything to do, but something; and because he
> >> >> cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should do
> >> >> something wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning
> >> >> the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs
> >> >> to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition,
> >> >> what should I do then? But in this case the State has
> >> >> provided no way; its very Constitution is the evil.
> >> >> --Henry David Thoreau (On Civil Disobedience)
> [...]
> >> >you quoting Thoreau is close to blasphemy
> >> He opposed everything you stood for. Why would you regard him
> >> as holy?
> >Thoreau never stood for anarchy.
>
> I didn't say he did.

By associating your chuckle-headed anarchical ideology with Thoreau, you
did.

> [...]
> >From communism to fascism to anarchy, corruption and crime occur
> >at the individual level.
>
> False. Under authoritarian regimes, the government is an ORGANIZED
> subset of the population

Which still doesn't make it an entity by your definition. Just a euphemism.
Once again, you're hoisted on your own petard.

>, which COOPERATES to carry out attrocities.

COOPERATES with WHOM?

>
> [...]
> >> Of course, the Nazis and the Communists were, for all intents
> >> and purposes, indistinguishable. They were both radical
> >> collectivists and their differences were mostly cosmetic.
> >The same can be said of any transnational corporation.
>
> No, it can't

Yes it can and with complete accuracy.

>, because these businesses have the consent of the
> members, employees, clients, and customers.

Not necessarily true at all, as has been proven in many cases.

>
> >> >Each of these societies...communist, fascist...was comprised of
> >> >individuals, supposedly each one of which was the infallible
> >> >judge of what is right or wrong for them
> >> And, if the people had limited themselves to only making
> >> decisions FOR THEMSELVES, there would have been no communism,
> >> fascism, or any other form of collectivist evil.

> >Sure there would.
>
> In each of these cases, there was a subset of people (those who
> took power) who presumed to make decisions for those they ruled.

So what? The same is true of any crime even one human being commits against
another. Congratulations on discovering a new strawman word, but "subset"
is not going to buy you any quick wins either. As long as subsets consist
of human beings who are each able to make up their own minds, it's still man
v. man.

>
> >You can't think of a single case in which a large group of people
> >haven't formed a government BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY.
>
> Strawman.

Of couse it's not a strawman. You simply have NO ANSWER to it.

>
> >Welcome to anarchic Utopialand.
>
> Strawman.

No, it's not. If you have an answer to government, hork it up. Otherwise,
it's quite valid to presume that you envision some utopia in which the big
bad spectre of 'gummint' just doesn't exist and all the little free
marketeers are happy to voluntarily honor all their agreements and
universally consent to everything.

> >> >...yet they ended in heinous mass murder.
> >> Because they made decisions FOR OTHERS, not just for
> >> themselves.
> >And they made those decisions first at the individual level.
>
> But, as individuals, they lacked the power that they obtained by
> organizing large numbers of supporters, conscripts, et al..

So what?


Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 7:56:34 PM12/4/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005120421191...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <43928106$0$28493$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >Utopians are not much different from the average Dungeons and
> >Dragons player whose brain has been turned into mush. It
> >certainly explains libertarians like Eagle Eye
>
> I'm not a utopian.

You're a coward who runs from his own failed lies.

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

news:2005101800235...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <43541c89$0$28805$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>


> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

> >news:200510171924...@nym.alias.net...
> >> In article <1129570593.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> >> <Seper...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >Eagle Eye wrote:
> >> >> Government is the use of aggressive coercion. As such, it is
> >> >> a denial of the liberty of those affected. Why label any
> >> >> such action as "libertarian", except to try to fool people?
> >> >> Either you want people to overlook the abuse of power by
> >> >> covering it up with euphemisms, or you want to protect your
> >> >> Republocrat power base by smearing those who might challenge
> >> >> it.
> >> >But wouldn't you agree that government, a TRUE representative
> >> >democracy, is necessary to ensure the common good?
> >> No. I reject the absurd presumption that there is a "common
> >> good", in general. Each person has unique needs and wants,
> >> independent of others.
> >Which leaves you precisely nowhere because there is no example in
> >the history of the world in which a sizeable group of individuals
> >have ever been able to live "together" as individuals without
> >government of any kind.
>
> Your choice of words builds in an unsupported premise.
>
> It would be accurate for you to say:
>
> There is no example in the history of the world in which a
> sizeable group of individuals have ever been ALLOWED to live
> "together" as individuals without government of any kind.

Irrelevant argument. You have no proof whatsoever that such a situation
would work under any conditions, and there's a world of evidence to suggest
that it wouldn't. Secondarily, history does not prove that no such group
ever existed. What history does prove is that all societies of any
appreciable size have ended up evolving into some form of government.

>
> >> If two or more people have similar values, each may decide that
> >> it is in his or her best interest to cooperate with the others
> >> in that group. When they do so voluntarily, unanimously
> >> agreeing to the terms, then you could describe that as being the
> >> "common good" for that group. In such a situation, when a small
> >> group has unanimity, each individual's interests coincide with
> >> the agreed-to project (e.g., a joint business venture, a
> >> condominium, a club, a church), which you could dub (for that
> >> limited group) the "common good".
> >>
> >> You have a problem, however, whenever there is dissent. In that
> >> case, there is no such thing as the "common good". Whoever
> >> claims to be working for the "common good", on behalf of "the
> >> people", is a liar.

> >Fallacy.
>
> What TYPE of fallacy?

Argumentum ad ignoratum, which fits you in so many ways. The assertion that
no one has made an argument for such a notion as "the common good" in this
discussion you're having is not evidence that there is no such thing as "the
common good."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>
> >The fact that someone disagrees with the idea that there is a
> >"common good" in a situation is not proof that there is no "common
> >good" for a group.
>
> If you say that Social Security is for the "common good", but it
> isn't good for me, then you're a liar.

1. That assumes that Social Security is "in fact" not "good for you." The
fact that human beings are not necessarily the best judges of their own self
interest has been proven over and over again throughout the history of man.

2. The assumation that one dissent from a decision or a process or a law
is suffiecient to create the conditions under which that law or process is
invalidated is a fallacy. If it is true that numbers do not create right or
wrong, then it
is true that opinion does not create right and wrong. Your opinion that
Social Security is not right for you does NOTHING to change the common good
one way or the other. Psychopaths don't like the fact that homicide is
against the law, but a law against homicide is still in the best interests
of the common good.

The best you can come up with is an argument that YOU want out of society.
I doubt that the rest of us have a problem with that, especially if you get
the hell out of the society. It's your parasitism that creates a problem.

>
> Only when a given proposition is good for everyone is it actually
> good for everyone.

Wrong. When a proposition is best for a group, it's best for the group.
You're adding "good for everyone" as a definition of "the common good," and
there's no necessary basis for that requirement. I don't expect the common
good to work out for rapists and serial killers. I just expect it to be in
the best interests for the vast majority of the public.

>
> >You've already gone on record as believing that numbers alone
> >don't create good or evil. If that's true, it's also true that
> >opinion alone doesn't create good and evil. So one person
> >dissenting does not make that one person correct.
>
> If a competent adult man decides that a given proposition is not
> good FOR HIMSELF, then who the hell are you to tell him any
> different? Only he gets to decide if that is correct (or who else
> is qualified to speak for him, as a proxy).

Your attempt to divert the argument is noted. This is not about
propositions being good for the individual. If that were the case, there's
no point in even bringing up the concept of a common good. If you want to
jettison your duties to the society you were born into and which made it
possible for you to survive to adulthood, that's your problem.

But that's not good enough for you. You need to assuage your selfishness by
creating a bogus philosophy in which everyone supposedly shares your status
as a social malcontent. It doesn't work that way. The fact is that the
VAST majority of human beings readily see the benefits of government, and
see social misfits like yourself as social parasites, more than willing to
have reached their present state on the backs of others, yet unwilling to
face up to your duty as a citizen.

>
> >> >And I'm speaking in generalizations, because I have never
> >> >understood how a country can function if there is not some form
> >> >of common agreement between it's citizens.
> >> I do business with countless people, from clients to retailers.
> >> They are, as far as I can tell, decent and honest people with
> >> whom I would have little or no trouble doing the same things we
> >> do now if we suddenly found ourselves without a Constitution,
> >> laws, and other structures of government.
> >Then you're naive, and you'd be one of the first to be stripped of
> >your property and whatever you believe your "rights" are as soon
> >as the first larger gun showed up on the scene.
>
> That is MY problem, not yours.

It's definitely YOUR problem, but it's also my honor and duty to point out
that your living in a ideological dystopia that can't possibly work in any
real world, and that the main reason your doing it is to excuse your own
parasitism.

>
> >> You wouldn't run out and start raping and pillaging, would you?
> >Fallacy.
>
> What TYPE of fallacy?

Argumentum ad populum. The fact that most human beings if asked if THEY
would immediately run out and start raping and pillaging doesn't even
address the question of whether raping or pillaging would occur without a
government.

>
> >What difference does it make whether one person would start raping
> >and pillaging or two people or three?
>
> Because that one person happens to be the person with whom I was
> having a conversation

Which has nothing to do with anything. If your proposing an absolute
assertion, such as that there be no government, the activity of a single
person in response to such a change is meaningless. The question isn't
whether you or he or I would rape and pillage. The question is whether
uncontrolled acts of violence would or would not occur in the absence of a
government, and world history has demonstrated that they DO OCCUR.

>
> >The fact is that human beings DO rape and pillage.
>
> But, but, but, raping and pillaging are ILLEGAL!! How could those
> possibly happen with the laws written down on fancy paper, in
> official-sounding language and all?
>
> Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Yeah. That must have hurt you. Your question above presumes that crimes
are stopped because of the existence of legislation. Aside from the fact
that your question pretty well proves that you're in no shape to deal with
this subject, it's rather obvious that laws provide PENALTIES as a means of
enforcement. I doubt that most governments have ever presumed that the mere
writing down of injunctions are going to stop human beings from violence.
Quite the contrary, the fact that laws AND penalties exist in a very real
world of violence and lawbreaking are a demonstration that your "mutually
agreed upon" dystopia is a pipe dream.

>
> >That's the problem and you have no answer as to what to do about
> >that problem.
>
> I have definite answers for how to deal with rapists and pillagers
> coming after me and my loved ones. But that would be MY problem
> and not YOURS, just in case you forgot.

Not really your decision to make for a society as a whole, just in case you
haven't noticed. The machinery of this civilization provides penalties for
crimes against others. Probably, in part at least, because the wiser among
us know that YOU don't have a hell of a lot to do with any ongoing solution
to crime in society...especially since you're more or less a part of the
problem.

>
> >> You don't need a piece of paper to guide you to do what is
> >> right, do you?
> >Irrelevant.
>
> I'm guessing it is relevant TO HIM

It's not relevant, PERIOD. Since the laws of a society are a reflection of
the morality of human beings, the laws are a result, not a cause of common
conceptions of right and wrong and justice and equality.

>
> >Some people don't need a piece of paper, others do. The question
> >is what to do about those people who WILL rape and pillage in the
> >absence of a government.
>
> If your answer is to restore government, then explain why there are
> still people who rape and pillage WITH government.

"Restore government?" It seems that the only person here attempting to
"restore" anything is you tilting at the windmill and gibbering in terms of
some "natural state" that never existed in the first place.

The fact that people rape and pillage is secondary to the question of what
to do about them. Hence, government.

>
> Again, if rapists and pillagers come after me or my loved ones, it
> is MY problem, not YOURS.

I'll tell that to the cop who has to decide whether or not to shoot someone
trying to cut your head off. Frankly, your loss wouldn't be a loss. But a
society can't presume that everyone is as parasitical as you.

>
> >> I'm sure there would still be predators who would hurt others.
> >> But they do so now, even with laws.
> >Not an argument.
>
> It's a demonstration that words on paper don't stop immoral acts.

Straw Man Fallacy. No one suggested that words on paper stop immoral acts.

Try again.

>
> >The fact that criminals exist WITH laws is not an argument that
> >they're going to somehow disappear WITHOUT laws
>
> Who said it was?
>
> >or that having no laws won't change the situation for the worse.
>
> Change the situation FOR WHOM?

For the society involved. You represent exactly ONE element of a society.
You don't get to determine the goals or construction of that society by
yourself. And you don't get to decide whether something is right or wrong
based on only your desires and beliefs.

>
> If you're living down the street from people who you expect would
> begin raping and pillaging should such laws disappear, you might
> want to move.

And you might want to leave the country. It's the same choice your giving
your fellow man in your anarchic dystopia.

>
> I trust MY neighbors more than that.

I doubt it.

>
> >And accordingly, human history has shown that in those situations
> >in which all government has broken down, crime, violent death,
> >rape, pillage, warlords, crimelords, etc. appear in short order.
>
> "appear"? That implies that they disappear with government.

Who said that?

>
> Well, in the past century, governments and quasi-governmental
> groups murdered somewhere around 140,000,000 people. Far more were
> tortured, imprisoned, dispossessed, terrorized, or otherwise
> oppressed. That still goes on in many countries, with the most
> powerful, intrusive governments.

So? That's supposed to be an argument that NO government leads to paradise?
Another case of Argumentum ad ignoratum.

>
> Incidentally, a warlord is a de facto form of government. For
> example, warlords in Somalia enforce Sharia LAW. So, you get to
> shift all that activity into the government column, too.

Nice job of arguing against your own case. The fact is that government is a
given. When it's not there, it appears as a natural evolution of human
society. So once again, you're shown to argue against something that you
have no alternative to.

>
> >> I see no reason why the decent people couldn't find effective
> >> ways to protect themselves from these thugs without using their
> >> own thugs (i.e., law enforcement and tax collectors) to plunder
> >> the money from others to pay for it.
> >Not that you have CLUE ONE as to what those ways would be.
>
> Well, that's MY problem, not YOURS, remember?

Actually, YOUR ignorance can be a problem for everyone. That's why I'm
doing you and the world a favor by pointing out that your argument is
nothing more than a bitch without a solution.

>
> If I can't figure things out for myself, I'd be willing to pay good
> money to experts who could. And, without being forced by some
> "authority" to have only one option or being hampered in my
> choices, I would be free to pick the best FOR ME. And, even
> better, if that provider screwed up, I could hold them accountable
> by taking my business elsewhere, something I can't do with
> government.

And something you can't do without it either. Your dystopia doesn't exist.

>
> >> >For instance, the state of the levees in New Orleans was
> >> >appalling. I would gladly pay taxes to sustain those levees,
> >> >and keep the people and city of New Orleans safe.
> >> >
> >> >Would you?
> >> No. I would, however, consider paying a bit more for a hotel or
> >> a meal during a visit to New Orleans if the people who lived
> >> there charged more for such things, to cover their costs of
> >> protecting themselves.
> >Protecting themselves HOW? Frontier justice
>
> The issue is levees. Pay attention, doofus.

Inability to respond to the point is noted.

>
> [snip]

[snip restored]

Protecting themselves HOW? Frontier justice as an answer to NO government
is somehow the way to go for you?

> >> If I decided to live in a place which was prone to flooding I
> >> would not expect other people to pay for my choices.
> >Oh please. And you wouldn't expect roads or a fire department or
> >any infrastructure whatsoever?
>
> I want those things and I'm willing to pay for them. I don't want
> YOU to pay a single cent for anything I use and you don't.

And you do pay for them. You don't get to decide whether that cost will be
shared by others or not. That's life. That would also be life under any
system, whether a government such as the one we have or the corporatocracy
that Libertarians like you pretend ISN'T a government. It would be
government regardless.

>
> >Your dystopia seems pretty grim.
>
> That would be your fabrication

The only one fabricating here is you, since you can't come up with a single
instance in the history of the world where your system existed.

>
> >> >Additionally, what type of monetary hit does the US suffer by
> >> >_NOT insuring the infrastrucure is kept functional?
> >> Note that you speak of "the US" as a simple, monolithic entity.
> >> Also, you presume that without government, the infrastructure
> >> would fall apart.
> >Who built the infrastructure in the first place. You assume that
> >it all is going to just sit there for your use, even though it was
> >built on the backs of others who were in the end more concerned
> >with the "common good" than a greedhead like you.
>
> I'm not the one demanding control of what doesn't belong to me.
> That would be you and other greedhead supporters of government
> coercion.

Don't talk to me about greed, corporatist. Your corporatocracy would be
built on nothing but greed, and it would end up being a government anyway.

>
> >Why should their past efforts pay your way?
>
> So auction off the infrastructure, divide the proceeds equally, and
> shut down the government. I don't demand to get anything I haven't
> paid for.

Answer the question. Why should their past efforts pay your way? You
literally CAN'T pay for what you've been given.

>
> Buy a road and charge me to use it. If I want to use it, I'll pay
> you. If not, I'll go around.

Not good enough. You're not the only human being in the country. You don't
get to decide how it's going to work. Nor do you get to decide what should
work.

>
> >> Do you think that Wal-Mart, your local grocer, your local air
> >> conditioner suppliers, or the local pharmacist would choose to
> >> allow the roads customers use to get to their stores and their
> >> suppliers use to deliver to their stores to fall into
> >> disrepair?
> >So you merely propose a corporatocracy
>
> No. I'm not proposing that any person or group gets to RULE anyone
> else, i.e. to use aggressive coercion.

Then you're not proposing anything.

>
> Wal-Mart can BUY the land on which to build roads close to their
> stores. Or they can pay the owners a fee to give their customers
> unfettered access. Or they can suffer the consequences.

And if they don't want to suffer the consequences they'll be no one to stop
them from making sure they don't have to. The history of corporate
malfeasance in America has proven that even with regulatory laws
corporations have been able to create their own countries, corner markets,
and force consumers to take what their given at the price required.

