Alexander Kalinowski wrote:
> Brent <digital.brent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 9:58 pm, Alexander Kalinowski
> > <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Brent <digital.br...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> > >Brent wrote:
> >> >> >Alex wrote:
> >> >> Brent wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > > Anything else is what the people of the
> >> >> > > world do not want. Political power is nothing if you are
economically
> >> >> > > domesticated. Give the reins of the economy to the *people*
and let
> >> >> > > them decide what they want. Anything else implies a disdain
for the
> >> >> > > rights of the common man.
> >>
> >> >> > Alex:
> >> >> > I disdain some of the demands of some of the common man. Very
much so. I also
> >> >> > consider it a nice rhetorical trick to phrase it the way you do
it here.
> >>
> >> >> I know you do.
> >>
> >> Alex:
> >> No big feat as that is plain to see, given that I state so
forthrightly.
> >
> > I must say, it is refre****ng, if anything. In fact, even respectable,
> > in comparison to the standard of denial plaguing the left on this
> > topic.
>
> Alex:
> You should be more careful before applying cliches then. :-)
>
No need to apply cliches when communication will do.
> >>
> >> >> I just wanted you to come out and say it,
> >>
> >> Alex:
> >> Doesn't take much. Just start a conversation about pedophilia with me
and out
> >> it comes all by itself. Let me repeat it: "I disdain some of the
demands of
> >> some of the common man."
> >
> > Ah, but let us not equivocate away the frame of reference of your
> > quote. We'd hate to take it out of context, wouldn't we?
>
> Alex:
> Ah ah. You should not leave unmentioned that in the post from which this
quote
> comes I have repeatedly made reference to child **** as one of the
examples.
> But you did that above - and that can only mean one thing: you have been
> deliberately trying to take my words of context so that they appear to
mean
> something different than what they were intended to mean. That is, you
have
> been relying on *rhetorical tricks* to make your case.
>
So you are trying to justify the statement as holding it's relevance
to discussion in previous paragraphs, but not to what it was in
specific reply to. That is rich. Nevertheless, the point still stands,
even if you erase the specific frame of reference.
>
> > I spoke of
> > the disdain for the rights of the common man inherent within making
> > decisions for him. To which you made your admission of disdain.
>
> Alex:
> Ah ah. Where did I specifically say that this is what I am referring to
as
> opposed to the numerous mentions of child ****ography in the original
post.
>
In your specific response to my illustration of your disdain for the
right of choice.
> Let me summarize it again for you: you have been praising the wonderful
> mechanisms of the market, the wonderful meeting of supply-and-demand. I
have
> been pointing out that I don't want certain supplies and demands to meet
and
If I may interject, where there is a demand, there will be a supply,
no matter what you do. That being said, there is a foolish approach to
the restriction of some demands, and a smart approach. The foolish
supply is to try to build obstacles in the way of the supply meeting
the demand. This never works, and only increases the price (and
incentive) of the good/service when it meets it's demand. Rather, the
better way is to work *with* the system and create a greater demand
counter to that of what you wish to oppose. Then, whilst also building
obstacles, you more im****tantly sap away from the milk of incentive
for the provision of supply to these undesirable demands. The only
trick is convincing enough people to demand the same thing, which in
the case of Child **** should be easy, but in the case of marijuana
may not be.
> *snip*(*****ing and moaning)*snip*
> > The
> > crux being that your statement is in direct reference to the
> > unsuitability of people to choose what is best for themselves.
>
> Alex:
> Yeah,
Ok, so we have an agreement, followed by:
> like a child-molesting pedophile. Nor do I think that Germans 70, 80
> years ago knew what was best for themselves.
A couple of loaded anecdotes. Still, it works for me. Proceed...
> It's simply *stupid* to assume
> that people are free of ignorance.
Y'know, I agree. It is 'stupid' to assume that mankind are free of
ignorance. However, it is also 'essential'. It works on much the same
lines of the principle of innocence (wherein one is presumed innocent
until proven guilty). This idea is also 'stupid' in that not everyone
who ends up in court are innocent. In fact, most of them are guilty.
But the idea is, that in the name of freedom, it is far better to let
a guilty man go free than to let an innocent man go to jail. The same
goes for all freedoms and rights. People must be afforded more respect
than they quite frankly deserve, for the sake of freedom itself.