>
> [snip]
> >In the end, Wal Mart building roads and passing on the cost to
> >their customers is simply another form of government.

[snip restored]
So you merely propose a corporatocracy over the present form of government
and your stance against "government" is a sham. In the end, Wal Mart
building roads and passing on the cost to their customers is simply another
form of government. And I'm sure that Wal Mart won't employ a paid coterie
of "thugs" to secure their superstores from shoplifters like you simply
walking away with merchandize.

>
> No, it is not. I have a choice to not pay what they're asking, and
> thus not give them any money for their road projects.

Yes it is and no you don't.

>
> With government, I'm denied a choice.

Life is rough. Not ever individual in a society can choose everything. And
that's an artifact of reality, not tradition unless you want to pull a
Robinson Crusoe.


>
> >And I'm sure that Wal Mart won't employ a paid coterie of "thugs"
> >to secure their superstores from shoplifters like you simply
> >walking away with merchandize.
>
> You're the greedhead who insists he has a stake in what properly
> belongs to others, not me. I'm not interested in taking anything
> without paying for it.

Non responsive and ad hom noted. The question isn't about me or whether
you're interested in stealing. It's a question of whether Wal Mart will
choose to have its own security force. Without a government, and in some
cases, even with one, they might well decide to do so. So WHAMMO, there's
your coercive force and not a thing you can do about it.

>
> If you can't go to a Wal-Mart without slipping something in your
> pockets, then you might be worried about the big, beefy security
> guards they hire. I'm not. If they're too overbearing, bothering
> decent, honest people like me instead of focusing on weasels like
> you, I'll shop elsewhere.

There's no guarantee that there will be an "elsewhere" to shop. You've
certainly provided no evidence to suggest that monopolies will continue
unhindered to the point where Wal Mart might well be the only place left to
shop.

>
> >> They could take the money they now spend in taxes, licenses, and
> >> such, and use it maintain roads, power, sewage, security, etc..
> >And become a government.
>
> No, because I'm not FORCED to pay any of it.

Of course you are. If you want to eat, you pay the price; if you want to
drive, drink, wear clothes, etc., etc., you pay the price.

Your bogus ideology assumes that there will be some wonderful difference
between the hidden price of corporatocracy and the open price of state and
federal taxes. You're not going to get a free ride, either way.

>
> You're so stupid you don't even know basic fundamental
> definitions.

Ad Hom noted.
>
> >> >How does a libertarian address those types of problems?
> >> I don't address all the problems of everyone in the country, my
> >> city, or my neighborhood. I worry about myself and those with
> >> whom I have associations.
> >TRANSLATION: You don't HAVE an answer to the enormous problems
> >your ideology would create.
>
> Prove it.

You already have. You've wasted a lot of time pretending that all you want
out of life is to be left alone, but you offer no rational society in which
you can accomplish that and solve the very problems your parasitic existence
would create.

>
> My "ideology" of minding my own business doesn't create problems.

Of course it doesn't so long as you keep your mouth shut and stay in the
back alley where you belong. The problem arises when a parasite like you st
arts preaching parasitism as a philosophy. Society can function with a
sizeable number of parasites like you feeding off of the work of others.
Hence, laws.

>
> >Like most libertarians, you have a faith-based philosophy
>
> No, I don't.

Sure you do. You argue for a condition that has never existed in any
society on earth and you never present any rational reason why anyone would
prefer your anarchy to government, nor do you produce any reason to believe
that your anarchy would be anything but much worse than the government we
now live under.


> I abandoned my faith-based beliefs, such as the
> notion that democracy establishes the "will of the people".

Well, one things clear: your opinion sure as hell doesn't establish truth or
morality. And at this point, that's about all you've got going for
you...that and your touching faith in Wal-Mart.

>
> All I had to do was ask myself: Can I justify using force to make
> someone do something they never agreed to do, such as pay taxes?
> Every answer I could think of, from the faith-based beliefs I was
> taught, crumbled before reason. I can't justify it, so I can't
> justify government.

I can't justify you being the government either. So we agree there.

>
> [snip]
> >> Otherwise, I respect the right of everyone else to handle their
> >> own affairs as they see fit. In other words: I mind my own
> >> business.
> >In other words, you're effectively an outlaw,
>
> What laws have I broken?

Any that you have the courage of conviction to break. Unless, as I suspect,
you're all bitch, and no conviction.

>
> >denying the duty from which your rights are derived.
>
> My rights are derived from my nature as a rational person.

Prove it.

>
> >All rights involve linked duties.
>
> I have no inherent duty, beyond respecting the rights of others.

ALL rights involve subsequent duties. If you can't figure out why that's
true, you're even dumber than you come off.

> >Your right to live without a government demands that the rest of
> >us carry your sorry ass.
>
> No, it doesn't. I don't want a damned thing from you.

Your wants are not material. The fact is that you have been carried by this
society to this point in time. The fact that you're ungrateful puts you
right in there with the usual social psychopaths. But the fact remains.
And there are NO free lunches.

>
> >That's a duty we don't have under the legal government of the
> >United States.
>
> Oh, so if the government is a "legal government", then it's like
> really, really official or something?

Straw Man noted.

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 7:57:55 PM12/4/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005120421191...@nym.alias.net...

> What is wrong with you?


What is wrong with you, you craven coward?


"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

news:200511211203...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <437a5427$0$28490$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>


> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

> >news:200511152006...@nym.alias.net...
> >> In article <am7tm11i9irj26am7...@4ax.com>
> >> <zepp2045#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
> >> >Actually, it isn't illegal to work more than 35 hours; but it
> >> >is illegal to try to compel anyone to do so.
> >> So you're saying the government denies an employer the right to
> >> set the terms of employment, regardless of the circumstances?
> >> If an employee doesn't want to work more than 35 hours, but the
> >> boss makes that a requirement of the job, the employee should
> >> find another job. That's called freedom and for some stupid
> >> reason, you hate freedom.
> >Was it freedom in the turn of the century when the USSC overturned
> >New York State's attempt to institute a 60 hour work week in
> >Lochner v. New York [1905]?
>
[Pointless whining snipped]
>
> >At that time, bakers were required to work a 24 hour day on
> >Thursdays and work weeks of as much as 125 hours were common.
>
> That sounds like a good reason not to be a baker.

Idiotic comment. The comment ignores the fact that human beings are often
caught up in economic conditions that change through time. Human beings
have a finite lifetime. They often cannot simultaneously cover all the
economic possibilities by educating themselves in enough crafts or
professions to prepare themselves for every possible economic change. Your
argument presumes that one can instantaneously decide to just be something
else if one's current work becomes unprofitable. Hence, this is just one
more example of the sophomoric state of your understanding of the problem.

> >The bakers had no equal power to prevent their employers from
> >requiring the inhumane hours they were forced to work.
>
> They had the right to quit and find work in a different
> profession.

The did not have that effective right because they were not educated in
another skill. They were trained as bakers and that is all they knew. Your
ignorance here is astounding.

> They had the right to organize and bargain
> collectively (except, of course, the government used its power to
> aggressively coerce them not to

That coercion did not originate from the government, but from
BUSINESS....your FREE MARKET concept takes a nosedive once again.

>
> >So your free market theory is bogus on its face.
>
> Did anyone claim that everyone would be happy with the consequences
> of freedom?

Once again, you don't have an argument, just an evasion.

>
> You may have an awful time of things without government, but that
> is no excuse to violate the rights of others. It is, after all,
> YOUR problem.

No MY problem. It's everyone's problem. The criminal minority who would
benefit from your mythological "free market" is a "subset."

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 7:59:22 PM12/4/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005120421191...@nym.alias.net...

> I do not argue for a "society

You just run away from your own failures to debate the issues.


"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

news:2005092621441...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <4330ad23$0$6527$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>


> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

> >news:2005092021060...@nym.alias.net...
> >> In article <432f6155$0$6572$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>


> >> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

> >> >news:2005092000343...@nym.alias.net...
> >> >> In article <432b1d5f$0$6579$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> >> >> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> ><ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:kpgk6hg...@panix2.panix.com...
> >> >> >> > Gandalf Grey writes:
> >> >> [ attributions lost ]
> >> >> >>>> >> >As long as a majority did.
> >> >> >>>> >> So it's OK to stuff Jews into ovens [restore] as long as
> >> >> >>>> >> the majority is OK with it? [end restore]
> >> >> >>>> >Disinformation tactic noted
> >> >> >>>> Yes, I note that you cut off half my sentence so you could
> >> >> >>>> engage in your usual disinformation.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> >Beagle Lie. We aren't discussing Jews,
> >> >> >>>> I was, as a demonstration of the consequences of judging
> >> >> >>>> the moral probity of a proposition by its popularity.
> >> >> >>> And you're analogy had nothing to do with SS save at the
> >> >> >>> most superficial level. You wanted to sling associational
> >> >> >>> mud at the concept and that's what
> >> >> >> Nor was it meant to, it was meant to derail your absurd
> >> >> >> contention that if a majority believe in a thing that makes
> >> >> >> the thing moral.
> >> >> >I've made no such contention.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My contention was simple and direct. Referring to whether SS
> >> >> >shall exist or not exist as a policy of this country.....
> >> >> You're hiding the fact that you were dishonestly mangling
> >> >> context in your original reply to me.
> >> >And you're hiding the fact that you're committing the oldest crime
> >> >in bogus logic, attempting to pretend that two concepts that might
> >> >share one characteristic are the same concept.
> >> The concept is the determination of morality by democratically
> >> elected or popularly supported government. What other concept do
> >> you think I'm trying to tie to that?
> >Who ever knows what your idiotic concept of ethical logic is trying to
push?
>
> Anyone who bothers to read the posts in this thread ought to know better
> than to make many of the assertions you make, starting with this garbage
> about "two concepts that might share one characteristic ...."

I'm not the one who tried to establish a false dilemma. That was you.

>
> Considering how much you dishonestly edit the cites of other

Ad hom in place of an argument noted.

> >The fact is that majoritarian decisions have nothing to do with creating
> >moral truth one way or the other. Majorities don't define good or
> >evil....period.
>
> This is a case in point. That's precisely what I've been arguing
> from the outset, explaining it to nitwits like "liberalhere" or
> "ausstu", who attempted to justify Social Security based upon
> popularity.

1. I have absolutely no interest in what you SAY you've been doing. Any
nitwit who thinks that rephrasing a false dilemma argument by using
goal-post moving terms like "commonalities" is STILL arguing for a false
dilemma.
2. Until corollation equals causation, take a hike.

> Rather than reading my posts and realizing that was my argument

You have no argument.

All you've got is variations on the false dilemma.

> Conflate? No. I'm characterizing the manner in which specific
> acts are justified and identifying commonalities between different
> instances.

>
> I would suggest that, in the future, you actually read what your
> opponent writes before even thinking of touching your fingers to
> the keyboard to write your reply.

I suggest you knock off the ad homs and come to the table with an actual
argument.

>
> >> [snip]
> >> >> (See below.) In addition, you're trying to draw a distinction
> >> >> between two different actions carried out by a democratically
> >> >> elected or popular government, to deny the connection between
> >> >> something you endorse and that which you despise.
> >> >Bullshit. I use a ladder to clean my gutters. Second story
> >> >thieves often do the same. That doesn't mean that I have to
> >> >accept that cleaning gutters is an immoral or illegal act.
> >>
> >> Not all burglaries involve the use of a ladder. All burglaries
> >> involve entering a building without permission with the intent to
> >> steal.
> >>
> >> Thus, the defining characteristic of burglary is not the use of a
> >> ladder.
> >>
> >> Thus, your analogy falls apart.
> >Actually, it's your analogy that just fell apart. You tried to tie
majority
> >popularity into your moral argument and it failed for two reasons.
> >
> >1. the fact that two concepts share a property doesn't mean they are the
> >same concept. Hence SS and tossing Jews into ovens may both include
> >majority opinions, but they remain distinctly different and the
majoritarian
> >aspect can't serve to define them.
>
> You're the only person in this thread who is concerned with whether
> Social Security and genocide are the same "concept". So none of this
> has anything to do with my analogy.

Then why did you bring them both up and try to tie them together in ANY
fashion?

>
> >2. You don't get from physical phenomenon to moral truth. Majority
opinion
> >doesn't define either good or evil.
>
> Now you're just repeating my position, rather than providing any
> sort of rational criticism of my analogy.

You don't have an analogy. All you've got is a false dilemma based on the
further fallacy that correlation implies causation.

>
> When you have such a criticism, based upon what I've actually
> written, please let me know.

Been there, done that.

>
> >> In contrast, I was discussing the determination of moral
> >> justification based upon popularity, illustrating that if we
> >> accepted the principle that popularity determines the morality of a
> >> given act [*BR*], that would logically mean that it was OK to stuff
Jews
> >> into ovens, so long as it was popularly supported (or alternatively,
> >> if the leaders committing such acts were popularly supported). [*ER*]
> >Nobody accepted that principle.
>
> False. Read some of the other posts to this thread, including:

Not interested in others. You've got enough a problem trying to present ME
with a rational argument.


> >> This was a counter-example to debunk the principle that popularity
> >> determines morality.
> >It was a wasted effort since I never suggested that it does.
>
> It was not a wasted effort because there were posters, besides you,
> who did just that.

Your efforts are all wasted so long as you assume that the following blunder
makes logical sense....

> Conflate? No. I'm characterizing the manner in which specific
> acts are justified and identifying commonalities between different
> instances.

The manner in which acts are justified has nothing to do with the acts when
"popularity" is the only justification you can find. If that were the case,
there would be hardly anything in politics that wasn't, at some point,
justified on the same basis. Yet the specific acts REMAIN specific.

>
> >> >> >EE> It doesn't matter whether a large number of people didn't
> >> >> >like it. GG>As long as a majority did. Where did I mention
> >> >> >"morality"???
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's look at the FULL context:
> >> >>
> >> >> >End of the Bush Era
> >> >> >
> >> >> >By E. J. Dionne Jr. Tuesday, September 13, 2005; A27
> >> >> >
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> >The president's post-election fixation on privatizing part
> >> >> >of Social Security showed how out of touch he was. The more
> >> >> >Bush discussed this boutique idea cooked up in conservative
> >> >> >think tanks and Wall Street imaginations, the less the
> >> >> >public liked it.
> >> >> So, according to this guy, allowing grownups to manage their
> >> >> own finances and make their own plans for the future, absent
> >> >> a coerced Ponzi scheme called Social Security, is just a
> >> >> fanciful whim?
> >> >>
> >> >> It doesn't matter whether a large number of people didn't
> >> >> like it. They don't have the right to plunder the paychecks
> >> >> of others and make decisions for them.
> >> >> -- Eagle Eye 9/14/2005 http://tinyurl.com/dbq22
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > >End of the Bush Era
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >By E. J. Dionne Jr. Tuesday, September 13, 2005; A27
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > [snip]
> >> >> > >The president's post-election fixation on privatizing part
> >> >> > >of Social Security showed how out of touch he was. The
> >> >> > >more Bush discussed this boutique idea cooked up in
> >> >> > >conservative think tanks and Wall Street imaginations, the
> >> >> > >less the public liked it.
> >> >> > It doesn't matter whether a large number of people didn't
> >> >> > like it.
> >> >> As long as a majority did.
> >> >> -- Gandalf Grey 9/14/2005 http://tinyurl.com/9r2hv
> >> >>
> >> >> MY statement was about the morality of "plunder[ing] the
> >> >> paychecks of others and mak[ing] decisions for them." You
> >> >> responded to my post, deceptively removing context, to make your
> >> >> quip about my statement of the morality of Social Security.
> >> >So where's my quote on "morality,"
> >> The quote about morality is in MY statement [*BR*], in the article to
> >> which YOU responded. Like I wrote in my last reply, and you
> >> dishonestly deleted, you pretended that you didn't delete the
> >> sentences before and after the sentence you cite above beginning:
> >> "It doesn't matter whether ...." [*ER*]
> >A statement which I reject as logical nonsense.
>
> Above you agree that popularity does not correlate to morality. If
> that is the case, exactly what gives one group of people the right
> to take part of the paychecks of others and make decisions for them?
> You've already eliminated popularity as a possibility. What, then,
> justifies that taking?

Exactly where does morality "right" enter into your question? What group of
people? Who's 'taking'? What 'taking?'

>
> >> >YOU are the one trying to conflate majority actions with specific
> >> >acts.
> >> Conflate? No. I'm characterizing the manner in which specific
> >> acts are justified and identifying commonalities between different
> >> instances.
> >Two things wrong with the above statement.
> >
> >1. Your commonalities make no difference unless they are DEFINING
> >characteristics and they are not.
>
> Once again, you're not paying attention. You're too busy beating
> up that strawman you've fashioned to realize that I still have not
> attempted to equate Social Security with genocide. You're wrong,
> once again.

I see you haven't addressed the issue. It remains. Your commonalities are
not DEFINING characteristics.

>
> Stop. Go back and read what I've actually written. Smack yourself.
> Apologize for being so stupid.

Ad hom argument in place of a rational reply noted.

>
> >2. You seem to be the one doing the justifying. I've heard lots of
> >justifications for different government policies, acts, and laws.
>
> You've heard WHOM making WHICH justifications for WHICH policies,
> acts, and laws? If I'm "the one doing the justifying", show where
> I did that.
>
> >Popularity is seldom the only justification used.
>
> I didn't claim it was.

In practice, you do. Since you identify it as the only commonality.

>
> >So your scope is too narrow to bolster your claim.
>
> No, it isn't. My remark about popularity addresses the most common
> justification for anything done by the US government.

According to who? You? There are lots of justifications out there.
Popularity is seldom the argument.

> As you
> concede that particular point, agreeing that popularity does not
> determine morality, you've already taken my side in refuting the
> vast majority of supporters of government programs, Democrats and
> Republicans included.

I've taken your side on nothing. You haven't proved the point that
popularity is the defining justification of any political program so far.

> Believe me, if the people debating these
> things all agreed with you and me on that particular principle,
> it would reshape the political landscape entirely.

I wouldn't believe you if you told me what time it was.

>
> >> The commonality is not between sending checks to old
> >> people and stuffing humans into ovens. Rather, what they have in
> >> common is the attempt to justify them by the principle that
> >> popularity implies morality.
> >Again, that's bullshit. There are literally 10s of 1000s of things that
> >have popularity as ONE characteristic. Using popularity as a commonality
> >between SS and Jews in ovens
>
> ... is not something that I'm doing.

Then why bring it up?

> That is YOUR strawman

Actually, it seems to be YOUR straw man. Since you're the one who continues
to bring it up. If you're so terribly upset by it, find some other basis to
make comparisons.

>
> [snip]
> >> >According to your moronic philosophy, ALL decisions arrived at by
> >> >a majority are immoral by definition because SOME majorities
> >> >engage in backing up immoral acts.
> >> No, that would be your moronic strawman.
> >Not at all.
>
> Of course it is. I never made any such argument.

You haven't made ANY argument yet.

>
> [snip]
> >> I'm denying ANY type of universal correlation between popularity
> >> and morality.
> >Then stop comparing SS to Jews in Ovens.
>
> I never did. You're the only one with that idea.

EE wrote> >> >>>> >> So it's OK to stuff Jews into ovens as long as
> >> >>>> >> the majority is OK with it?

That's a statement you made immediately after I noted that the majority
ruled when it came to SS.

>
> >> That means that if a proposition is popular, it's
> >> popularity does not make it moral and it does not make it immoral.
> >Which means, by your own definition, the popularity of either has NOTHING
to
> >do with any supposed morality inherent in either SS or Jews in ovens.
>
> Exactly. Perhaps you're learning.
>
> >> In fact, I have argued against such a hasty generalization in other
> >> articles. [*BR*] For example, if you buy a condo and join a
homeowner's
> >> association, you have explicitly agreed to abide by the decisions
> >> of this association. If they decide, by majority vote, to divert
> >> money from something which benefits you to something which benefits
> >> others, they have not violated your rights, for the simple fact
> >> that you gave your consent upon joining up.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, a law prohibiting murder and providing exceptions for
> >> self-defense is not immoral, because it proscribes violations of
> >> rights and does not harm people who have done no wrong. However,
> >> the morality of such a law is not, in any way, determined by its
> >> popularity (or the popularity of legislators who wrote it). [*ER*]

> >Who gives a damn about your inconsistencies?
>
> What inconsistencies?

The ones you're making between your supposed past arguments and the false
dilemma you've tried to foist on this thread.

> The ones you made up in your mind and projected
> onto me? You can deal with your own imagination. Leave me out of it.

Ad hom in place of an argument noted.

>
> >> >If you had even a shred of personal dignity, you'd either stop
> >> >paying SS taxes and live with your greedhead attitude.
> >> How is it greedy to want to keep what belongs to me?
> >>
> >> On the contrary, it is supporters of Social Security, like you, who
> >> are greedy because you demand control of what DOES NOT BELONG TO
> >> YOU. You insist that others be forced to participate.
> >Take your case to the Supreme Court, Beagle Shit.
>
> Appeal to authority.

How is an invitation to bring your grievance before the highest court in the
land an example of "appeal to authority?" I'm not defending anything. I'm
not arguing anything. Do you actually ever read the definitions of
fallacious logic?

>
> >Or don't pay it. But
> >don't try to push it as a moral issue.
>
> Excuse me? Are you claiming that it isn't a moral issue?

Are you claiming that it is? Why? Where's your proof?

>
> Any situation involving the forceful taking of the property of others,
> for which there is disagreement, is a moral issue. How could you
> possibly think it wasn't?

Demonstrate how the confiscation of owed property is "the forceful taking of
the property of others." If you owe money to someone else, it's not your
money, it's theirs. A landlord doesn't need to "steal" rent that is owed to
him.

>
> >If you don't buy into the rules of
> >the society you live in,
> >choose to live outside the law or do something about it.
>
> What are "the rules of the society" in which we live? Explain who
> wrote them, who decided on them, and how you figure they qualify
> as being universal.

The rules are the laws. If you choose not to obey them, why should we
assume that you're anything but a criminal? Finally, what makes you believe
that laws ought to be "universal?"

>
> Anyone can write up a list of rules.

But they wouldn't necessarily be laws.

> The local Girl Scout troop
> around the corner from you could write up a list of rules for how
> people should behave. Why, exactly, is their list any less
> authoritative than what you consider to be the authoritative
> rules?

They can be as authoritative as possible...for the local Girl Scout Troop.

>
> Remember, you already agreed that popularity does not determine
> morality. Thus, popular elections, legislative votes, opinion
> polls, or widespread practice cannot be the basis for your argument.

Who said it was? The law is the law. All law is at best an approximation
for some moral view. No human moral view is perfect and neither is any
human law. Only wild-eyed libertarians expect the law to be "Perfect" or
"Universal." Rational human beings expect it at best to be workable and as
equitable as possible. Rational human beings don't live in libertarian
utopias.

>
> [*BR*]
> >> >But since you feel the need to project your greedhead mentality on
> >> >others,
> >>
> >> You've got it backwards. YOU are the one being greedy. You want
> >> to control (by proxy) what belongs to your neighbor. You want to
> >> harm (by proxy) your neighbor if he resists taxation.
> >>
> >> I don't want a single cent taken from you and I don't want a single
> >> hair on your head touched if you refuse to give in to aggressive
> >> coercion.
> [*ER*]
> >> You're greedy. I'm not.
> >You're an idiot. I'm not.
>
> Simply restoring the context you dishonestly deleted shows exactly
> the opposite.
>
> >> >you show up and pontificate, trying to conflate SS taxes and Jews
> >> >in Ovens.
> >> No. I'm illustrating the dilemma [*BR*] of adopting the principle that
> >> popularity determines morality by offering a conter-example which
> >> should be sufficiently repulsive to most readers that they won't
> >> have already prejudged such a program as justified. [*ER*]
> >No you're not. There is NO dilemma.
>
> There is to people who attempt to be morally consistent.

Well that wouldn't be you, because I don't see you ranting about dog-curbing
laws and other disturbing violations of "morality." I see you ranting about
money.

>
> >The two cases are utterly different IN
> >KIND not in degree, and popular opinion has NOTHING to do with it.
>
> Popular opinion has everything to do with the issue of whether popular
> opinion justifies a particular thing.

Except as I've noted, popular opinion is very seldom the key justification
of laws.

>
> >> >You're pathetic.
> >> You're greedy. Why don't you just respect your neighbors' rights
> >> to choose how they manage their finances?
> >So now I'm the US government?
>
> Do you vote? Do you defend the activities of Democrats, for example?

Yes and some, respectively. And I'm still not the government.

>
> >Have you ever considered having a very extensive psychological
examination?
> >>
> >> Why can't you just mind your own business?
> >Actually, that's exactly what I'm doing.
> >Everytime I see you attempting to
> >insert your 6th. grade notions of logic into my life,
>
> Into YOUR life? When the hell did I ever do anything to butt into your
> private life?

Your irrationality offends me. Your conflicting with my freedom to live in
a rational world.

>
> >I'm going to respond
> >by demonstrating that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
>
> You can't very well do that by starting from the delusional premise
> that I'm intruding on your life by posting a message to a public
> forum in support of the freedom of individuals to choose what to do
> with their money.

Ah but you're not doing that. You're conflating SS and Jews in Ovens and
trying to conflate money owned with money owed.

Clean up your act and you can rant all you like and you'll never hear from
me.

>
> >> >> Now, you're being a chickenshit and claiming that you didn't say
> >> >> anything about morality[restore], by pretending that you didn't
> >> >> dishonestly hack up my post to change its meaning, with no
> >> >> punctuation to indicate edits.
> >> >Cite where I mentioned morality in my original post
> >> I mentioned it. You responded to that.
> >I responded to nothing concerning morality, you idiot. You mentioned the
> >word "like" not "perceived as good or evil or right or wrong."
>
> I also used the word "right":

> It doesn't matter whether a large number of people didn't
> like it. They don't have the right to plunder the paychecks
> of others and make decisions for them.
> -- Eagle Eye 9/14/2005 http://tinyurl.com/dbq22
>
> Regardless, the word "like" indicates a VALUE JUDGEMENT.

Not in the sense of a moral value judgement. Liking chocolate ice cream is
never the same as believing that everyone should do or not do something.
Two people can hold mutually exclusive preferences without logical conflict.
They cannot hold two mutually exclusive moral judgements without logical
conflict.

You're confusing personal preference and moral judgement.

> In a
> situation where one subgroup of people impose their values on
> others, their value judgements (what they "like") are essential
> components of the moral debate.

1. Asking an individual whether they would personally Like SS isn't
necessarily a moral question, anymore than asking someone if they'd like a
retirement fund is necessarily a moral question. It's a matter of
preference, not morality.
2. ALL Societies impose some of their values on some of the people some of
the time and some of the people all of the time.
3. And when a subgroup of people like you try to impose your values on
others, it's suddenly OK?

>
> >People
> >"like" certain flavors of ice cream. That doesn't make ice cream morally
> >right or wrong.
>
> Faulty analogy. No one is forcing others to pay for ice cream
> based upon who likes what flavors.

I'm not making an analogy, moron. The two kinds of judgements are
completely different. Is there anything you DO know about logic?

>
> >> >> >> Again, you completely failed to understand the analogy.
> >> >> >Well one of us did, and that would be you. Trying to make an
> >> >> >analogy between a representative democracy devising a
> >> >> >particular program involving the financial state of the
> >> >> >retired, and throwing jews into ovens is not about "if a
> >> >> >majority believe [sic] in a thing that makes the thing moral."
> >> >> It most certainly is. That is THE basis for the comparison.
> >> >Then ALL majority decisions and all majority opinions are by
> >> >definition immoral.
> >> Strawman. [*BR*] I'm denying ANY type of universal correlation between
> >> popularity and morality. That means that if a proposition is
> >> popular, it's popularity does not make it moral and it does not
> >> make it immoral.
> >>
> >> >And they are not.
> >> I never argued otherwise. [*ER*]
> >I noticed that you tend to use that word
>
> ... whenever you attribute an argument to me which I did not make.
>
> I'm consistent that way. Keep making up positions for me and I'll
> keep calling them strawmen.

Your consistent in the sense that you continue to cough up logical fallacies
that you don't know the meaning of...I'll give you that.

>
> [snip]
> >You
> >start out by implying that the fact that people "like" something
necessarily
> >implies moral value.
>
> No, I didn't. I argued the opposite. Read the cites.
>
> >You jump from there to the false analogy between SS and Jews in Ovens.
>
> Only in your imagination.
>
> The comparison was between the methods of justification, not between
> the items themselves.

A difference without a distinction AND a faulty argument thrown in for free.
Popularity is NOT the sole or even the key element of most laws.

>
> >Now you've been caught in your usual utter lack of
> >logical coherence,
>
> No. Now YOU have been caught assigning opinions to me which are
> of your own making.

Third grade response noted.

>
> >so...Strawman is your predictable defense.
>
> I call it as I see it.

You just need to read up on additional logical fallacies, since you don't
obviously understand "straw man."

>
> >Get a new act.
>
> Unlike you, I don't have an "act". I state what I believe to be so.

Oh you've got an act. It's the usual libertarian nonsense festival.

>
> >> >Otherwise, you're going to have to prove why SS taxes are in and
> >> >of themselves immoral due to the specific involvement of a
> >> >majority decision that led to them.
> >> Nope. I'm arguing that the popularity of Social Security or the
> >> relevant election results do not make it moral or immoral.
> >>
> >> What makes Social Security immoral is the fact that it violates
> >> freedom. That is true whether 99% approve or 99% disapprove.
> [*BR*]
> >> Popularity is IRRELEVANT.
> [*ER*]
> >So do many laws.
>
> Correct. Many laws are similarly immoral.
>
> >The only case you could make is that ALL law is immoral or
> >that nearly every law is fundamentally immoral.
>
> Laws which prohibit people from exercising their rights are immoral.

What rights? Who says they're rights? On what authority are they rights?
And where's your proof of such an authority?

> Laws which empower a subset of people to violate the rights of others
> are immoral.

What rights? What subset of people? And where's your proof? What
constitutes a right? What constitutes a violation of that right? Who or
what says that one right is better than another? Where's your authority?

>
> >And you haven't done that.
>
> The burden of proof is squarely upon the sholders of those who would
> seek to impose a given law on others.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the law you choose
to disobey is immoral. When someone walks up and says that an entire body
of laws is immoral, it's up to them to provide the proof that this is so and
to provide an alternative. It is also the case in civil law that it is up
to the plaintiff to demonstrate to the "trier of fact" that he/she is
deserving of "relief." in the case of ANY law.

Here's your problem in a nutshell.

You have hundreds of years of law that you state is immoral. You can cherry
pick as much as you like to come up with legal/ethical problems, but....

1. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the system is immoral.
2. The fact that you can find errors doesn't prove that you have an
alternative that is any better or that would not in fact be worse.

> If you support a law, then you
> need to demonstrate that it is moral. Otherwise, no one is under
> any obligation to obey your law.

Sorry, but dead wrong. Not just wrong logically, but wrong in civil law as
well.

>
> >You either choose to abide by the laws of a republic that will in MANY
> >instances limit your own freedom or you do not. Frankly, I don't give a
> >shit whether you do or you don't.
>
> So if tens of millions of people stopped paying income taxes, stopped
> obeying zoning ordinances, stopped obeying gun-control laws, etc. and
> the welfare state started falling apart around your ears, you wouldn't
> care about that?

Argumentum ad numerum.

1. It's not going to happen
2. It wouldn't do anything for your argument one way or the other because
it's rank relativism.
3. Your "welfare state" whine is specious since most of what you mentioned
above doesn't have a thing to do with the welfare state.

Finally, if all you mention happened, it might lead to civil war and changes
in the society we live in. By all means, give it a shot. I still don't
give a leaping damn what YOU do.

>
> >But I do note that you're a flaming
> >hypocrite for cherry picking what you're going to enumerate as freedom
> >violating.
>
> Except I don't. If you had read my posts for the past several years,
> you'd know this.

Again, I really don't give a damn about your past inconsistencies in logic.

>
> >I haven't yet seen an article from you on the immorality of
> >dog-curbing laws, or signs that say "keep off the grass" or crosswalk
> >ordinances...
>
> Have you looked? You can't even be bothered to read what is right in
> front of you today and keep things straight.

Non answer noted. If you've got some published rants on dog-curbing laws,
cough them up.

>
> >oh dear there's thousands of violations of the kind of morality
> >you're preaching.
>
> No, that's another blunder you've made. There is nothing immoral
> about the owner of a given piece of property making rules for how
> others may use it, where they may walk, what they may allow their
> pets to do there, etc.. Those particular laws, as applied to
> "public property" are of little consequence compared to the
> underlying matter of what "public property" entails.

Sorry, but No.

1. Who says who OWNS property?
2. Who says what's public and what's private?
3. Who enforces the difference assuming there to be one?

Additionally, you're argument bodes badly for you. Since you're the one who
showed up in this country just recently, you're NOT the owner. Generations
before you allowed the government to make up rules and laws governing the
behavior of citizens. You're just recent small change living on property
that you weren't born owning. There goes your consensual contract
baloney....whoosh.

>
> That only illustrates just how ignorant you are of "the kind of
> morality" I'm discussing.

You're not discussing any kind of morality because you've yet to define what
morality is.

>
> >But I note that the ones that a greedhead like you
>
> Once again, you are the one who is greedily insisting on the power
> to control (by proxy) what belongs to others.

Who says it belongs to you? Where's the authority?

>
> I don't want what belongs to anyone else.

Who says it belongs to them? Where's the authority?


>
> >goes
> >for are---amazingly enough---anything that requires you to pony up some
> >money.
>
> Note that "requires you to pony up some money" is a euphemism
> for people forcibly taking money from you.

Who's forcibly taking money from you? Whose money are they "taking"?

> Of course I object to
> one group of people forcibly taking money from another. Those people
> doing that are GREEDY. They should allow the others to keep what
> belongs to them.

What belongs to you and who says so?

>
> >> >> In both cases, you have government doing things to people which
> >> >> violate their rights.
> >> >Even were this the case, with SS, which it is NOT
> >> Sure it is. The people who earn money from an employer have the
> >> exclusive moral authority over their salaries. Self-employed
> >> people have the exclusive moral authority over their profits. Only
> >> they can, through a mutual, consensual exchange, transfer such
> >> authority for a given monetary amount or other item of property.
> >That's a universal moral claim. Prove it.
>
> Have you asked anyone supporting Social Security to
> prove their claim over 15% of each working American's salary?
> Or, do you take that as a given?

Non-answer noted. So at this point we know that you cannot prove your claim
that human beings have exclusive moral authority over their profits.

We also know that your word cloud of "mutual consensual exchange" is pure
bunk.

Thanks.

>
> >> Social Security was passed by legislators. Not all legislators
> >> voted for it. Not all voters voted for the politicians in office.
> >> Not all residents of the US participated in the elections. People
> >> born after it was passed weren't even given a chance to give any
> >> input into the decision.
> >Disinformational. The same could be said for 100% of the laws in this
> >country.
>
> True. Those are facts and not "disinformation".