People must be assumed responsible until they prove themselves
ignorant, then action can be taken. But to make decisions for people,
on the presumption that they are mostly, or probably ignorant is
tyranny in it's basest form.
> History shows a certain learning cruve in
> Mankind. And yes, from the Holocaust Germans eventually learnt to value
the
> peace and freedom. But somethings are better learnt through
contemplation
> rather than by painful experience. This indeed goes beyond that and
includes
> the mechanisms of the market economy. Sure it might be possible that an
> equilibrium gets established at some point. If Hitler had won, chances
are that
> Germans would have eventually woken up to his madness too.
>
> The question is if any Jews would have been left in the meantime.
Actually, the question is whether hitler would have been able to do
any of the aforementioned crap without the means to breach the rights
of others (namely the government, the sole legitimate monopoly on
force). In a decentralised market, keyed towards the goals of specific
consumers individually, persecution does not happen. In order for the
systematic persecution of a select demographic people would have to
simultaneously rise up against this demographic, and demand their
specific persecution over their own interests. It just doesn't happen.
Even in the heavily anti-semitic setting of pre-WWII germany, people
are more interested in themselves than they are the elimination of a
disliked race. It takes a charasmatic and powerful man to effect such
measures. It also takes a government to forcibly provide the means to
which the measure can be effected, at the consent of the people or
not.
>
> > In an
> > attempt to weave in an 'emergency exit' disclaimer, you included the
> > word 'some'.
>
> Alex:
> That's an unsubstantiated assumption of yours. Namely that I have woven
in an
> emergency exit and that what I have said wasn't instead a precise
expression
> of my thoughts on the subject. :-) I fear you will have to by what I
express
> as my opinion unless I say otherwise. If you don't, whatever you say
about
> you think I am expressing will have to be regarded as unsubstantiated
> speculation, especially if I clearly state that you have got it wrong.
:-)
>
Yes yes, a terrible shame, somebody is interpreting the words you
communicate with. Whatever shall we do. Let us not forget the fact
that, especially in the context of debate, the words and explanations
thereupon of and by and individual are heavily laden with strategy and
motivation. Not to suggest you intentionally left that out.
> > A dire mistake.
>
> Alex:
> I can't spot anything dire outside of your claims. :-)
>
Patience.
> > For, whilst definitely giving you more
> > flexibility for later spin, it also posits an inflexible commitment to
> > subjectivist elitism. To sup****t 'some' demands of 'some' people
> > undeniable proposes a criteria to which people must measure before
> > being allowed the fundamental human right of choice.
>
> Alex:
> That's right. That criteria could be for example called "the law". :-) I
don't
> grant pedophiles the human right of choosing to abuse children.
Oh Alex, you and your loaded examples. It's ok, I can work with this
(having a postion based on logic means I can work with even the most
emotive cases). First of all, the Law (something I frequently dispute
with) most often does not punish choice, but rather action, in
providing a consequence there of. A subtle but im****tant distinction.
You could not punish a pedophile who had 'chosen' to abuse a child,
but had not yet done so. Next up, as noted, choosing to do anything
isn't and shouldn't be illegal in and of itself. However, that
'something' itself may be very illegal. Let us take your example of
child abuse. To abuse a child is to violate their own rights. That is
illegal and unacceptable. Simple enough.
> At least not
> without the fear of consequences.
Thats right, consequence for action. Not choice.
> Why? Because I say so. Anybody who does
> that or who acts in defense of such acts is risking life and limb. No
> negotiations possible. If you interested in such I have two advices for
you,
> don't get caught and get armed. :-)
Yes, well as noted, I defend not the acts of individuals, but their
freedom to choose their acts, facing the full consequences (or lack
thereof) facing the act or attempt thereof. Pre-emptive restriction of
rights is tyranny.
>
> > Rights are a funny thing, Alex. You see, they are of no value
> > whatsoever unless they are applied indiscriminately, (without conflict
> > to themsleves).
>
> Alex:
> Yeah but rights can collide. That's why you have a juidicial system
among
> other things. Judges determine whose rights supersede in such a clash of
> rights. As I have said: your understanding of economics is better than
that
> of politics or society as a whole.