You fail to get the point. You're attacking a system of laws and you
haven't as yet proved why there's something morally wrong with them or what
you've got that's any better.

>
> >Unless you're arguing for total anarchy in all areas
>
> How dense are you?

Not as dense as you, apparently.

>
> Just how far up your ass have you rammed your head?
>
> >you'll have to do better than you're doing so far.
>
> I'll have to do better FOR WHAT?

For the sake of any argument you think you've got.

>
> >> Thus, there are people who do not consent to participating in the
> >> system.
> >See the above.
>
> I know what I wrote. There are people who do not consent to
> participating in Social Security. There are people who do not
> consent to income taxes, drug prohibition, etc..
>
> You've already conceded that popularity cannot be a moral justification
> for any act. Without consent, you're running out of ways to defend
> the government you defend.

So far you haven't given me any reason to believe that the laws need
defending.

>
> >> They never granted their moral authority to anyone for
> >> that big chunk of their earnings designated for payroll taxes.
> >What moral authority?
>
> The authority of ownership.

Prove that there's any such thing. What is ownership and what is it you
think you own? Who said that ownership equals authority? Who or what gave
them the power to say that?

>
> >You haven't proved that such a moral authority even exists yet.
>
> It's a fundamental component of ownership, by definition.

A component you don't seem able to define, apparently. At this point you
mention moral authority, which you apparently can't define and ownership,
which you haven't defined.

So you should be able to own slaves, for example, over which you would have
moral authority? You should be able to own a nuclear reactor even though
it's poisoning everything that lives for hundreds of miles, so your
ownership would give you moral authority over the life and death of perhaps
thousands of human beings for generations to come? You should be able to
own a river which you bought for a dollar from some American Indian even
though hundreds of people downstream depend on it for their lives...so you
have moral authority over that too?

>
> Otherwise, ownership is meaningless.

You haven't given ownership any meaning whatsoever so far.

>
> >When are you going to start?
> >
> >> No
> >> election changes that because no voter has the moral authority to
> >> dispense with the dissenters' money, and thus cannot transfer such
> >> authority to a proxy. Thus, the so-called representatives cannot
> >> obtain such authority from a vote. That moral authority, for the
> >> dissenters' earnings, remains exclusively with the dissenters.
> >What moral authority?
>
> The authority of ownership.

What authority, what ownership?

>
> >> Thus, forcing a dissenter to cough up 15.3% of her earnings
> >> violates her rights. Q.E.D.
> >Your Q.E.D. is void. You haven't done anything but assert a moral
authority
> >you haven't proved exists.
>
> If the owner has no moral authority, what makes him an owner?

An owner of what? According to who? What moral authority are you talking
about? Who said you had it? Where's the authority that gives you
authority? Are you born with it? Who says so? Why are they right?

>
> >> >> If you agree that it is wrong to stuff Jews into ovens, even if
> >> >> 99.999% of the population endorses it, then you cannot claim
> >> >> that forcing employers and employees to pay payroll taxes can be
> >> >> justified on the basis of popularity. You don't get to have it
> >> >> both ways.
> >> >I don't need to have it either way. The fact that a majority of
> >> >the population is for or against any act doesn't define its
> >> >morality one way or the other...ever...period.
> >> OK. So you agree that democracy does not establish consent?
> >Since when did consent equal morality?
>
> "equal"? That's your word.
>
> Do you agree that democracy does not establish consent? Yes or no?

Consent to what?

>
> >Again you fail to engage with your own issue.
>
> Could you answer the question?

Could you be specific?

>
> >> You
> >> agree that, without consent, governments will aggressively coerce
> >> citizens, thus violating their rights?
> >Where did I say that?
>
> I'm ASKING you if you agree to that. Do you? If no, how do you
> reason that a government can morally take from people who did not
> consent, under threat of force?

I do not agree with the premise of your question. Government does not take
from people who did not consent. Government takes what's owed under
whatever law establishes the debt subject to the constraint of an original
constitution if one exists. Laws may be created in governments that deal in
democratic rule or republican rule, but the Laws themselves are not about
"consent." The government can't take what is already owed to it by law in
the sense of "stealing." The concept of consent isn't a part of the
equation one way or the other. As to the "threat of force," there is always
a threat of force behind any law.

This will all be true regardless of what country or society you choose to
live in. If there is no law, anarchy will reign. If there is law, there
will always be the threat of force for those who choose to disobey the law.
Hell, there's a threat of force behind simple rules. Try going to a poker
game, losing a bundle in chips and then refuse to pay up sometime. In the
nicer side of town, you'll be branded a cheater. In the unfortunate part of
town, you might get something broken.


>
> >> >But representatives are elected by a plurality or a majority in a
> >> >representative democracy and if the majority disagrees with a
> >> >particular financial policy, they have the right to vote out those
> >> >behind legislation and/or put public pressure on those in office.
> >> Wait, now you're backtracking. You're back to discussing the
> >> "majority" as having the "right" to make decisions, via elections.
> >> When you use the word "right", you are making a statement of moral
> >> judgement.
> >No.
>
> Yes. Your statement was undeniably one of moral judgement, by
> definition.

by whose definition? I'm really not interested in your definition so long
as you're not willing to offer proof. So the answer is still No. You
attempt to draw a line of difference between the notion that a majority can
create right and wrong and a single human being deciding what's right and
wrong. That's nothing but relativism in disguise. If large numbers don't
create right and wrong, small numbers don't either. The guy who decides
that it's "wrong" for the government to collect its taxes is no more morally
correct than the majority who decide that it's "right." Individual
travesties of justice to one side, it's the notion of laws PERIOD that is
about right and wrong, not THIS law or THAT law.

>
> >Just a procedural card to play.
>
> You weren't simply describing the process. You used the phrase, "they
> have the right," which is a moral assertion.

No more than the guy on my right has the 'right' to play the next card in a
game of chance. It's nothing more than a procedural rule. If the rule was
slightly different, it would be the guy on my left who has the 'right' to
play next. Morality would have nothing to do with it.

>
> Would you like to retract what you wrote above

No.

>
> >God didn't invent elections. The
> >universe [if you prefer] didn't design democracies.
>
> OK. So are you conceding that a vote has no moral authority over
> those who do not consent?

No. Consent doesn't have anything to do with a vote. There will be those
who vote yes, those who vote no, and those who don't vote. Laws will
ultimately follow. That's the machinery of the society.

Those who don't "consent" to the government might be free to leave depending
on the country. You're lucky. You can leave here if you don't like it, or
you can try to change the law, or you can try to change the form of
government through the laws, or you can stage insurrections. All sorts of
things for you to do. But sitting around trying to make the case that each
vote and law is all about "consent" and "morality" and "imposing" is just so
much bitching and utopian nonsense.

>
> >A vote is a vote, a
> >procedural say in a government representing one opinion among many.
>
> Does the outcome of an election establish any moral authority?

What do you mean by moral authority? Sooner or later you have to deal with
it.

>
> Remember, you already conceded that popularity does not establish
> morality, one way or another.

My memory's fine.

>
> [snip]
> >> >If a government action is judged "immoral" by a number of
> >> >individuals or even one individual, our constitution makes
> >> >provisions for that as well.
> >> False premise. The US Constitution is not "our constitution" until
> >> we all explicitly consent to it.
> [snip]
> >If you don't see it as your constitution, that's
> >really your problem, not mine or indeed anyone else's problem.
>
> You are the one asserting that the Constitution has some special
> authority over us. Based upon this appeal to authority, you're
> attempting to justify Social Security and all manner of government
> activities. Those activities affect just about every single person
> living in the United States, which makes the matter of the validity
> of the Constiution far more than my personal problem.

Actually, in terms of what's been discussed here, it does seem to be YOUR
personal problem. This government has human beings born into it every day.
They grow up surrounded by its infrastructure, educated, and assisted in
their lives by its laws which are based on its constitution. If YOU want to
say that you owe that government nothing or that you're more violated than
supported, that's YOUR problem and YOUR decision, but the laws state that
you not only have the rights of a US Citizen, you also have the duties of a
US Citizen...the primary duty of which is to obey the laws. If you don't
want to do that, we've already discussed your options. But you seem content
to bitch.

But that is a relativistic problem as well. Morality doesn't count on
numbers...either large numbers or small numbers. The fact that YOU believe
you have no moral obligation to obey the laws of this country doesn't mean
that you don't have one. Knowledge is about more than belief. In order to
know something, you have to believe it is true, you have to have good reason
to believe that it's true, and it has to actually be true. You don't have
knowledge here, because you've offered no proof. What it comes down to is
that you're arguing for your individual right to do wrong and pretending
that "consent" has something to do with it.

When it comes right down to it, human beings have a moral duty to defend the
right and oppose the wrong as they are given the wisdom to see the
difference. If you honestly believe that SS is wrong, you have a moral duty
to fight it to your last breath. I don't see you doing that. I see you
bitching about "consent" and making unprovable claims about "moral
authority" that you're not willing to back up with either logic or action.

>
> >> The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation.
> >Actually it does. It has the authority of the "law of the land."
>
> How is it more authoritative than something the local Girl Scout
> troop drew up?

Last time I looked, the Girl Scouts don't make laws.

>
> >It was duly ratified
>
> In other words, a few people who are long, long dead voted for it.
> At the time, plenty of people either voted against it, were barred
> from voting, or didn't even know about it. No on alive was given
> the choice on whether to ratify it.

You're free to leave any time. You should be grateful. Not all countries
give their malcontents that choice.

>
> >and those born in or naturalized into the United States are
> >born with all the rights privileges and duties of United States Citizens.
>
> Why? How can a contract that other people wrote impose a duty upon
> you, when you were never given a choice?

What does a contract have to do with it? What's so special about a contract
you were given a choice on? Who's going to enforce your obligation? Who
authorized the contract? What gave them the authority to authorize it?

>
> >If you choose to live outside that law, that's your problem.
>
> Keep reading Spooner and explain how anyone alive today, who was
> never given the choice to adopt the Constitution, has any obligation
> to it:

Lots of contracts are implicit. Many that are in force today in the
business community occurred long before the current day and so no one
continues to be alive who once signed away their "consent" to them.

Your argument simply goes nowhere. You have nothing to offer in place of
what you condemn. You insist that the constitution has been imposed on
Americans, yet any change you would make would be a similar imposition. As
long as at least one American fails to consent with any change you suggest
in government, that change will take place without full consent, and
therefore violate the very rule that you pretend to honor.

All of this goes back to your original mistake. You've made a universal
moral claim that you cannot prove AND universal consent is not possible,
continued universal content is even more impossible.

>
> >As long as the citizens of the United States are
> >free to leave this country, the Constitution can continue to be the
> >inherited law of the land.
>
> You're free to leave Girltopia, the country declared the sovereign
> province of troop 182. The fact that you choose to remain living here
> means, according to their consitution, that you agree to it. Get ready
> to pay Barbie taxes.

That's right. You're learning. Leave the troop, change the rules,
overthrow the girlscouts. All those are possible.

Whatever is left is nothing more than MERE ANARCHY.

And that's all you're offering, kiddo.

>
> >You're beginning to bore me. Your last argument is way too juvenile.
>
> It was a cite of Lysander Spooner. Judging from your response, it
> would appear you're too stupid to figure even that much out, so
> eager were you to slash and burn that which you couldn't handle.

Spooner, like most libertarians, was a utopian idiot.

>
> >You
> >pretend that the constitution has no moral authority
>
> No. There is no pretense at all. It has no moral authority. I
> believe that to be so, based upon solid reasons.

You haven't given one yet. But I presume that your contract fixation will
fill in the blanks nicely.

>
> >and yet you presume that a mutually agreed to contract does.
> >You haven't proved either
> >assertion.
>
> Are you arguing that a mutual, consensual contract does not, in
> general, have moral authority?

Yep. Who says it has moral authority? Give me the proof. Show me how a
contract creates moral authority.

> When you purchase a car, and sign a
> contract agreeing to pay for it, do you not think that you and the
> lender are obligated to abide by the contract, assuming that it was
> created in good faith?

What is good faith? You haven't defined that yet. What is there in any
contract that ensures the good faith of the participants? And what is there
in the world that guarantees that a contract can be trusted? What happens
to people who break contracts? What's to stop them in your utopian world?

The good faith that has both parties honoring a contract is no different
than the good faith that operates in citizens who obey the laws of a
country. BELIEF is what's behind good faith. We honor contracts because we
believe it's morally right to honor a contract. We honor the laws of a
democratic republic because we BELIEVE in the moral legitimacy of such a
form of government REGARDLESS of whether we were there to sign the
constitution. If you don't have that belief, you need to do what you can to
change the law or overthrow the country or leave.

The American people legitimize the American government by their belief in
that government. Jefferson wasn't by necessity talking about the ORIGINAL
consent of the governed, he was talking about the continuous consent of the
governed and he was smart enough to know that such a consent is implied.

That's what's truly sad about you libertarians. You really don't get it.
The reason this government is "imposed" on you is because ANY government
would be imposed on you. At heart, you want what does not and cannot, even
in principle, exist.


> >You have the right to petition the government for a redress of
grievances,
> >you have the right to protest, you have the right not to pay your taxes
and
> >accept the consequences, you have the right to leave.
>
> But what about those who are violating the rights of dissenters? Do you
> argue that they have the right to continue doing so, as long as the
> dissenters lack the power to stop them?

Who are YOU responsible for? Are you going to punish those who are
"violating the rights of dissenters?" You keep on wanting to appear to be
the honorable one here. But no matter what arises, the only thing you can
come up with is "what about THOSE guys." WHAT ABOUT YOU???? Are you going
to withold every thing you personally can do to change the country until
that day comes when no one anywhere is in a position to do anything about
your actions? And when will that day come? When everyone else in the
country is in jail, because they MIGHT interfere with your protests? I'm
beginning to see the prophylactic nature of your philosophy: The world must
be made stainless and safe for armchair utopians....no extent to which you
will not go to remove the freedom of others to interfere with your freedom
to do what?????

>
> >Let's get something straight here. YOU didn't establish this country.
You
> >were at best born into it. Your sophomoric argument is that YOU should
have
> >the right to decide which laws of a government you'll obey even though
you
> >had NOTHING to do with the establishment of the country you were born
into.
>
> My argument is that no one is under any obligation to obey immoral laws,
> no matter who established those laws or the framework under which those
> laws are made.

Than get out there on the streets and start disobeying those immoral laws,
man! According to your philosophy, there's a raft of 'em. There's no time
to waste. And remember, the bigger the stink you make, the more people who
will be attracted to the sheer beauty of your cause. There are literally
millions of people out there who are going to see...in a blinding flash of
self-evident logic...that just as soon as you get rid of all of those
immoral laws, you'll have made the world safe for.....

Oh that's right...you really don't have an alternative to this society.


>
> >If you were a rational human being, it might be possible for you to see
how
> >fundamentally flawed your outlook is.
>
> How is it flawed to recognize that popularity doesn't establish
> morality?

Oh please!!! We've gone a ways down the road from there, haven't we?
You've got nothing better in your tackle box?

>
> >You're the kind of guy who wants in on
> >the poker game except you believe that you're the only one who shouldn't
> >ante up.
>
> So you think that just living is akin to being in a poker game that other
> people started? Do people often show up at your house and set up a
> game, insisting that you play or get out of your own home?

False analogy. I don't have a country. I've got a house. But even in a
house that has long stood under the sway of a single family, there will be
those born into it who will be expected to conform to its familial mores.
No contract. No mutual agreement. Your contract society doesn't really
exist, you know. Never did. People generally do just pop out of the womb
and into the society they find themselves in. And they're expected to abide
by its rules...no contracts...no mutual consent. Just the expectation
backed up by the pressure of the group's beliefs or worse. And many find
that chaffing and become great movers and shakers, or expatriate themselves
from family or clan or tribe or country.

>
> >> >If that doesn't work, you have the right to expatriate yourself,
> >> For that matter, people living in Mexico have the right to move
> >> here and live their lives on their own terms, without being
> >> obligated to pay taxes or follow other immoral laws. If they
> >> respect the rights of others, they need do nothing else.
> >I see you ignore the invitation to expatriate yourself. Like most
> >psychological criminals, you're only capable of seeing your own
opportunity,
> >not anything that would involve duty or honor.
>
> The pathological criminal would be the person who forcibly entered
> another's house and insisted that the resident follow your rules or
> vacate his own home.

But then this country didn't originally belong to you, now did it? So
you're really NOT the kindly old owner of the homestead invaded by the
maurading gummint. You either immigrated here or you were born here or you
were born overseas to a citizen of the US. It was all here before you
showed up. YOU are the one who entered. You are NOT the owner.

>
> >> The fact that I don't choose to leave my home in now way
> >> establishes consent. I am not the one hurting others [*BR*] so I am
not
> >> the one who should change his actions to remedy the situation.
> >> Those who are behaving immorally should stop without requiring me
> >> to jump through pointless hoops, like organizing votes or leaving
> >> my home. [*ER*]
> >Actually you are.
>
> No. I am not.
>
> >If any law is just and any human being can decide that it
> >is unjust and refuse to honor it, it undermines the validity of the law
as
> >an objective force in the governance of a nation.
>
> The law is not an "objective force" and never has been. Laws are
> written by people, who have subjective interests. What you're
> really worried is that the ILLUSION of validity will be challenged.
> You're asserting that my challenge to this ILLUSION is harmful.

Actually, it's your challenge that's the illusion because you have
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to offer as an alternative to the society you despise.

>
> >Since it is at least
> >possible that some laws are in fact just, and since it is at least
possible
> >that some human beings are incorrect in declaring such laws to be unjust,
> >you, sir are NOT in a position to make the call on any law.
>
> By the same token, no member of Congress is in a position to make
> the call on any law.

That's true. It takes an act of Congress and it needs to pass the Senate
and it needs to be signed by the President. Good catch.

>
> Thank you for making my case.

What exactly is your case?

>
> >Much like relativism, your premise is self-refuting.
>
> Not to the rational.

Of course it is. You've argued that morality isn't about numbers. And I
agree. It's not about large numbers and it's not about small numbers. The
fact that you disagree with a law, doesn't make the law wrong. The fact
that you see it as an imposition on you doesn't change the fact that the
wholesale repudiation of that law would be an imposition on others. So the
only stand you've taken is self-refuting.

>
> >> >and you can also choose not to comply,
> >> I have every right to make that choice. The problem is that the
> >> thugs will harm me and make that choice too costly for me to bear.
> >> And, you will cheerlead for them, sneering that I deserved to have
> >> my rights violated for daring to object to what the majority
> >> decided.
> >Not at all. I might, for once, actually have some respect for you.
>
> What in the world ever gave you the idea that YOUR respect is anything
> I would want?

What in the world ever gave you the idea that I care about what you want?

> I haven't forgotten the despicable way in which you
> behaved a few years back, far worse than anything I've seen from anyone
> else on the newsgroups. You're a scumbag of the lowest order.

Ad hom in the place of an argument noted.

>
> >> >or you can also choose outright insurrection.
> >> That's suicide. [*BR*] The thugs are ruthless enough to murder those
who
> >> dare to exercise their right to take up arms in self-defense
> >> against anyone in uniform who is attempting to hurt them. [*ER*]
> >So I guess you only have the courage to whine, not the courage to act.
>
> I have the rationality to be able to dismiss futile, suicidal gestures
> as unworthy of my courage.

I've noticed a lot of cowards use that justification. Thanks for being so
predictable.

>
> >> Note that you have only suggested ways in which people who are
> >> behaving morally can act differently. You have not, at all,
> >> suggested how those who are behaving immorally ought to act
> >> differently.

> >You haven't demonstrated that SS is immoral.
>
> You're shifting the burden of proof, once again.

No. It's still on you. The burden of proof in civil law is always on the
part of the plaintiff. In any case in which relief is sought, the burden in
on the plaintiff to prove the validity of their claim.


> [snip]
> >> Giving in to
> >> thugs who are far more powerful in no way establishes consent. [*BR*]
If
> >> a street hoodlum points a gun at your face and demands that you
> >> give him your wallet, giving it to him to save your life does not
> >> change the fact that he stole from you. [*ER*]
> >Doing nothing but blowing hot air establishes consent.
>
> No. Again, if a thug points a gun at your face and you do nothing
> to stop him from taking your wallet, except verbally complain, you
> have NOT given consent.

That's surely true. But you haven't demonstrated that obeying the law is
analogous to a mugging. Until then, you're bitching and not doing and that
implies consent.

>
> >If you don't like it
> >and you're not doing anything about you, you forfeit your bragging
rights.
>
> Ah, perhaps this illustrates part of the problem. Do you place great
> value in bragging? Over and above, say, rational considerations of
> morality?

It's a figure of speech. You've done nothing but kvetch about SS and the
government in general. You offer absolutely no viable alternative, and
you've made it plain that your reserving your lionlike courage for those
conditions in which everyone who takes issue with you is in jail. So
essentially, you're just bitching and anyone can bitch. Rational people can
present alternatives or embrace the fact that not ever problem in life is
solvable.

>
> That would explain a great many things.

But not to the point where you would understand them.

>
> [snip]
> >> >and bringing up Jews in Ovens just proves that all you're really
> >> >capable of is argumentum ad Hitlerum
> >> False. In order to make a case for Godwin's Law, you have to show
> >> that the mention of Nazis was impertinent and that no other
> >> argument, independent of such references, was offered. You've
> >> failed on both points.
> >1. You've not offered any other proof whatsoever.
>
> But you have already conceded that morality is not determined by
> popularity, one way or the other. What do I need to prove?

You've made an absolute moral claim. You haven't offered proof for it.

>
> >2. Your mention of Jews in ovens doesn't advance a case you haven't made.
> >It is therefore by definition "impertinent."
>
> What do you care?

I believe in logic. I believe that when someone makes an absolute universal
moral claim they need to prove it. I know that when someone makes such a
claim and the only other comment they seem to make is about Jews in Ovens,
they've got nothing going for them but argumentum ad Hitlerum.

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 8:00:42 PM12/4/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005120421191...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <43928106$0$28493$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >Utopians are not much different from the average Dungeons and
> >Dragons player whose brain has been turned into mush. It
> >certainly explains libertarians like Eagle Eye
>
> I'm not a utopian.

You're basically just a coward and a liar who snips what he can't respond to
and runs away from what he can't snip.


"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

news:2005112112040...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <437a878a$0$28501$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>


> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

> >news:2005111522472...@nym.alias.net...
> >> In article <437a3af9$0$28472$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>


> >> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

> >> >news:200511150900...@nym.alias.net...
> [...]
> >> >> The "American people" are not a singular entity. There are
> >> >> 300,000,000 people, most of whom did not even vote. No
> >> >> person alive today signed the Constitution, voted to ratify
> >> >> it, or had any choice in any part of it, save the most recent
> >> >> Amendments.
> >> >1. So what?
> >> You can't transfer to government an authority you never had.
> >Who says the original ratifiers didn't have the authority?
>
> No one has the authority to commit people not yet born to a
> contract.

Who said the Constitution is a contract?

> >Who says that the continuous election of politicians who make laws
> >is not a ratification?
>
> A ratification of something which was never morally binding is
> moot.

Who says that the Constitution wasn't binding? Prove that it wasn't.

> [...]
> >> >Wills work the same way.
> >> No one is obligated to accept the inheritance of an estate.
> >That does not cancel out the legitimacy of the will.
>
> It does, however, mean that the will creates no obligation to
> anyone who chooses not to accept an inheritance.

So what?

>
> >And trademark contracts are binding.
>
> Appeal to tradition.

You have no understanding of that concept.

>
> [...]
> >> >The United States operated under a confederacy once with loads
> >> >of volunteerism and it DIDN'T WORK.
> >> It didn't work FOR WHOM?
> >For a plurality of the public,
>
> So?

So they changed it.

> >and they therefore changed it.
>
> "They" being a subset

"You" being a subset

So?

> >And those who objected were perfectly capable of raising their
> >voices.
>
> Including the slaves? women? Including poor people who didn't
> own property?

So what? And if the slaves, the women and the poor had similarly had a
voice, you'd have used your True Scotsman Fallacy to complain that it still
wasn't "universal consent" which can't exist anyway.

You're still sniping from the tall grass, and you still have no argument.

>You're either massively stupid or a pathetic liar.

Ad hom in place of a rebuttal noted.

>
> [...]
> >> >it didn't work for individuals who quickly realized that
> >> >individual states had no constraint to recognize a single law,
> >> WHICH individuals? All of them? Or only a subset?
> >Irrelevancy noted.
>
> I doubt the black slaves would consider it an irrelevancy.

Since your argument falls ultimately on the impossibility of "universal
consent," the "black slaves" mean nothing to you. So, again, your
irrelevant comment is noted.

>
> >Since universal agreement is a libertarian fantasy
>
> You clearly have not grasped the concepts surrounding universal
> consent to discuss the matter competently.

TRANSLATION: You can't defend the concept.

>
> >it really makes no difference at all.
>
> It does to the people who don't consent, like slaves.

1. Since universal consent is impossible, it's an irrelevant objection.
2. Since you fall back on universal consent, your use of slaves is
blasphemous. You care as little about the notion of slavery as you do about
everything else. You're nothing but a parasite who's latched onto what he
believes is a loophole in rational thought that let's him out of being
responsible for his actions.

>
> >> >making it quite possible for you to be innocent in one state
> >> >and condemned the moment you crossed a state line.
> >> The same is true if you cross the border between the U.S. and
> >> Mexico, or U.S. and Canada. Try bringing some marijuana from
> >> Amsterdam. What does that prove?
> >That countries differ, and as such DO act as entities.
>
> Not countries, but GOVERNMENTS.

And rotarian clubs and masonic lodges and boyscout troops and tribal clans.

Get back to us when you have a point.

>
> >> >As usual, your volunteerism solution isn't a solution.
> >> FOR WHOM?
> >For anyone really.
>
> Liar. There are plenty of hard-working, honest people who are
> quite capable of handling their own lives without some assholes in
> another city making decisions in their names.

Local blips on the radar don't go any distance toward proving something for
you about mankind at large. Since "plenty" doesn't equal 100%, it fails by
your own definitions to achieve "moral probity."

> [...]
> >> >Even contracts are unworkable in an anarchy because there is no
> >> >law that enforces the terms of contracts.
> >> Except the two sides can agree to mediation. And, if one party
> >> renegs on the agreement, its reputation is harmed.
> >Who cares.
>
> Those who need a good reputation to profit.

So what? Since you can't guarantee that this "Those" represent 100%, you've
got nothing. You also can't guarantee that "Those" actually will "need a
good reputation to profit."

>
> >Human beings are notorious for choosing short term over long term
> >advantage.
>
> So they pay the price in the long term.

Prove it. You can't even do that. You can't even prove that a "cheater"
won't profit in the long term by selectively cheating over a long period of
time.

>
> >Where's your proof that reputation is going to be the panacea you
> >wish it was?
>
> Strawman.

That's your problem. If you want to choose weak qualities like reputation
on which to rest your vision of the future, don't be surprised when they
collapse.


> >All you're proposing is social Darwinism.
>
> Liar. People who care about the unfortunate are free to assist
> them, with their own time and money.

Appeal to tradition. Your social Darwinism is still obvious.

>
> [...]
> >> Congress and the President are the most powerful criminal
> >> subset.
> >Hardly.
>
> They have nuclear arsenals, the U.S. Armed Forces, the F.B.I., the
> C.I.A., etc..

And so would the businesses that take over from the abolition of government.

>
> >The man who can take your life in the blink of an eye in the
> >absence of any law is the most powerful criminal subset.
>
> Not if I have a bigger gun or if I hire others to protect me from
> him.

I'll pass on your suggestions to all those people who don't have enough
money to buy themselves dinner let alone a personal security force.

You're ludicrous.


Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 8:01:31 PM12/4/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005120421191...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <43928106$0$28493$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >Utopians are not much different from the average Dungeons and
> >Dragons player whose brain has been turned into mush. It
> >certainly explains libertarians like Eagle Eye
>
> I'm not a utopian.

But you are a snipper and quote-editor.


"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

news:2005112112035...@nym.alias.net...


> In article <437a878a$0$28501$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> >news:2005111522472...@nym.alias.net...
> >> In article <437a3af9$0$28472$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> >> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> >> >news:200511150900...@nym.alias.net...
> >> [...]

> >> >> Why aren't you asking the U.S. government to prove that it has a
> >> >> right to take the money that people earn, by force, even though
> >> >> the politicans and bureaucrats who do so had nothing to do with
> >> >> many of these people or the work they do?
> >> >Why aren't you aware that the public continues to vote the
> >> >government the right to do so?
> >> 1. "The public" is not a singular entity, capable of engaging in
> >> definite actions.
> >Neither is the government a single entity.
>
> It is, however, a hierarchical organization.

So is the local Elk's Club.

> That isn't true of the general population, and all your claims
> to the contrary are fallacious, as I have demonstrated.

Human beings form heirarchical organizations. That's a simple fact and all
your claims to the contraray are delusional.

>
> >> 2. The majority of people in this country don't vote.
> >So?
>
> So if most people don't vote, you're a liar to claim they they
> "continue...to vote...."

Elections are decided by those who vote. As long as that's the case,
elections end up being determined by those who continue to vote.

>
> >> 3. A right cannot be created or abolished by any vote.
> >Prove it.
>
> By definition.

Wrong. You've done nothing to demonstrate why that should be the case.
Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand either ethics or
logic.

>
> >> 4. A government does not have rights.
> >Prove it.
>
> Rights are individual.

Prove it.

> They cannot logcially be owned by
> collectives.

Prove it.

>
> >> It has powers, which all boil down to the monopoly on the use
> >> of force, i.e., having more guns than anyone else.
> >Given to it by the people on a continuing basis.
>
> Liar. Only a subset vote to do so

But the majority have a right to involve themselves. Their laziness isn't
the responsibility of anyone but themselves. If they don't feel like
voting, that's their problem. Apathy isn't an argument.

>, and those people do not have
> the authority to do so on behalf of everyone else.

Prove it.

>
> Your neighbor who hates you could grant the police the authority to
> seize your bank account, but since you never gave him that
> authority, it wasn't his to grant. An election is simply that
> situation writ large.

No it's not.

>
> [...]
> >> Thus, you offer nothing but fallacies in your attempt to prove
> >> that the government has a moral claim on the money it plunders,
> >> backed by the threat of force, from the people who actually do
> >> the work.

Thus you offer nothing but fallacies and irrelevancies in your attempt to
prove that the government does not have a moral claim.

>
> Those who come to forcibly take what others have earned

False description of the situation.

> have the
> burden of proof.

Those who decide to flaunt the existing laws have the burden of proof. This
is true is any logical argument and true in law. I have no burden to
re-prove that the world is round to you.

> [...]
> >> It is, however, a hierarchical structure, which determines its
> >> decision-making process. The bureaucrats and other support
> >> personnel agree, up front, to grant their bosses authority over
> >> them.
> >>
> >> So, it is not the same as a collection of individuals, many of
> >> whom will refuse to grant others any authority over their
> >> business, regardless of popularity, tradition, or any of the
> >> other excuses you make for the use of aggressive coercion.
> >Of course it's the same.


[Editorial Snipping deleted.]

Of course it's the same. The fact that some of your individuals will refuse
doesn't change the fact that rules and laws have been established by a
plurality and that's the way the game is played. And if the individuals
don't want to play the game they can leave or live with it or attempt to
live outside the rules. White collar crime works EXACTLY the same way.


> [...]
> >> Only about their own affairs. Once they presume to make
> >> decisions for others, such as deciding that those who don't want
> >> to participate in Social Security should be forced to do so,
> >> they have violated the principle of individual choice.
> >What principle?
>
> That individuals own their lives

Prove that individuals own their lives.

>
> [...]
> >Either the 'free market' involves the freedom of individuals to
> >indulge in coercive behavior or it's not free either.
>
> So you consider hurting others an essential part of freedom?

I would never have used such a phrase..


> >If you're going to condemn government and you have no better
> >alternative, you're not doing anything but bitching.
>
> If all I'm doing is bitching, so what?

So stop pretending you've got something more than a bitch.


Jeffrey Turner

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 9:06:46 PM12/4/05
to

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads
that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and
abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent
and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share
at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2
--
All men of conscience or prudence
ply to windward, to maintain their
wars to be defensive.
-Roger Williams

Jeffrey Turner

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 9:07:13 PM12/4/05
to
DNC_TN wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:04:44 -0800, blazing laser <none> wrote:

>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:34:34 -0800, "2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter
>>resolution" <zepp2128#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh, look, it's another moron who knows nothing of political science
>>>and thinks a government run by corporations is socialist.
>>>
>>>Do you think Saddam was in the GOP because he had the Republican
>>>Guard?
>>
>>So, Saddam was socialist too! 'Socialist' means anything DNC_TN
>>doesn't like.
>
> If the current right wing gov't is like a nazi, then go ask a JEW who
> survived nazi germany if it feels the same?
>
> ahhhhh, see. gotcha!!!
>
> me 1 you zero

I know a couple Germans who lived through the war - he survived
the siege of Leningrad, she lived in Berlin - who are worried
about the prospect.

--Jeff

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 9:26:52 PM12/4/05
to
BTW, I can only respond to five groups (in my earlier news server I
could only get posts to five groups so I saw none of yours for a long
time); I hope I cut the least important ones from my response.

Gandalf Grey wrote:
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote in message

> > In a seminar earlier this year on International Relations theory, we


> > spent a lot of time discussing why ideologies that seem utopian in
> > their goals end up embracing the worst evils imaginable.
> >
> > There are a variety of reasons, of course, but one is the way people
> > think when they buy completely into an ideology. I think a lot of
> > people whose lives are driven by their ideological outlook on politics
> > tend towards a kind of extremism that allows objectification of the
> > other since by rejecting the ideology (Marxism, or Islamic extremism
> > - religions can be like this) the other has rejected (in their view)
> > the truth. They are either ignorant or dishonest, and thus unworthy.
>
> I've been thinking about this. There's an interesting idea that arises in
> all of it. The very idea of a utopia requires a mind-set that can envision
> an entirely different world. A entirely different world is, by definition,
> entirely different from this one, with all its nasty flaws and human error
> and individual foible.

I think it isn't true just about utopians (though most of these people
are utopians even if they'll deny it in the abstract), but any time
someone clings to a view of reality based on an ideological orthodoxy.
It is deep down utopian because they actually believe that the correct
answer is something they possess, and if everyone would just live by it
then, while the world may not be a "utopia" in an abstract version of
the term, it would be one they think would run its course in the best
possible way. That is utopian -- to think that there is an
ideological answer key out there that somehow gives the right away in
which social relations should develop.