No, rights can't collide. Allow me to refine, 'negative rights' can't
collide, and form all fundamental human rights. 'Postive rights'
aren't even rights, but rather political tools named as such for the
power invested within the word 'right'. It makes your arguement seem
more inviolable than it is. Negative rights are basically limited to
the self. Positive rights require something from others. Negative
rights cannot clash with each other. Postive rights can and often do
clash with each other, and negative rights. I believe positive
'rights' should be eschewed, and do not sup****t them whatsoever.
I would have expected somebody with such an expansive understanding of
politics and society to have known that.
>
> > Either everybody has the same rights, or nobody does.
>
> Alex:
> Again: you have a habit of stating that which is obvious to everyone as
if it
> was something deep and profound that only you have discovered. :-)
>
Well apparently it isn't as obvious as you think, seeing you yourself
have attempted to draw distinctions and prerequisites of subjective
judgment for the allocation and provision of fundamental rights. Or
perhaps you simply overlooked this fact to launch an hopeless and
juvenile attack on the basis of my statement. It just so happens, the
straightforward and simplistic manner in which I lay out base truths
is a combative measure against your slippery manner of argumentative
spin. It keeps the debate grounded to reality, and prevents it from
getting tossed away in the vast and ominous sea of BS beating it's
waves against my lighthouse of logic every time you post.
> > Anything else does not qualify as a right, but is instead, a
> > privilege. Now whether or not rights are as worthwhile as we are told
> > is another argument altogether. Nevertheless, the entire point of my
> > emphasis on your admission is your open opinion of choice and self-
> > determination to be privileges, not rights.
>
> Alex:
> Rights within certain bounds. As with cla****ng interests, cla****ng
rights
> have to be resolved. For the former you have politics, for the latter
you
> have courts.
>
See, again, this is where you have gotten confused. Negative rights
have no bounds. You either have them, or you do not. A negative right
with a bound, is actually a lack of that right, supplanted with a
privilege with bounds. Take free speech, a classic negative right. You
either have free speech, or you do not. You cannot have free speech
with bounds, because then it isn't free. Instead, you *do not* have
free speech, but rather have the privilege of speaking freely within
set bounds. You cannot scale negative rights. Positive rights you can
scale, and set bounds to, but this is because they are not rights at
all, but rather political tools of validity.
> >>
> >> >> rather than
> >> >> posing as some champion of the common man,
> >>
> >> Alex:
> >> Nowhere did I do that. However what I said above doesn't contradict
being a
> >> champion of the common man either. I said: "I disdain some of the
demands of
> >> some of the common man." I also gave an example: pedophilia. Now you
have two
> >> choices: either you lend your sup****t to the cause of pedophiles or
you have
> >> to face the accusation that your words are being an actual
mischaracterization
> >> of my words. :-)
> >>
> > Ouch, the false dichotomy/fallacy of association one-two combo. *duck,
> > dodge* I lend my sup****t to the status of freedom of choice and self-
> > determination as a fundamental right. Yes, even to pedophiles, nazis,
> > commies, gingers, and the french. You see, the freedom to decide what
> > is good for oneself, as I propose, is a negative right. Wanting to
> > insert your ***** into the fresh young buttocks of a 6 year old boy
> > may be disgusting, but it violates no rights of anyone else.
>
> Alex:
> Not even the right of the 6 year old boy who is screaming and wailing
because
> he doesn't know what is happening is scared and hurt?
Did you actually make the mistake of misinterpreting that, or did you
make the mistake of forming an argument on that blatant
misinterpretation? No 6 year old boy is hurt by a dirty old man
*wanting* to do disgusting things to their buttocks, just as no 6 year
old boy has his buttocks violated by a dirty old man *thinking* about
such. When a dirty old man, however, actually violates a child, he
violates that child's rights, an inexcusable offence to both the
child, and society.
> Like I have said: if
> you stand up for that, prepare to be subjected to repercussions. In case
you
> didn't notice most people agree that such behaviour (child abuse) is
> intolerable and needs to be severely punished. Should I ever have any
solid
> proof that you're involved in such acts or that you are an accomplice in
such
> acts, you're freedom/physical safety is in grave danger. I know people
who
> have been abused as child and I have no mercy on people who engage in
such.
>
> If that is where you are at, you may consider this a threat, not a
warning.
> :-)
I tremble in fear at your hyper-masculine protection/vigilante
complex, purposefully misdirected in a dazzling feat of a simultaneous
character attack and attempt at intimidation. In reality, all you are
doing is cheapening your genuine commitment to the opposition of child
abuse by wantonly twisting it suit irrelevant arguments.
>
> > The same
> > goes for perception of the jews as an inferior race, wanting to get
> > something for nothing, having orange hair and freckles, and wearing a
> > stupid hat.
>
> Alex:
> Yeah people like you can only think in terms of high and mighty
principles,
> in terms of black and white, forever doomed of being incapable of
> *differentiatng* between harmless self-expression and self-expression
that
> is linked via a chain of cause-and-effect to the suffering of others,
thereby
> infringing their rights.
Ok, now we get to the kernel. Can otherwise inalienable negative
rights be scaled back due to a perceived chain of cause and effect?
Should I have free speech, if the words that I say could incite
religious hate on the other side of the world? Should have I have
freedom of though if the thoughts that I think could develop into
dangerous consequences for the public good? Should I have my property
rights stripped in case I use them to buy a computer and hack the
government website? Should I have my freedom of choice taken back if
the choices I make could result in negative outcomes for others?
Or should we keep things simple, and respond only to actual
transgression, rather than the potential for transgression, or proto-
transgression.
>
> You don't understand the nature of law and democracy. :-)
>
Hahaha. I mock the nature of law and democracy, because I understand
it. Tell me about law and democracy, Alex, and we will see who holds
the misconceptions.
> > The fact is, one cannot champion the common man if you hold nothing
> > but the utmost disdain for his ability to discern and choose what is
> > best for himself.
>
> Alex:
> According to your theory.
>
Yes, accordin to my theory, which you still haven't gotten around to
addressing or attacking, busying yourself with baseless attacks on my
character, pathetic misguided threats, and irrelevant rambling and
whining on yourself and your reactions to my 'implications'. Argue, or
go home. Don't just squirm.
> > That, my friend, is oppression
>
> Alex:
> You err. Hat is weighing the rights of different people against each
other and
> coming to a sane conclusion instead of chasing after high and nighty
principles
> to satisfy one's ego for having understood such high-and-mighty
principles.
> Which is the whole purpose of the exercise, no?
You know what? I could explain the reasons I value rights as 'high and
mighty principles' in an ineffective attempt to offset your
distraction of the argument to my features and motivations. But that
would just be playing into your red herring. Remember, attack the
argument, not the man. To launch an assault of the man behind the
argument only indicates your lack of confidence in your own argument,
weakening it, effectively.
> You're talking about being
> champion of the common because you're involved in trying to be a
champion of
> your own vanity. And you are trying to exploit the causes of the common
man to
> that end - their cause is only means to an end to you, no? A vehicle to
> satisfy your vanity, eh? :-)
Actually, 'champion of the common man' is only something I attributed
to you, as the themes of the economic left are often dominated by this
pluralistic concept of altruism. It is a point of irony I enjoy to
play, in that the left, dominated with a veneer of altruism and
pluralism is at it's core selfish, meanwhile the right, dominated with
a veneer of selfishness, but at it's core is pluralistic.
Again, I won't even bother addressing your psuedo-psychological
*****sments, having identified them as red herrings, designed to
distract from the weakness of your argument to the irrelevance of my
psychological condition and motives. You should know, Alex, the
motivations behind my argument shouldn't matter if I am in fact
wrong. ;)
>
> > (Not trying to be
> > facetious, I am actually starting to like you).
>
> Alex:
> I can't return that favor though. :-)
>
I didn't expect so. Nevertheless, I am still enjoying myself in this
exchange. Perhaps especially because of you.
> > Instead, you want to
> > tell him what is good for him, and what is bad for him. What he wants,
> > and doesn't want. All you have to do is listen, and he will tell you
> > what he wants himself.
>
> Alex:
> No, I am expressing my opinion which is one of many voices in a
pluralistic
> society. If you'd care to nice: the common man doesn't speak with one
voice
> to begin with. There are many conflicting demand, interests and rights
which
> are constantly wrestling with each other in the real world
Right, and as such, the only system that can accomodate them all is a
decentralised one hinjed upon the individual, rather than an aggregate
system built on the interests of a political party and their
benefactors, in a one-size fits all fa****on.
> (beyond your pretty
> much useless theories which do not apply to real life).