If ones view is primarily view ideology and philosophy, looking for
logical coherence in a kind of intellectual framework, they are
pre-disposed to abstracting and objectifying even other humans, as they
only have a place in this ideological framework. There isn't anything
wrong with looking for logical coherence in social theory -- it is
demanded, in fact. But if you're doing social theory you recognize
there are different levels of analysis, different kinds of insights
various approaches present, and there isn't a framework to catch
everything, and there probably isn't a "one best approach" to politics.
Those who fall into the ideology-driven way of understanding reality
don't recognize that they have built themselves a prison.

> In order to buy into any utopia, you have to buy into a complete change in
> your vision of humanity that rejects the human condition as it is. From
> that, it's really not such a huge leap to beginning to see human beings as
> not much more than pawns that are either to be played on your side or to be
> gotten rid of in the course of the game. Pawns aren't human, they aren't to
> respected regardless of what "side" they're on...they're just wonderfully
> "disposable."

Yes. That is exactly the kind of thinking that drove Pol Pot, Mao
Zedong, and many others. Stalin may not have been so utopian as just
sick and power hungry -- but he had the power at his disposal because
Lenin and other utopians thought they needed to somehow change the
culture quickly and dramatically.

> So in this case the ideology just gets in the way of the ability to see
> human beings for what they are: fragile, fallible, frustrating and
> irreplaceable. It's easy to "hate" when you've allowed your mind to poach
> in a game that's more important than the pieces.

Yes -- moreover, those that agree with their ideology are given a pass
on numerous things, as they are seen as being at base good (i.e.,
ideologically correct.) Those who do not share or worse, actively
oppose their ideology, are defined automatically as evil, dishonest,
disingenuous, and unworthy, and all acts of those folk are interpreted
through that lens. I think they fool themselves into actually
believing it (and don't realize how silly their rants sound).

> And, after all, what game is less important than its pieces? When it comes
> right down to it, Utopians are not much different from the average Dungeons
> and Dragons player whose brain has been turned into mush. It certainly
> explains libertarians like Eagle Eye who get all misty-eyed talking about
> the individual even while they're arguing for a society that would crush
> most human beings into powder under the weight of trigger happy warlords
> disguised as "free-marketeers."

He never could explain why government power is worse than power
centered in organizations, since humans get centralized power in each
case. He just said Walmart doesn't go out and shoot people, but
Walmart and other corporations are heavily regulated, in cases where
such regulation falls apart, powerful actors like that create mafias
and other forms of exploitation and denial of freedom. Every time I'd
back him into a corner in a debate he'd drop the debate and go back to
insults or personal attacks, apparently unwilling to confront the fact
he's locked in a belief system that simply doesn't make sense. Better
to cling to the illusion, for some people, than face reality head on.

But a lot of those kinds of posters I tend to avoid even reading. I've
seen the song and dance, and in a weird way feel sorry for them. They
lack perspective, adaptability, and the ability to truly love and
connect. I doubt they have much true joy in their lives.

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 9:33:48 PM12/4/05
to
Today I read in the paper about a fire in town here in Maine which
killed a two year old boy, and put his father into critical condition.
Having a son myself, and thinking about what it would feel like, I
allowed myself to be swept up with the emotion of what that would be
like, the tragedy they must feel in their life, even thinking about how
the father must have felt as he was trying to get back to save his son,
even as he was already badly burned. I did not even try to stop myself
from delving into those emotions and thinking about the tragedy; I
always try to engage such stories fully, and not become cold to the
reality of what people experience.

It occurs to me that this is also a component of being able to live
with joy: the ability and willingness to empathize, and not think such
emotions are a sign of weakness or mental softness. Indeed, the
opposite is the case, those who mock or are afraid of such emotion are
afraid to confront who and what they really are. Moreover, if someone
doesn't confront and think about how tragedy really feels, and
understands its reality for so many people, then one is unlikely to be
able to survive a personal tragedy without sacrificing the joy of
living. Many people have a sort of faux joy, an optimistism built on
having had nothing really go wrong and not taking the world seriously.
If such an optimism gets punctured, a person is unlikely to be able to
really tolerate the pain, and more likely to become cold, cynical, and
joy-less. So, ironically perhaps, one other key to having true joy is
being able and willing to confront and empathize with an open heart the
worst tragedies that humans endure. Idealistic joy can be weak; joy
with a foundation of realism is stronger, and makes it more likely that
one will be able to weather personal tragedy.


Scott Erb wrote:
> And now for something completely different. As the holiday season
> begins, a non-political post (from:
> http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm)
>
> The importance of Joy
>

> Christmas time is one of my favorite times of the year, even though I
> am not a Christian (see the series on science and belief to get a sense
> of where I'm coming from). The emphasis people put on joy, family,
> kindness, love, and peace on earth represents the best attributes of
> humankind and human desires, and at least for a few weeks it's not
> corny or naive to talk about love, caring, and joy. So my first blog
> entry in December will be about joy.
>
> It is my firm belief that joy should be a central component of every
> person's life. Moreover, it is a component that we have far more
> control over than we realize. Many people believe joy is absent
> because they look for it from the world around them -- what their
> friends do, what their job is like, how they are treated by others,
> etc. They see an imperfect and at times cruel world, and feel that
> life is a struggle. These types complain, are jealous, bitter, and
> often fall into a world where the demands of society, their own
> unachieved goals and the inadequacies of others create a life that is
> more a burden than a joy. Especially in our world of material
> prosperity, it seems as if a lot of people are unable to find joy,
> perhaps because they look for it in material goods. Emblematic of that
> is the violence that took place Friday as holiday shoppers greeted the
> season with pushing, shoving, threats and violence. That wasn't the
> norm, but the emphasis on buying and on materialism shows a kind of
> dysfunctional culture.
>
> To have a truly joyful life one has to first recognize that not every
> minute will be pleasant -- people all face tragedies, and these can
> sometimes be severe. The example earlier this fall of Chanda Luker's
> experience as a Cambodian holocaust survivor (and her positive outlook
> on life in its aftermath) provides a stark example of what life can be
> (see blog entry for October 5). Joy is not good things happening, nor
> is it a state of constant bliss and satisfaction regardless of what is
> going on around you. No, what a joyful life requires is: a) an ability
> to adapt; b) acceptance of responsibility for your life (don't blame
> the system or others for your fate); c) perspective; and d) connections
> with others. If you have a joyful life, you'll still feel the intense
> pain when tragedy hits, but will be able to come through it more
> easily, and with fewer long term consequences. More importantly,
> you'll truly appreciate the beauty and wonder of each day and each
> experience at times when things are going well.
>
> Adaptability: Rigidity works against joy because it is essentially a
> demand that the world and other people conform to your expectations and
> desires. While that might be nice, it's not going to happen. People
> will be petty, mean and incompetent at times, and the world will in
> various ways meet out injustice. Adapt to it. That doesn't mean do
> whatever the world or others demand, but simply build your life around
> the world as it is, adapting to the imperfections and injustices in a
> way that doesn't accept them (you still try to change what you can),
> but which doesn't cause them to create anger and resentment in your
> life. Those emotions obviously defeat joy, make you less able to
> effectively counter the problems, and are pointless -- the world won't
> change just because you are angry and resentful to it.
>
> Responsibility: People who blame others for their situation are
> usually not joyful people because they live in a world where they don't
> have control of their life. But, of course, no one has complete
> control. We are born into a world with certain limitations, both
> physical and social. Some classes of people are in intense poverty,
> often due to injustice and exploitation. Work to change that, but
> recognize that we are responsible for how we act and react to
> circumstances. Even in cases where one is wrongly imprisoned, or put
> into the hospital by, say, a drunk driver, there is still that personal
> responsibility to deal with the situation as best you can, taking
> responsibility for how you deal with it. That won't cure the injustice
> or take away the pain, but it provides a basis for joy; you can't have
> joy if you aren't taking responsibility for who and what you are.
>
> Perspective: This is so important. Most people who are angry or upset
> are reacting to petty things. Whether its a policy at work, a bad
> grade, a snide remark, or something in politics, people get worked up,
> angry and emotional over things that really aren't worth it. Ask how
> important something really is to your life and position. Ask if you'll
> even remember this situation a year or two years from now. Understand
> how others might be looking at it different than you, and try to figure
> out their perspective, especially if its the actions of others causing
> the resentment. Keep in mind all the good your life contains, and
> don't let a few little problems or annoyances destroy your joy. It
> isn't worth it. People often take things -- and themselves -- far too
> seriously. Perspective is so important I'll make a whole blog entry on
> it later, a person without perspective can rarely be joyful; if you
> have perspective, many of the other things a joyful life requires fall
> into place.
>
> Connections: Humans are social creatures, and while true joy is
> personal and subjective, connections with others give life a kind of
> variety we need. We often think we need exciting new food, video
> games, movies, or distractions, but we really need other people. To
> play sports, play music, debate politics, share meals, talk about life
> and our experiences and reflections, and recognize our own humanity in
> others is essential. Another word for this is love. You cannot have
> joy without love, you cannot have love without connections to others.
> An inability to connect and share intimacy makes a joyful life
> virtually impossible to have.
>
> Joy is possible for just about everyone. One can imagine cases where
> people are imprisoned, abused and mutilated to the point that these
> ideas seem meaningless, and I'm sure that can be the case. But for
> most people the lack of joy in life is a self-inflicted wound, while
> living a joyful life is a result of how one thinks and behaves. So
> aspire to joy this holiday season!

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 11:14:55 PM12/4/05
to

"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1133749612.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Good points all. Basically, they don't have much "life" in their lives.
They've sacrificed it for the gameboard.


>


penny

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 1:41:10 AM12/5/05
to


Empathy is a manifestation of strength and resolution and necessary
for joy in this life. One must feel, accept, and help the pain and
sorrow of others as well as their joys in order to really walk on the
road of joy.

..No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a
manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes
me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know
for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee... John Donne (1573-1621)

Penny

Eagle Eye

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 6:03:49 PM12/5/05
to
In article <1133750028....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

Scott Erb <scot...@att.net> wrote:
>Today I read in the paper about a fire in town here in Maine which
>killed a two year old boy, and put his father into critical
>condition. Having a son myself, and thinking about what it would
>feel like, I allowed myself to be swept up with the emotion of
>what that would be like, the tragedy they must feel in their life,
>even thinking about how the father must have felt as he was trying
>to get back to save his son, even as he was already badly burned.
>I did not even try to stop myself from delving into those emotions
>and thinking about the tragedy; I always try to engage such
>stories fully, and not become cold to the reality of what people
>experience.

I can totally relate to that. I've done the same when I hear of
people losing children or spouses to accidents or untimely
illnesses. It's why I post less and less each year. It's why I
can't imagine spending the time to post the volume you post. I
like to spend more time with my family and experience the joy of
living in the here and now, rather than spending too much time
debating immoral scumbags, like you.

Even though you have recently written some hateful lies about me
and the nature of my family life, I don't hold the same malice
towards your family, nor do I hate you, wishing for you to be
totally miserable. I do, of course, think that it is entirely
appropriate that you suffer the consequences of your bad acts, in
direct proportion to your attempts to do harm to others (directly
or by proxy). But it stops right there, at that line, and it does
not include your life in general or your family, whom I presume to
be innocents. I have standards of decency and I won't behave like
an uncivilized cretin, not even if you behave that way towards me.

I don't pretend to have any sort of amicable feelings towards you.
But, just on principle, I would recommend, with all genuineness,
that you spend less time on the newsgroups and more time with your
family, if only for them. If you can understand the misery of
losing a child to an accident, you can also understand the missed
opportunities of being an absent parent. Seize the opportunities
you have now, because your child will NEVER be the same age again.
You have only a finite amount of time with him, and with your
wife.

I'd say the same to just about anyone.

>It occurs to me that this is also a component of being able to
>live with joy: the ability and willingness to empathize, and not
>think such emotions are a sign of weakness or mental softness.
>Indeed, the opposite is the case, those who mock or are afraid of
>such emotion are afraid to confront who and what they really are.
>Moreover, if someone doesn't confront and think about how tragedy
>really feels, and understands its reality for so many people, then
>one is unlikely to be able to survive a personal tragedy without
>sacrificing the joy of living.

No, that's a gross generalization with some obvious flaws. One
should be realistically prepared for the unexpected, as well as for
the inevitable. But obsessing over such things can lead one to
give up the opportunities to experience the joy of living in the
moment. One must find a balance, which for me involves a small
amount of preparation (insurance, preventative medicine) and a
small amount of worrying, with the remainder being a carefree,
headlong jump into all the good things in life, what Greg Swann so
aptly labels as SplendorQuest. It should go without saying--
but unfortunately does not, in no small part because of people
like you--that one's SplendorQuest should be a personal, individual
quest shared with others VOLUNTARILY, and should not be tainted
by immoral demands to control the lives of others, driven by
envy, hate, or other malignant reasons.

For me, true joy comes from self-actualization, bearing the
traits which I most admire in others, and treating others
with the respect I'd like them to do for me. Investing my
time with my family and friends is quite rewarding in that
I get back so much and I inspire others to have good character.
Voluntarily helping strangers struck by misfortune is also
helpful to my self-respect, and though it may look to the
less thoughtful as purely altruistic, it is not. I do so
for myself, because it pleases me. That should never be
confused with the greedy use of stolen money or liberty of
others to do "good deeds", because such a situation has
stripped away the essential element of being voluntary.

>Many people have a sort of faux joy, an optimistism built on
>having had nothing really go wrong and not taking the world
>seriously.

Why would that be "faux joy"? When times are good, having fun and
indulging in meaningful relationships yields authentic joy. Being
overly optimistic may have its consequences, but they do not, in my
estimation, include making the joy one experiences during good
times inauthentic.

>If such an optimism gets punctured, a person is unlikely to be
>able to really tolerate the pain, and more likely to become cold,
>cynical, and joy-less.

Well, that's another gross generality. I don't think it is
generally accurate either, as the most optimistic and carefree
people I've known have come through grief in much better condition
than others. I've known some amazing people who suffered terrible
losses, who kept going in dignity and joy. Those are some of the
most admirable and, for me, inspirational people. As I get older,
I find myself striving, successfully, to be more like them. Being
a family man has given me the opportunity for fantastic personal
growth, including indulging in the simple joys of life and letting
go of most of the worries. As my mother-in-law put it when I was
just married, "Most of the things you worry about will never
happen."

When you get down to it, there really is no way to prepare for some
losses. No matter what we do beforehand, our grief has a timetable
because of how we're made, and must be experienced in full time to
be handled in a healthy way. It's better to enjoy life now,
particularly the company of loved ones, and deal with loss when it
happens. From everything I've seen, if it's unexpected and
shocking, the ways in which we get through it have little to do
with our worrying about it and more to do with basic character and
the support of others. You're more likely to find the latter in
abundance when you spend more time enjoying the company of others
in good times, instead of allowing anxiety to interfere with doing
so.

Simply empathizing with those suffering tragedies can be productive
in very small doses. But actually helping those in grief or
misfortune, voluntarily and based upon one's empathy for their
condition, can be very rewarding. One can transform the negative
into the positive, assuage one's own fears of dealing with
tragedies by actually making it easier for others, and even make
deep and meaningful friendships with people who will gladly treat
you the same when you have a crisis.

So, in my estimation, there is little truth in what you write, at
least in the context in which you pose your scenario.

>So, ironically perhaps, one other key to having true joy is being
>able and willing to confront and empathize with an open heart the
>worst tragedies that humans endure.

But WHY and WHEN this is true is key, and is something I think
you're missing.

>Idealistic joy can be weak; joy with a foundation of realism is
>stronger, and makes it more likely that one will be able to
>weather personal tragedy.

Idealistic joy can be quite strong, while times are good. When
something bad happens, that cannot take away the substantive
joy which was experienced, because of the simple nature of
time and causality.

It makes little sense to describe "realistic" joy as "stronger",
because you're ignoring the temporal aspect of context. It would
be better to phrase such arguments in terms of a person's strength,
not "a person's joy's strength".

=====
EE

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 6:20:23 PM12/5/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005120523034...@nym.alias.net...

> I can totally relate to that. I've done the same when I hear of
> people losing children or spouses to accidents or untimely
> illnesses. It's why I post less and less each year. It's why I
> can't imagine spending the time to post the volume you post.

After which, Eagle Eye goes on to post one of the more lengthy screeds to
appear on the group in weeks.

But of course he's too cowardly to actually stand up to the consequences of
his own arguments.

As follows:

Eagle Eye

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 6:28:10 PM12/5/05
to
In article <4394c9e3$0$28450$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>

Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:2005120523034...@nym.alias.net...
>> I can totally relate to that. I've done the same when I hear of
>> people losing children or spouses to accidents or untimely
>> illnesses. It's why I post less and less each year. It's why I
>> can't imagine spending the time to post the volume you post.
>After which, Eagle Eye goes on to post one of the more lengthy screeds to
>appear on the group in weeks.

It was 104 lines of original text. How on Earth do you judge that
to be "one of the more lengthy [posts] ... in weeks"?

That's just a small fraction of a single day's posts for you or Erb.

[snipbegging]

=====
EE

Eagle Eye

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 7:06:33 PM12/5/05
to
In article <1133749612.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Scott Erb <scot...@att.net> wrote:
>Gandalf Grey wrote:
[...]

>> Utopians are not much different from the average Dungeons and
>> Dragons player whose brain has been turned into mush. It
>> certainly explains libertarians like Eagle Eye who get all
>> misty-eyed talking about the individual even while they're
>> arguing for a society that would crush most human beings into
>> powder under the weight of trigger happy warlords disguised as
>> "free-marketeers."

Note that, as I explained in my previous response, what Gandalf
writes above contains several lies. He is bashing a strawman.