Again, if you want to sling insults, back them up with reason. In what
way are my theories useless, in what what do they not apply to real
life. I know you may find me explaining the principles of argument
patronising, but I feel guilty with how easy you are making this.
>
> >> >> when you only serve to
> >> >> domesticate him to your demeaning agenda. All leftists have
nothing
> >> >> but the sincerest disdain for the common man, realised or not.
> >>
> >> Alex:
> >> Given that I have voted the CDU (even for a CSU candidate) in the
last two
> >> national elections, your accusations of being leftist is pretty
baseless.
> >
> > I care not for which puppet of statism and oppression you 'choose'.
>
> Alex:
> Oh, you don't have to. How relevant your voice is in the midst of all
this, or
> even the outlook on economy, politics, society you take a stand for is
yet to
> be determined. :-)
What?
>
> > Rather, I base your economic 'leftism' on you disdain for economic
> > freedom as a whole, and specifically that of choice.
>
> Alex:
> That would be a mistake though. My economic disdain is based on the fact
that
> some people have become so rich that they don't know what to do with
their
> money while others are starving in the meantime. Or that football
players
> earn a mani-, manifold in a year of what an honest garbageman might earn
in
> his whole life in spite of doing good, honest, hard work. This gap in
income
> is solely due to the free play of supply-and-demand and I think that it
is
> a gap that needs to be artificially closed by politics (through
taxation) if
> necessary.
Yes, but the market (i.e. the people) does not. If people want to pay
more for the discordant rappings of snoop dogg than for the loyal
duties of thier garbage man, then that is a product of demand and
supply. It means that the outstanding skills of David Beckham are
worth more to people than the satisfactory cleanliness of their
apartment foyer. Your disillusionment with capitalism is misguided. It
is not the market which creates such inequality. The market creates
nothing. It is just a tool, an enabler. Rather, the true culprit is
society, people, the public. These are the ones who, through the
market, create everything to be as it is. Now, does that mean that you
should take away the instrument which for the first time in history
given them true power, or does it mean you should try to convince them
of the error of their ways whilst leaving their power in tact. One
option would be a massive regression, the other an unprecedented
progression.
> And it is by no means certain but yes a possibility that at one point a
> majority of people might wake up and simply stop watching football or
buying
> Microsoft products to correct a situation. However that is a very slow
> response and who knows how many will have starved in the meantime.
Therefore
> there needs to be intervention of responsible politicians in time to
prevent
> such from happening.
>
Well, just hold on there, in all of it's dcadent success, the market
actually combats poverty too, in something called 'trickledown'. Think
on this, would you rather be a bus driver in America, or a bus driver
in Egypt? Would you prefer to be a garbage man in Australia, or a
garbage man in Somalia. As the upper echelons of the capitalist
demographic reach insane levels of wealth, their wealth 'trickles
down' to create a minimum ration of economic development in the lower
echelons. This minimum rate of development is still substantial, and
much better than any other system historically put forward. So, to be
a poor person in capitalism is better to be a poor person anywhere
else, and to be a rich person in capitalism is inconceivably better
than anywhere else. Good for poor people, better for the rich.
> And if you're interest is one of the free play and free expression, you
can
> go and argue for that. The democracy I am living in allows for that. But
I
> predict that you are going to experience that there will be the
interests of
> some common men cla****ng with yours. You're free to make your case and
have
> your view prevail in democratic elections. I would also prepare for
> disappointment if I was you in that case. :-)
>
**** elections, democracy is the biggest joke of illusionary choice in
history. I do not want to hijack the government and forcibly impose my
will on others (remember, the government is just a monopolising tool
of force). Rather, I shall sit back and watch it all unfold as the
governments of the world unravel at the seams. Market anarchy is
something I expect to simply happen, gradually. I've looked at it, and
realised that it is the next step. I'm not sure how long it will take,
but I am reasonable sure that it follows the current situation.
>
> >> It's just that you have glorified your own perception of market
economy as a
> >> vehicle to boost your own ego, ie it leads to you backpatting
yourself for
> >> being so clever for having discerned the alleged grandness of the
market
> >> economy.
> >>
> > Nice sentence.
>
> Alex:
> Nice evaluation in order to insinuate a superior positioning, as if you
was
> teacher and I was pupil or something like that. I fear such rhetorical
tricks
> are going to not help your case in the long run. :-)
>
Yes, counter-patronisation burns, no?