>He never could explain why government power is worse than power
>centered in organizations,

Liar. I explained it to you, over and over and over. You simply
ignore what you can't handle and pretend that it doesn't exist.

Power, in and of itself, is morally neutral. Using that power to
aggressively coerce other people is morally wrong. Government, by
definition, ALWAYS does this. Non-governmental agents, either
individually or in groups, can also hurt others by using aggressive
coercion.

As I explained to you, many many many times, ALL of these cases are
examples of IMMORAL behavior. You're a liar to claim that I did
not address this in any meaningful fashion, or to suggest that I
denied that non-governmental agents did not or could not engage
in such behavior.

The key point about the danger of government power is that the
government, by definition, creates a monopoly on the use of
aggressive force. Nothing is more powerful or more dangerous.
Over 150,000,000 human beings were murdered by governments in the
past century. Non-governmental individuals or groups simply lack
the power to do this, or anything within several orders of
magnitude.

And yet, when I or others point out such facts, you lie about us
and attack your strawman.

>since humans get centralized power in each case. He just said
>Walmart doesn't go out and shoot people,

Liar. I used Wal-Mart in many examples of a bad organization which
uses government power to hurt individuals, via eminent domain. I
also used them as examples of how employers and employees might
arrange mutual, consensual arrangements, as a generic company, not
as a specific model. I mentioned them in many, many different
examples, of various contexts.

So, claiming that I JUST said one thing (which, incidentally, I
don't recall ever stating, anyway), is a flat-out lie. But it is
what I've come to expect from you and Gandalf: Big Lies used to
smear others.

>but Walmart and other corporations are heavily regulated,

And, they tear down people's houses to build new stores, using the
power of government to do their dirty work. So much for government
oversight preventing such abuses of power. On the contrary, it
more often ENABLES them, in such a way that would be far more
difficult without government power.

>in cases where such regulation falls apart, powerful actors like
>that create mafias and other forms of exploitation and denial of
>freedom.

THEY ALREADY USE POWER AND EXPLOITATION TO STEAL THE PROPERTY OF
HOMEOWNERS--WITH THE FULL HELP OF THE GOVERNMENT!! That is what
you will not admit, because that fact destroys your rationale.

If a big company were acting as outlaws, people who opposed their
land grabs might stand a chance to stop them. But when they have
the government behind them, the full power of the state backs up
the use of aggressive force. As the SCOTUS recently decided, there
is simply no way for the homeowner to fight it, short of a futile
confrontation.

>Every time I'd back him into a corner in a debate

... you woke up and realized, to your dismay, that it didn't
really happen.

[...]


>he's locked in a belief system that simply doesn't make sense.

There you go with the "system" bullshit.

I'm not a utopian. I'm not advocating a system with which to rule
others.

What I simply state is the fact that forcing people to do things
they never agreed to do is immoral, that this is what government
does, and the only moral path is to STOP being immoral. How people
might deal with their needs and wants without immorally using
government to hurt others is THEIR PROBLEM. It isn't mine. I am
happy to mind my own business and all I ask is you give me the same
respect.

If that "doesn't make sense" to you, that isn't my problem either.
If you're too stupid to make sense of simply respecting the rights
of other people to live their lives on their own terms, then YOU,
not they, need to address that. They are your victims, and they
have no responsibility to CONVINCE you to stop hurting them,
particularly since anyone who reads this newsgroup for any length
of time knows that facts and reason do not penetrate your skull,
that you will perpetually pretend to be "unconvinced".

[...]

=====
EE

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 7:10:32 PM12/5/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005120523281...@nym.alias.net...

> In article <4394c9e3$0$28450$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> >news:2005120523034...@nym.alias.net...
> >> I can totally relate to that. I've done the same when I hear of
> >> people losing children or spouses to accidents or untimely
> >> illnesses. It's why I post less and less each year. It's why I
> >> can't imagine spending the time to post the volume you post.
> >After which, Eagle Eye goes on to post one of the more lengthy screeds to
> >appear on the group in weeks.
>
> It was 104 lines of original text.

That could have made the same statement in about 4 lines.

All the while you run like the coward you are from the several threads in
which I've kicked your ignorant ass.

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

news:2005112112035...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <437a878a$0$28501$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>


> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

> >news:2005111522472...@nym.alias.net...
> >> In article <437a3af9$0$28472$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>


> >> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 7:30:33 PM12/5/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005120600063...@nym.alias.net...

> In article <1133749612.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> Scott Erb <scot...@att.net> wrote:
> >Gandalf Grey wrote:
> [...]
> >> Utopians are not much different from the average Dungeons and
> >> Dragons player whose brain has been turned into mush. It
> >> certainly explains libertarians like Eagle Eye who get all
> >> misty-eyed talking about the individual even while they're
> >> arguing for a society that would crush most human beings into
> >> powder under the weight of trigger happy warlords disguised as
> >> "free-marketeers."
>
> Note that, as I explained in my previous response, what Gandalf
> writes above contains several lies. He is bashing a strawman.

You've haven't demonstrated that so far. All you've demonstrated is that
you have a tendency to run away from debate.

>
> >He never could explain why government power is worse than power
> >centered in organizations,
>
> Liar.

You haven't proved that yet.

[whining snipped]

> Power, in and of itself, is morally neutral. Using that power to
> aggressively coerce other people is morally wrong.

Prove it.

[whining snipped....how does it feel?]

>
> As I explained to you, many many many times, ALL of these cases are
> examples of IMMORAL behavior.

1. You're a liar. You haven't "explained" anything. All you've done is
attempt to snipe at government from the tall grass while whining that your
terms concerning morality are all true "by definition." Sorry, moron. But
no cigar.

> You're a liar to claim that I did
> not address this in any meaningful fashion

You haven't addressed ANYTHING in a meaningful fashion. You're a liar who
believes that he can get away with ad ignoratum arguments and running away
when he's called on it.

> The key point about the danger of government power is that the
> government, by definition, creates a monopoly on the use of
> aggressive force.

Apparently not, since aggressive force is used by individuals outside of
government. So you're wrong again.

[snip whining]

>
> And yet, when I or others point out such facts

You don't point out facts. You snipe at problems and pretend that the
problems prove that an entire system is wrong. Argumentum ad ignoratum.
It's all you've ever had.

[snip whining]

> >Every time I'd back him into a corner in a debate
>
> ... you woke up and realized

that he was dealing with a rank coward.


> I'm not a utopian.

You're a moron. And in your case, that's not an ad hominum argument.


Eagle Eye

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 7:52:35 PM12/5/05
to
In article <1133749612.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Scott Erb <scot...@att.net> wrote:
>Gandalf Grey wrote:
[...]
>> It certainly explains libertarians like Eagle Eye [...]

>But a lot of those kinds of posters I tend to avoid even reading.
>I've seen the song and dance, and in a weird way feel sorry for
>them. They lack perspective, adaptability, and the ability to
>truly love and connect. I doubt they have much true joy in their
>lives.

How in the world do you even imagine that you know such a thing?
If I hadn't seen you behave in even more despicable ways
previously, out of pure spite against those who bested you in
debates, I would seriously wonder if you were smoking crack or if
you'd had a psychotic break. But I know better.

When you made fun of another poster's father's suicide, who never
did anything to deserve such horrible treatment, you sunk way below
the level of 99.9% of posters that I've read. Off the top of my
head, I can only think of one other poster who has acted worse.
That was Gandalf, who actually exploited his own alleged personal
tragedy in a cheap and sleazy way to smear his opponents with false
accusations. Not surprising, you actually assisted him in that.

This latest remark of yours is hateful and rotten, as it is an
attempt to impugn the family lives of the people against whom you
hold a grudge. You've crossed a line here. I, and the other
people I know who would fit into the group to which you refer, do
not deserve this. I know it isn't true about me. I also have read
plenty of the writings of several others whom you would likely fit
into the group as well, enough to know that your accusation is
totally unfounded for them as well.

I suspect that you know this is true for most of us, if not all,
and that it is a pathetically lame attempt to smear us. It's not
like it will get you anything in the way of credibility or
accomplish much in hurting the credibililty of those you so
hatefully resent for beating you in so many arguments. Which is
why your choice to cross over that line and demonstrate to others
what a loathesome creep you really are is a bit perplexing.

Still, I wonder if some part of you hopes that it is true for some
subset of the people whom you intend to attack, in which case your
remark would be quite cruel, definitely not the sort of thing one
would state about those whom one "fel[t] sorry for". You've got
to be really sick to want to do such harm to another person, all
over an exchange of political posts.

I would never do such a thing to you or to anyone else on the
newsgroups. No matter how much you behave like an uncivilized
cretin to others, I choose to remain civilized and stick to
my principles of decency and honesty.

Rather than lash out in anger at such an appalling display,
I'll simply offer a reality check which I hope might, for
once, get through to your conscience:

I was raised by two of the finest people I've ever known, who were
married nearly half a century ago. I do not, in any way,
exaggerate or indulge in sentimentalism, to state that, either. I
would put their love, devotion, integrity, civility, and other
virtues up against anyone else I know. I strive to be as good a
person as the two of them, and as I go through all the challenges
of marriage and children, I am in awe of how well they managed.
Their marriage has been a model to me. I am quite proud of my
own. My wife and I are deeply in love and have a relationship
which most people will never be fortunate enough to have. As
parents, we have a rich and fulfilling family life, filled with joy
and dedication to building good character. I'm very proud of my
children and I watch them become even better people each day. We
have great relationships with our relatives, on both sides. Family
reunions are a grand affair. Holiday get-togethers are fun, happy
occassions, not marred by the racor I've seen at a distance in
others' families.

I could go on and on all day, but like I pointed out in another
article, I have more important things to do.

You simply have no reason to feel sorry for me, even if you were
truly inclined to do so (which I don't believe for a second).
Everything you've ever posted about my life outside the newsgroup,
or about my state of mind, has been so inaccurate that I can't
help but conclude that it's nothing but wishful thinking on your
part, simply vile and wretched. You accomplish nothing by making
such remarks, beyond revealing the blackness of your own soul.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you might reconsider treating others this
way in the future. You might also cut the amount of time you
spend on the newsgroups and spend it on more positive things,
like finding joy in your own family. Who knows? If you did as
I suggest enough, you might start to have empathy for all the
victims of government oppression and start understanding the
message that I've been repeating to you, to treat others the
way you want them to treat you, without force or fraud.

=====
EE

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 8:25:36 PM12/5/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005120600523...@nym.alias.net...

> How in the world do you even imagine that you know such a thing?
> If I hadn't seen you behave in even more despicable ways
> previously, out of pure spite against those who bested you in
> debates

How could you possibly know anything about besting someone in a debate other
than what it feels like to be on the losing end?


"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

news:200511211203...@nym.alias.net...
> In article <437a5427$0$28490$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
> Gandalf Grey <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:

> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 5, 2005, 11:47:10 PM12/5/05
to

Gandalf Grey wrote:
> "Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> news:2005120600523...@nym.alias.net...
>
> > How in the world do you even imagine that you know such a thing?
> > If I hadn't seen you behave in even more despicable ways
> > previously, out of pure spite against those who bested you in
> > debates
>
> How could you possibly know anything about besting someone in a debate other
> than what it feels like to be on the losing end?

I stopped reading Eagle Eye long ago due to his constant lies, and the
way he runs away from debates he's losing.

But since you were responding to him I read what he wrote, and man, I
can't believe he attacked you for supposedly "using" your personal
tragedy. I remember when you talked about the death of your child. I
still think of that from time to time when I read your posts. You
simply mentioned it as a reason you were away from posting, and people
like Eagle Eye attacked you, accused you of making it up, and mocked
you for it. It was some of the most disgusting behavior I've seen on
the usenet. For him to again attack you over that...man, you can't
believe how disgusted I am by that guy.

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 12:29:51 AM12/6/05
to

"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1133844430.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

He occasionally falls back on that when he's feeling "pressured" by an
impending loss of an argument. I think it all goes back to what you touched
on previously. When the game becomes more important than "the pieces" one
ultimately reaches a point where utter hatred becomes liberated and anything
said is "in bounds."

Nevertheless, your other comment about Eagle Eye is far more telling. The
fact that he runs away from debates that he's losing is really the book on
Eagle Eye. It's a repetitive behavior that tells you a lot about the kind
of guy you're dealing with. Not just the running away. There are several
posters that do that and disappear for a few weeks. But EE is different.
Over the last month, I've engaged him in about six debates and he's run from
every one of them once it became apparent that he would have to actually
come up with a logical defence of his position. Only to show up almost
immediately making essentially the same faulty argument in another thread,
and attempting to engage me again, only to run away again. He can't stay
and he can't leave. Another interesting part of his profile is that I note
he complains about people 'dishonestly snipping' parts of his posts. And
yet, whenever he gets backed into a corner in debate, he begins editing his
opponent's replies like there's no tomorrow. I always find it interesting
when people engage in the behavior they supposedly find completely
unacceptable in others. Although pop-psychologists like to throw the term
around, actual cases of compulsive "projection" are relatively rare. Our
friend EE is an interesting case.

One final point that I find fascinating: EE's use of the false dilemma when
he argues is another compulsion that he not only cannot avoid using, but
seems to be almost unaware of, even when it's pointed out to him. Anytime a
human being believes in a view of the world in which mutually exclusive
choices are common, it makes me perk up and take notice. EE's comparisons
are nearly always mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive. I.e., he
seems drawn to false choices in which the choices cover all possibilities
and only one of which can be correct. Sure, the rest of us know that the
world is far more complicated than that, but it's instructive that EE
doesn't recognize that fact. It's clear that he can't defend the
view...note his constant fallback to the notion of "self-evident" facts or
assertions that he posits as being true "by definition." But, though he
cannot defend it, doesn't mean that he doesn't cling to such choices as
though they MUST be true.

Bottom line? Disgusting, yes, but scientifically interesting.


>


Eagle Eye

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 2:44:51 AM12/6/05
to
In article <1133844430.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Scott Erb <scot...@att.net> wrote:
>Gandalf Grey wrote:
>> "Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>> news:2005120600523...@nym.alias.net...
>> > How in the world do you even imagine that you know such a
>> > thing? If I hadn't seen you behave in even more despicable
>> > ways previously, out of pure spite against those who bested
>> > you in debates
>> How could you possibly know anything about besting someone in a
>> debate other than what it feels like to be on the losing end?
>I stopped reading Eagle Eye long ago

On multiple occassions, you've mentioned details which you'd only
pick up by reading my posts, i.e., from posts which others did not
cite in a response.

Why are you so desperate to make others believe something which
isn't true?

>due to his constant lies,

If I lie constantly, why can't you actually put your finger on
one?

I stand by everything I've posted in my exchanges with you. I have
not lied. What upsets you is how I don't allow you to get away
with your usual dishonest tactics, how I remember what you've
posted in the past and remind you of it (when you'd rather just
toss such embarrassing "old bits" into the memory hole), and how I
press you on your arguments, showing how they are unsubstantiated
and logically flawed.

>and the way he runs away from debates he's losing.

I run away from leprechauns, too, I suppose, which are just as common
as debates in which you manage to beat me.

In many instances, I've gotten fed up with your dishonesty or
simply run out of spare time to pick apart your sophistry in
detail. You can call that "run[ning] away", and pretend that you
were winning, but we both know that isn't the case.

Ironically, you state this in the same sentence in which you admit
you stopped responding to me, which in the most recent instance
occurred after I trounced you on the issue of terminology in
science. You offered up some lame cite of a definition which would
have classified the existence of God as a scientific fact. As
ridiculous as that was, the fact that the cited definition
conflicted with your own definition, which you were attempting to
defend with your cite, made you look like an utter buffoon. I
called you on it, and repeatedly challenged you to explain the
multiple holes in your arguments. THAT is when you stopped
responding to me. And now, you actually try to reverse
everything.

[...]

I'll address the rest of your post in another article.

=====
EE

Eagle Eye

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 2:44:57 AM12/6/05
to
[...]

>I stopped reading Eagle Eye long ago due to his constant lies, and the
>way he runs away from debates he's losing.
>
>But since you were responding to him I read what he wrote, and man, I
>can't believe he attacked you for supposedly "using" your personal
>tragedy. I remember when you talked about the death of your child. I
>still think of that from time to time when I read your posts. You
>simply mentioned it as a reason you were away from posting, and people
>like Eagle Eye attacked you, accused you of making it up, and mocked
>you for it.

I challenge you to cite me accusing Gandalf of making up the death
of his child or mocking him for it. That is an OUTRAGEOUS claim.

Post your cites. Start here:

http://groups-beta.google.com/advanced_search


>It was some of the most disgusting behavior I've seen on
>the usenet.

Incidentally, where did you come up with that line?

Note the dates:

Now you have the temerity to actually accuse Billy of "using
[your alleged tragedy] as a weapon" when you know damned well he
never did. That's even more despicable and is most likely the
very nadir of behavior in these newsgroups that I've ever
witnessed.
-- Eagle Eye 8/12/2002 http://tinyurl.com/cctjd


After that, I waited until Gandalf himself used his alleged
tragedy as a weapon against others, fabricating attacks on him
which did not occur just to score cheap points.