> > Well written and everything, but it just doesn't follow
> > from any previous point made.
>
> Alex:
> It follows the contents of your posts in here *overall*. It is the
essence of
> your posting here, thus a vary valid point to give rise too. More than
> anything else we've been talking about otherwise as it is the engine
behind
> this conversation from your side. It's what drives you here. :-)
>
Again, I have already explained my position of irrelevant speculation
on the motivations behind my argument. If I am wrong, you will need no
red herrings to prove me so. Why resort to subjective analysis of my
own and your motivations? Even if I was as childish and simple as you
posit, what impact would that have on the validity of my argument?
> > It is actually a prime example of a
> > baseless accusation.
>
> Alex:
> It's not baseless at all. You have been using certain words to describe
the
> market mechanisms which one can lead one only to classify it as
glorification.
> Now since there is much suffering being caused through the very same
market
> mechanisms,
Through, not by. The key being the humans using it. Misery will follow
our race whatever system it uses, wherever it goes.
> the question then is why someone would prefer to overlook that
> and still paint the market the way you did. The logical conclusion
following
> that is that something personal must be at stake. And what could that
be? Well,
> if the market was indeed perceiced by more people the way you ****tray it
here,
> it would be logical to conclude that this would increase your status in
those
> people's eyes for having recognized it before them, for being a
protagonist.
>
Again, red herring, irrelevant to the strength or validity of my
argument. It shouldn't matter if I was arguing to win a wager with the
devil for my soul. It shouldn't matter if forming fallacious
arguments is how I source my sustenance, feeding my undead soul. I
don't matter. We are not talking about me. We are engaging in debate,
so why don't you get back on track? Unless you feel you are not in
good standing...
> This is what I think to be the case. Just ask for my reasons for
claiming
> something about you, I can tell you. :-)
>
I don't care for your pseudo-psychological analysis. I am here in a
debate, either prove my points wrong, or relinquish and forfeit. Red
herrings, while tasty, are not food for thought. Red herrings, while
slippery, will not help you squirm out of an argument you may think
you can't win. Ironically, this has seemed to become about a perceived
loss of face in the face of a very strong arguement. Projection is a
funny thing.
> > Perhaps there is a base, perhaps not, but you
> > certainly haven't tied anything to this conclusion.
>
> Alex:
> Well, that's what happens in a dialogue. You can't seriously expect
everything
> to be said at once. People get clarified further and further through
exchange
> of thoughts.
>
This is a debate. If you want to make a point, you must reference it
with reason, logic, or evidence.
> > Anyhow, getting
> > back to it, I criticise you as a leftist not due to my love affair
> > with the market economy, but instead due to (a) your status as a
> > leftists,
>
> Alex:
> Lol, where do you derive that one from?
Your economic disposition against the expansion of economic freedoms.
Left.
>
> > (b) my dislike for leftism and it's implications regarding
> > economic freedom, personal freedom, and preferences toward heavy
> > statism,
>
> Alex:
> I have been leftist green party-sympathisizer in the 90s. Since the turn
I am
> no longer part of that crowd and indeed I have my own disdain for parts
of
> the leftist crowd, especially the fa****on-pacifist. You're application
of
> stereotyping to me is blind and unwarranted.
>
I never said who you vote for, or the specific degrees to which you
are and are not a leftist. I know you aren't the strongest leftist I
have ever met. You dislike the market, without rejecting it
altogether. The point is, my labelling you as left, based upon the
economic postions you have put forward is not a stereotype, it is an
observation. You are just used to being stereotyped as a leftist by
other idiots. For me to be applying a stereotype I would have to be
putting forward other un-referenced assumptions about you or your
argument (e.g. "You leftist, I bet you only wear hemp"). Rather you
have laid out your ideas, and I have identified them as being left.
Just like you could observe that I am somewhat 'right', economically.
However, to then describe me as vain, self-aggrandising, or shallow
would be stereotyping (as per the largely true stereotype regarding
simplistic rightists).
> > (c) This is an arguement, and I feel obliged to criticise you
> > position (what can I say?).
>
> Alex:
> I can tell you: "I have been wrong, I apologize, I will withdraw now and
> contemplate our exchange." That would be most preferrable.
>
There are no needs for apologies in debate, we are merely aggressively
exchanging ideas. I am not upset, are you?
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > The marketplace has obviously its place - of making supply and
demand meet.
> >> >> > Where the marketplace needs to be regulated however - there will
be
> >> >> > regulations, even if that means that some demands will not be
met, as is
> >> >> > inevitable. :-)
> >>
> >> >> The arguement is all but over for me, now. I have said what I
wanted
> >> >> to say, and shown what I wanted to show.
> >>
> >> >> Just one more time before I leave:
> >> >> >I disdain some of the demands of some of the common man. Very
much so.
> >>
> >> >> Take care now.
> >>
> >> Alex:
> >> As you can see: I have no problem with your repeating what I have
said as I
> >> stand to it and can explain it. I'd only have a problem if you tried
to make
> >> it look like to say something different from what it was actually
supposed to
> >> say. :-)
> >>
> > Said the pot to the kettle. Seriously, in context, your remark
> > responded to the freedom of choice.
>
> AleX:
> No, this is how you choose to interpret it in spite of my saying
otherwise
> because you hope it will give you leverage in criticizing me. :-)
>
Yes, I chose to interpret something you said to be relevant to what it
was in reply to. Not so much to criticise you, I care not for
criticising you, but to show some inconsistencies and flaws in your
position and argument.
> > Now you talk of pedophilia.
>
> Alex:
> You want to count how many times I have been talking about child **** in
the
> aforementioned post of mine?
>
Oh I know, you have been clinging to loaded examples, which I have
allowed, because my point holds true in light of any examples, loaded
or not.
> > Anyhow, there does not seem to be too much disagreement here. Well,
> > there shouldn't be. As both a statist and a leftist,
>
> Alex:
> Lol!
>
Yes, leftist (someone who is economically left) and statist (someone
who sup****ts the existence or empowerment of the state). You have
posited both thus far in our exchange.
> > you should be
> > quite comfortable with comprimising the rights of the individual for
> > the sake of the interests of the state (and those that define it). As
> > such, there should really be no arguement. I sup****t the freedom of
> > the individual, you sup****t the supremacy of your idealogy. You can't
> > have both, as your ideaology infringes upon the rights of the
> > individual. Now, admittedly, I was a little vivid in my depiction of
> > you as some kind of hypocrite. It doesn't have to be that way. Should
> > you simply maintain that rights are immaterial in light of a
> > subjectively state-determined 'greater good',
>
> Alex:
> That is the problem I am having: your state-determined is actually
something
> that is being agreed to by an overwhelming majority of the common man.
It's
> like - you can't drive in traffic in old way it pleases you. That is
bound to
> end up in disaster.
Pardon me, I did understand your paragraph. Could you please rephrase?
>
> What you don't get is: with freedom comes *responsibility*. There's two
kinds
> of enemies to freedom:
> 1) Those who want dispose of it for self-gain, ie Hitler, Stalin,
Saddam, etc.
> 2) Those who don't want to impose a dictator****p of self-interest but
who make
> use of their personal freedom without caring about what consequences it
might
> have for others. People who go too far, people who don't know where to
stop.
>
> And you can't have responsibility without actually holding people
accountable,
> which is what law-enforcement and courts are all about.
>
Right, so here you are talking about the *responsible* restriction of
freedoms. That is fine, many people would agree with you. I don't.
Nevertheless, if you just maintain this as core to your argument,
there is no internal contradiction. Don't feel obliged to respect
freedom and rights just because populist ethics demand it.
> > then there is no
> > hypocrisy whatsoever. In fact these are the leftists I respect. The
> > ones who can drop the charade and show their true colours. It reminds
> > me of the homeless guy I see on the way to work with a sign that reads
> > 'Need money for booze'.
> >
> > Anyhow, it's not like 'rights' are some objective gold-plated standard
> > of divinity. They are just another BS concept whipped up by the
> > renaissance. It just so happens that I sup****t them due to their high
> > conduciveness to a decentralised individual-based economy. The two
> > just click. Rights really only get in the way of organisational and
> > hierarchical systems (usually to be tossed away, with the false
> > impression of the continued presence casted by those who eliminated
> > them in the first place).
> >> --
> >> Waiting for you to return.
> >> --
> >> To email me, please have 'alt.suicide.holiday' as the subject line.
> >
>
> --
> Waiting for you to return.
> --
> To email me, please have 'alt.suicide.holiday' as the subject line.
Take care now, Alex.
|