THAT particular act was more disgusting than anything anyone
else has said on this matter. In fact, I consider it the worst
thing I've seen anyone do in these groups, ever.
-- Eagle Eye 8/25/2002 http://tinyurl.com/89v8t


You have no argument. You made it up. Considering the subject
matter, THAT is the worst thing I've ever seen anyone do on
these newsgroups.
-- Eagle Eye 8/26/2002 http://tinyurl.com/dkuly


What really disgusted me was how Propa-Gandalf exploited the
sympathy for his alleged tragedy with manipulative lies,
accusing several innocent people (who just so happened to be
long-time opponents) of using it "as a weapon" against him.
Whether he lost a son or not, those lies were the most
despicable thing I've seen anyone do on the newsgroups, ever.
-- Eagle Eye 11/2/2002 http://tinyurl.com/dxsln


What do you think about Gandalf announcing that his child died
and then using that alleged tragedy as a political weapon,
falsely accusing people he didn't like of making light of it?
I've never seen anyone do anything as reprehensible on these
newsgroups.
-- Eagle Eye 10/13/2003 http://tinyurl.com/7wf7o


No. In fact, you attempted to "assassinate" my character by
completely fabricating that disgusting accusation against me
regarding your alleged family tragedy. Your exploitation of
that situation to slur me and others was, by far, the most
despicable thing I've ever seen anyone post on these
newsgroups.
-- Eagle Eye 5/20/2004 http://tinyurl.com/92urh


What you did was not the sort of thing a father [should] lie
about. That was the single most despicable thing I've ever seen
anyone do on these newsgroups--you exploited the situation (your
alleged tragedy) for petty, measly little swipes at your
enemies.
-- Eagle Eye 2/12/2005 http://tinyurl.com/8w9fl

You're engaging in a classic propaganda technique, which is a
good indication of your malicious intent here.

>For him to again attack you over that...man, you can't believe how
>disgusted I am by that guy.

No, you're not. This is all pretense on your part and your utter
failure to cite any articles to substantiate your explicit allegations
will demonstrate your disingenuousness.

=====
EE

Kurt Nicklas

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 7:17:08 AM12/6/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:200512060744...@nym.alias.net...

This is pretty typical of Scootter. Behind the Mr. Rogers facade is
a goebellesque liar and propagandist.

As for Richard "Gandalf" Hanson, the only comment I can make
about the death of his child is a telling one: he was posting to Usenet
within a day or two of the death. Typical of an obsessive, I suppose:
all of life gets subordinated to the obsession and with Rick at 70K posts
and climbing that obsession seems to have pretty much taken over his life.


Kurt Nicklas

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 7:18:50 AM12/6/05
to

"Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:43952073$0$28508$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...

Rick, the book on you is that you're an idiot.


2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 8:24:03 AM12/6/05
to
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:18:50 -0500, "Kurt Nicklas"
<kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:

Knickers is on the offensive this week, trying some, anything, to
deflect from the fact that his hopes for a theofascist empire in
America are dying.
>
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson

nevermore

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 9:03:31 AM12/6/05
to


Zepp Jamieson is on a "run for cover" tactic this week, trying to hide
from his own stupid words shown below....
--

>If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
>be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&

Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because
<LOL> line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where
you report your capital gains.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:VMjs-MLyEcsJ:www.irs.gov/pub/irs...

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 10:01:52 AM12/6/05
to

That's what kept me talking to him for a long time after I would have
otherwise quit. He'd actually start a civil discussion about politics
and economics. Then when I'd make detailed arguments he couldn't
respond to (most recently it was a thread that started about Walmart)
he'd just ditch the debate, say he'd get to it later, or turn it into
an attempt to go on the attack.

> Over the last month, I've engaged him in about six debates and he's run from
> every one of them once it became apparent that he would have to actually
> come up with a logical defence of his position. Only to show up almost
> immediately making essentially the same faulty argument in another thread,
> and attempting to engage me again, only to run away again. He can't stay
> and he can't leave.

He probably doesn't want to admit defeat to himself, so he creates this
fantasy where his "opponents" are these nasty dishonest rotten arrogant
asses who are only appearing to be winning because they are twisting
words dishonestly. So then he decides he has to show the world (which
in usenet flamewars probably represents a handful of lurkers who don't
really care) just how bad the other guy really is through personal
attacks or sometimes even trying to dig through old posts, spending
loads of energy just to try to attack someone else in a forum where
such attacks are meaningless. It's flattering in a way, to think
comments from someone to a poster who is anonymous (I can't insult him
personally because nobody knows who he is) can be taken so seriously.

>Another interesting part of his profile is that I note
> he complains about people 'dishonestly snipping' parts of his posts. And
> yet, whenever he gets backed into a corner in debate, he begins editing his
> opponent's replies like there's no tomorrow. I always find it interesting
> when people engage in the behavior they supposedly find completely
> unacceptable in others. Although pop-psychologists like to throw the term
> around, actual cases of compulsive "projection" are relatively rare. Our
> friend EE is an interesting case.

True, though its common that people both snip and accuse others of
unfairly snipping. Often it's just a different perspective on the
importance of what is snipped. Othertimes, it's obviously malicious.
I stopped reading Martin McPhillips back in the summer of 2000 or 2001
since he lacked even the pretense of real discussion that Eagle often
tries. He once made a point of reposting everything I snipped from a
post (and I snip often to keep posts readable; though I try to snip
only things not relevant to what I'm responding to) and posting
"context restored." Then, of course, he'd snip everything from my
posts. That kind of thing tells me, "it's no use trying to communicate
with this guy, he has an agenda and his mind is made up." Luckily,
such people tend to self-marginalize.

> One final point that I find fascinating: EE's use of the false dilemma when
> he argues is another compulsion that he not only cannot avoid using, but
> seems to be almost unaware of, even when it's pointed out to him. Anytime a
> human being believes in a view of the world in which mutually exclusive
> choices are common, it makes me perk up and take notice. EE's comparisons
> are nearly always mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive. I.e., he
> seems drawn to false choices in which the choices cover all possibilities
> and only one of which can be correct. Sure, the rest of us know that the
> world is far more complicated than that, but it's instructive that EE
> doesn't recognize that fact. It's clear that he can't defend the
> view...note his constant fallback to the notion of "self-evident" facts or
> assertions that he posits as being true "by definition." But, though he
> cannot defend it, doesn't mean that he doesn't cling to such choices as
> though they MUST be true.

He probably got misled by Ayn Rand's rather lame philosophy somewhere.
It sort of a good fit -- a lot of young people, especially intelligent
males with self-esteem problems, find her fiction uplifting and
empowering. I think her fiction is solid, BUT the now totally
discredited philosophy of "objectivism" tried to take fiction ideas and
turn it into an "ism" that ends up being absurd.

> Bottom line? Disgusting, yes, but scientifically interesting.

I can't bring myself to dislike him because I think he's probably a
decent person, just a bit confused, searching for a clear black and
white answer in a world that is better defined by a rainbow of
possibilities. Unlike some other posters who I found easy to ignore,
he seems to have an idealistic streak that isn't malicious at base, but
presents itself that way to protect the integrity of the idealism.
Interesting, but I doubt I'll engage him again -- it's not really worth
the time.

Eagle Eye

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 11:53:42 AM12/6/05
to
In article <dn3vf...@news4.newsguy.com>

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>As for Richard "Gandalf" Hanson, the only comment I can make about
>the death of his child is a telling one: he was posting to Usenet
>within a day or two of the death.

That is not true. At the time, some people were making that claim,
but it was pointed out by Billy Beck and others that it was false.
What apparently happened was that someone looked at the dates and
was off by a month. If you check Google, you'll see that he was
away for a month.

=====
EE

Eagle Eye

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 12:03:01 PM12/6/05
to
In article <1133881312.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

Scott Erb <scot...@att.net> wrote:
>Gandalf Grey wrote:
[...]

>> Bottom line? Disgusting, yes, but scientifically interesting.
>I can't bring myself to dislike him because I think he's probably a
>decent person, just a bit confused, searching for a clear black and
>white answer in a world that is better defined by a rainbow of
>possibilities. Unlike some other posters who I found easy to ignore,
>he seems to have an idealistic streak that isn't malicious at base, but
>presents itself that way to protect the integrity of the idealism.

How could you call me a "decent person" if you actually believed
your explicit claim that I mocked Gandalf about the death of his
son?

I remember when you talked about the death of your child. I
still think of that from time to time when I read your posts.
You simply mentioned it as a reason you were away from posting,
and people like Eagle Eye attacked you, accused you of making it
up, and mocked you for it.

-- Scott Erb 12/5/2005 http://tinyurl.com/bl3yh

I've challenged you to back that up with cites once before:

http://tinyurl.com/b7dmw (12/6/2005)

This is the second request.

=====
EE

Kurt Nicklas

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 12:06:16 PM12/6/05
to

"2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution" <zepp2128#2211finestplanet.com@>
wrote in message news:a64bp1t0cgj9jl9q5...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:18:50 -0500, "Kurt Nicklas"
> <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>
> Knickers is on the offensive this week, trying some, anything, to
> deflect from the fact that his hopes for a theofascist empire in
> America are dying.

LOL

Yeah, my "hopes for empire" now go no further than the wan
hope that my daughter will be able to get herself up for school in the
morning without parental intervention!

{snickers}


Kurt Nicklas

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 12:06:50 PM12/6/05
to

"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005120616534...@nym.alias.net...

I stand corrected.


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 2:22:11 PM12/6/05
to

"Scott Erb" <scot...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1133881312.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Exactly. Same thing still going on. He can't stop himself from jumping in,
but he has nothing to jump in with. When the semblance of rationality
doesn't get anywhere he goes into his "you're despicable" Sylvester Cat
routine, and when that doesn't work, he runs muttering something about how
he doesn't have the time, etc., and runs like hell.

>
> > Over the last month, I've engaged him in about six debates and he's run
from
> > every one of them once it became apparent that he would have to actually
> > come up with a logical defence of his position. Only to show up almost
> > immediately making essentially the same faulty argument in another
thread,
> > and attempting to engage me again, only to run away again. He can't
stay
> > and he can't leave.
>
> He probably doesn't want to admit defeat to himself, so he creates this
> fantasy where his "opponents" are these nasty dishonest rotten arrogant
> asses who are only appearing to be winning because they are twisting
> words dishonestly. So then he decides he has to show the world (which
> in usenet flamewars probably represents a handful of lurkers who don't
> really care) just how bad the other guy really is through personal
> attacks or sometimes even trying to dig through old posts, spending
> loads of energy just to try to attack someone else in a forum where
> such attacks are meaningless. It's flattering in a way, to think
> comments from someone to a poster who is anonymous (I can't insult him
> personally because nobody knows who he is) can be taken so seriously.

Well, yeah. These guys devoting their life to an obsession with a
particular person could be taken as a kind of flattery. I've often thought
that McPhillips' mania concerning you is primarily caused by his bitterness
over someone who has an actual life.

>
> >Another interesting part of his profile is that I note
> > he complains about people 'dishonestly snipping' parts of his posts.
And
> > yet, whenever he gets backed into a corner in debate, he begins editing
his
> > opponent's replies like there's no tomorrow. I always find it
interesting
> > when people engage in the behavior they supposedly find completely
> > unacceptable in others. Although pop-psychologists like to throw the
term
> > around, actual cases of compulsive "projection" are relatively rare.
Our
> > friend EE is an interesting case.
>
> True, though its common that people both snip and accuse others of
> unfairly snipping. Often it's just a different perspective on the
> importance of what is snipped. Othertimes, it's obviously malicious.

With EE, I think it's amusing because he's the kind of guy who goes into
critical overload because someone has snipped anything at all out of his
text. He then turns around and starts snipping nearly EVERYTHING his
opponent is commenting on in order to make EEs replies "appear" to be
responsive when in fact he's so edited the text that he's not being
responsive at all.

They dropped like flies there for awhile.

> It sort of a good fit -- a lot of young people, especially intelligent
> males with self-esteem problems, find her fiction uplifting and
> empowering. I think her fiction is solid, BUT the now totally
> discredited philosophy of "objectivism" tried to take fiction ideas and
> turn it into an "ism" that ends up being absurd.
>
> > Bottom line? Disgusting, yes, but scientifically interesting.
>
> I can't bring myself to dislike him because I think he's probably a
> decent person, just a bit confused, searching for a clear black and
> white answer in a world that is better defined by a rainbow of
> possibilities. Unlike some other posters who I found easy to ignore,
> he seems to have an idealistic streak that isn't malicious at base, but
> presents itself that way to protect the integrity of the idealism.
> Interesting, but I doubt I'll engage him again -- it's not really worth
> the time.

For me it was the "illusion of logic" that sometimes clings to him. With
most of the rad right here there's no question that they don't have the
equipment to engage in debate. But with EE there are moments when, if you
turn your head just right and squint, he sometimes, sort of looks like he
might have a brain. Then, of course, he starts mis-defining fallacies and
confusing assertions for arguments and generally tripping over his own
cognitive feet.

But you know me. There's nothing I like more than pointing out [at length]
an example of poor logic. EE's fondness for "argumentum ad ignoratum,"
"false dilemma," and variations on the "true Scotsman" fallacy make him a
great example of the dangers of faulty thinking.

>

2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 9:53:44 PM12/6/05
to
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:22:11 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
<Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:

[snip to ask tangential question]

>But you know me. There's nothing I like more than pointing out [at length]
>an example of poor logic. EE's fondness for "argumentum ad ignoratum,"
>"false dilemma," and variations on the "true Scotsman" fallacy make him a
>great example of the dangers of faulty thinking.

OK: what is "the 'true Scotsman' fallacy"?

Gandalf Grey

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 10:52:29 PM12/6/05
to

"2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution" <zepp2128#2211finestplanet.com@>
wrote in message news:ekjcp1l3atts2oqnd...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:22:11 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip to ask tangential question]
>
> >But you know me. There's nothing I like more than pointing out [at
length]
> >an example of poor logic. EE's fondness for "argumentum ad ignoratum,"
> >"false dilemma," and variations on the "true Scotsman" fallacy make him a
> >great example of the dangers of faulty thinking.
>
> OK: what is "the 'true Scotsman' fallacy"?

It has several names. In Australian philosophy they call it the "death by a
thousand exceptions" It's also a loose example of "special pleading."

It goes like this:

Argument: No Scotsman would ever drink milk in his tea.

Objection: But my uncle Angus loves a bit of milk in his tea.

Answer: Ah, but no TRUE Scotsman would ever drink milk in his tea.

It's a way of moving the goalposts when you realize your assertions are
flawed. Just hammer on a qualification and you're good to go Hence, Eagle
Eye talks about a mythical "free market" that could replace the terrible
"government by government" that he's so down on. He says that governments
involve coercion. When it's pointed out to him that free markets are just
as likely to give rise to coercion, he just says "but that would mean it
wasn't a free market because free markets don't have coercion." Regardless
of what objection is raised about his free market concept, he simply
continues to define it away by setting new standards for what constitutes a
free market.

You can always protect your Utopia by insisting, by definition and
redefinition, that whatever objection arises can't be a part of your utopia.
Therefore Eagle Eye CAN'T be wrong about his free market, because Eagle
Eye's free market excludes, by definition, all those nasty elements of what
we like to call "Reality."


Kurt Lochner

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 1:08:25 AM12/7/05
to
"snickers" <kurtknuckle_dragger@spews_lies.nut> wrote:
>
> 2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution replied to:
> >
> >"snickers" <kurtknuckle_dragger@spews_lies.nut> wro[..]

> >
> > Knickers is on the offensive this week, trying some, anything, to
> > deflect from the fact that his hopes for a theofascist empire in
> > America are dying.
>
>LOL
>
>Yeah, my "hopes for empire" now go no further than the wan
>hope that my daughter will be able to get herself up for school
>in the morning without parental intervention!

Payback's a teen-aged daughter, isn't it?

--*>guffaw!<*

Kurt Nicklas

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 6:19:38 AM12/7/05
to

"Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:43965b1a$0$28458$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...

>
> "2128 Dead, 42 since Hunter resolution" <zepp2128#2211finestplanet.com@>
> wrote in message news:ekjcp1l3atts2oqnd...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:22:11 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip to ask tangential question]
>>
>> >But you know me. There's nothing I like more than pointing out [at
> length]
>> >an example of poor logic. EE's fondness for "argumentum ad ignoratum,"
>> >"false dilemma," and variations on the "true Scotsman" fallacy make him
>> >a
>> >great example of the dangers of faulty thinking.
>>
>> OK: what is "the 'true Scotsman' fallacy"?
>
> It has several names. In Australian philosophy they call it the "death by
> a
> thousand exceptions" It's also a loose example of "special pleading."

"Australian philosophy", Ricky?? Tell us more...


Kurt Nicklas

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 6:22:39 AM12/7/05
to

"Gandalf Grey" <Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:43965b1a$0$28458$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>

Sounds like one of Scootter Erb's many dodges.

However, EE doesn't do what you've accused him of doing, Rick, so what
you're doing is engaging in the "straw man" fallacy is, for you, is easier
to do
than engaging in an honest discussion with anyone not trapped in your
pinched
set of biases.


2129 Dead, 43 since Hunter resolution

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 9:07:51 AM12/7/05
to
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:52:29 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
<Ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:

That's quite a useful concept! Thanks for explaining it to me.

Scott Erb

unread,
Dec 7, 2005, 11:28:34 AM12/7/05
to

I've come to think that kind of approach to politics is the most
dangerous one out there, because it automatically excludes critical
thinking, defines from the start alternative ideas as wrong or even
evil, and sets up conditions where politics is less the messy working
through diverse perspectives and interests and more a form of jihad
where a group wants to make sure things are done the "right" way, based
on their faith about what the "right" way is. It's the kind of mindset
similar to religious extremism.

Just as religious extremists may choose like the Amish to simply ignore
the society they consider decadent and evil, I think the benign form of
this kind of simplistic radical capitalism is when someone just says "I
don't believe in government, so I'll simply not participate in
politics." The dangerous form is the Timothy McVeighs and others who
say "this government is rotten, and we have to do what we can to
overthrow it."

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages