I doubt anyone here actually thinks SJC supports these kinds of ID cards. It definitely smacks of totalitarian control tactics, one of many that the current US administration would like in place...some of which are already in place unfortunately.
Aside from the fact that sjc is a totalitarian on so many issues that any issue he isn't one on is an abberation ...
If you were to call the national ID card a "Universal Health Care Access Card" he'd be all over it like stink on shit.
I doubt anyone here actually thinks SJC supports these kinds of ID cards. It definitely smacks of totalitarian control tactics, one of many that the current US administration would like in place...some of which are already in place unfortunately.
Aside from the fact that sjc is a totalitarian on so many issues that any issue he isn't one on is an abberation ...
If you were to call the national ID card a "Universal Health Care Access Card" he'd be all over it like stink on shit.
Touche.
kmisho Grand Poster
Joined: Dec 06, 2005
Posts: 1678
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted:
Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:24 am
offsprng46 wrote:
kmisho wrote:
The rudeness is mutual. It unfortunately strikes me more as a game both sides are playing.
My goal is discussion and argument, but also to convince others of the benefits of a liberal society. Consistently showing how he (SJC) has no argument beyond empty rhetoric and insults works toward that end.
Interesting you should say that since SJC is also a liberal, and so am I.
And as someone who sees things very similarly to SJC, i understand the schtick from the inside. He's very good at cutting through the bullshit and going for the jugular. I think we need more like him!
kmisho wrote:
Quote:
But he and I see things very similarly. The main difference between him and me as far as I see is that he stomachs the trash-talk more than I care to.
Although usually fraught with basic errors of economics, you actually do make arguments, unlike SJC who simply insults anyone evil and uncaring enough to question his beliefs, and then runs away.
I think these supposed errors of economics are very dubious. As I see it, economic theory is usually an Orwellian apparatus for the kind of oligarchic control we all want to avoid.
kmisho wrote:
I doubt anyone here actually thinks SJC supports these kinds of ID cards. It definitely smacks of totalitarian control tactics,
Like virtually all of the policies you and he advocate. As Hayek said: "A claim for a position of material equality can only be met by a government with totalitarian powers."[/quote]
I agree with Hayek, so the extent that humanity is scum. That is why I consider your, and knight's, and some others' outlook to be fundamentally, inherently, and basically cynical.
I also make no communistic claims of thinking we should be materially equal on a grand scale. That's completely stupid. A concert pianist needs a piano. Someone who does not play the piano does not. So to give the non-musician a piano just because someone who can put one to good use has one is stupid. But I don't see how this rules out, just as an example, having a public venue with pianos that anyone can play. The only thing I advocate, and think is acheivable, is a minimum level of civilization that could be made avaliable to everyone...if we dared to set aside our apish pettiness and selfishness. Unfortunately, humanity as a whole is on about the same level as the marmoset. We did just climb down from the trees a few years ago and it still shows. I hope all we need is time to progress. Until then, I will defend a vision of a higher level of society for all until it actually becomes achievable not just physically but sociologically, which will certainly be long after I die. But I still believe we have the ability to achieve what I envision right now as we speak. We just lack the desire, because we're still fond of our monkey-brains. But until we have the desire, dog-eat-dog capitalism will have to suffice.
In general, I think atheists have very high standards as far as what they think society can achieve. We may merely have differences on what achievements should be on the list.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:35 am
kmisho wrote:
The rudeness is mutual. It unfortunately strikes me more as a game both sides are playing.
offsprng46 wrote:
My goal is discussion and argument, but also to convince others of the benefits of a liberal society. Consistently showing how he (SJC) has no argument beyond empty rhetoric and insults works toward that end.
kmisho wrote:
Interesting you should say that since SJC is also a liberal, and so am I.
And as someone who sees things very similarly to SJC, i understand the schtick from the inside. He's very good at cutting through the bullshit and going for the jugular.
If by that you mean "making blatant assertions and insulting anyone who dares to disagree with him or ask him to back his claims", then you're correct.
kmisho wrote:
But he and I see things very similarly. The main difference between him and me as far as I see is that he stomachs the trash-talk more than I care to.
offsprng46 wrote:
Although usually fraught with basic errors of economics, you actually do make arguments, unlike SJC who simply insults anyone evil and uncaring enough to question his beliefs, and then runs away.
kmisho wrote:
I think these supposed errors of economics are very dubious. As I see it, economic theory is usually an Orwellian apparatus for the kind of oligarchic control we all want to avoid.
You sound an awful lot like those women who think logic is just a tool of Europhallocentrism. In fact, there's no difference between your hysterical nonsense and theirs.
kmisho wrote:
I doubt anyone here actually thinks SJC supports these kinds of ID cards. It definitely smacks of totalitarian control tactics,
offsprng46 wrote:
Like virtually all of the policies you and he advocate. As Hayek said: "A claim for a position of material equality can only be met by a government with totalitarian powers."
kmisho wrote:
I agree with Hayek, so the extent that humanity is scum.
Hayek never intimated that.
kmisho wrote:
That is why I consider your, and knight's, and some others' outlook to be fundamentally, inherently, and basically cynical.
As opposed to your outlook that humans won't help each other unless the government forces them to.
kmisho wrote:
I also make no communistic claims of thinking we should be materially equal on a grand scale. That's completely stupid. A concert pianist needs a piano. Someone who does not play the piano does not. So to give the non-musician a piano just because someone who can put one to good use has one is stupid. But I don't see how this rules out, just as an example, having a public venue with pianos that anyone can play.
It doesn't insofar as those pianos were not acquired by forcing some to give up their property, i.e. taxed.
kmisho wrote:
The only thing I advocate, and think is acheivable, is a minimum level of civilization that could be made avaliable to everyone...if we dared to set aside our apish pettiness and selfishness.
The rudeness is mutual. It unfortunately strikes me more as a game both sides are playing.
My goal is discussion and argument, but also to convince others of the benefits of a liberal society. Consistently showing how he (SJC) has no argument beyond empty rhetoric and insults works toward that end.
Interesting you should say that since SJC is also a liberal, and so am I.
And as someone who sees things very similarly to SJC, i understand the schtick from the inside. He's very good at cutting through the bullshit and going for the jugular. I think we need more like him!
If by "going for the jugular" you mean "not making any logical arguments whatever, and ad-homing anyone who disagrees," then yes.
kmisho wrote:
offsprng46 wrote:
Quote:
But he and I see things very similarly. The main difference between him and me as far as I see is that he stomachs the trash-talk more than I care to.
Although usually fraught with basic errors of economics, you actually do make arguments, unlike SJC who simply insults anyone evil and uncaring enough to question his beliefs, and then runs away.
I think these supposed errors of economics are very dubious. As I see it, economic theory is usually an Orwellian apparatus for the kind of oligarchic control we all want to avoid.
And the evidence for that is?
I would actually partially agree with that (i.e., statist "economists" who constantly advocate government force to address "spillover benefits" and the like), but not in the way you meant it.
kmisho wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
I doubt anyone here actually thinks SJC supports these kinds of ID cards. It definitely smacks of totalitarian control tactics,
Like virtually all of the policies you and he advocate. As Hayek said: "A claim for a position of material equality can only be met by a government with totalitarian powers."
I agree with Hayek, so the extent that humanity is scum. That is why I consider your, and knight's, and some others' outlook to be fundamentally, inherently, and basically cynical.
Collectivism is far more cynical than liberalism.
kmisho wrote:
I also make no communistic claims of thinking we should be materially equal on a grand scale. That's completely stupid. A concert pianist needs a piano. Someone who does not play the piano does not. So to give the non-musician a piano just because someone who can put one to good use has one is stupid.
According to what standard? Who's to say who "needs" something and who doesn't? That is the fundamental problem with collectivist thinking.
kmisho wrote:
But I don't see how this rules out, just as an example, having a public venue with pianos that anyone can play.
Who's to say that can't be provided privately? How do you justify expropriating wealth from those that have no desire to play the piano to give to those that do? Shouldn't the ones who want to play be the ones paying?
Further, how many pianos should be available? At what times, and to whom should they be available to? You see, there is no way to rationally answer these questions without the free interaction of the market. Anything else is just the arbitrary whim of whomever is allocating the resources.
kmisho wrote:
The only thing I advocate, and think is acheivable, is a minimum level of civilization that could be made avaliable to everyone...if we dared to set aside our apish pettiness and selfishness.
Indeed. If history teaches us anything, it's that civilization and private property (the opposite of the collectivism you advocate) are inexorably linked.
kmisho wrote:
Unfortunately, humanity as a whole is on about the same level as the marmoset. We did just climb down from the trees a few years ago and it still shows. I hope all we need is time to progress. Until then, I will defend a vision of a higher level of society for all until it actually becomes achievable not just physically but sociologically, which will certainly be long after I die. But I still believe we have the ability to achieve what I envision right now as we speak. We just lack the desire, because we're still fond of our monkey-brains. But until we have the desire, dog-eat-dog capitalism will have to suffice.
Ah, the old "New Socialist Man" bullshit.
kmisho Grand Poster
Joined: Dec 06, 2005
Posts: 1678
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted:
Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:55 am
offsprng46 wrote:
Quote:
Interesting you should say that since SJC is also a liberal, and so am I.
And as someone who sees things very similarly to SJC, i understand the schtick from the inside. He's very good at cutting through the bullshit and going for the jugular. I think we need more like him!
If by "going for the jugular" you mean "not making any logical arguments whatever, and ad-homing anyone who disagrees," then yes.
I know you won't agree with me. Because by going for the jugular I mean cutting through the semantics behind which narcissistic agendas try to hide.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But he and I see things very similarly. The main difference between him and me as far as I see is that he stomachs the trash-talk more than I care to.
Although usually fraught with basic errors of economics, you actually do make arguments, unlike SJC who simply insults anyone evil and uncaring enough to question his beliefs, and then runs away.
I think these supposed errors of economics are very dubious. As I see it, economic theory is usually an Orwellian apparatus for the kind of oligarchic control we all want to avoid.
And the evidence for that is?
It would take a book to describe. It's always easy to take a necessarily abbreviated opinion from the internet and ask for evidence, thereby giving the illusion that you're winning the debate. As a teaser, though, I have problems with the basic concept of supply-and-demand.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I doubt anyone here actually thinks SJC supports these kinds of ID cards. It definitely smacks of totalitarian control tactics,
Like virtually all of the policies you and he advocate. As Hayek said: "A claim for a position of material equality can only be met by a government with totalitarian powers."
I agree with Hayek, so the extent that humanity is scum. That is why I consider your, and knight's, and some others' outlook to be fundamentally, inherently, and basically cynical.
Collectivism is far more cynical than liberalism.
Cooperation stemming from solidarity of a marginalized sector stemming from identification with similar plights is cynical? I'd call it, rather, humane and humanistic.
Quote:
Quote:
I also make no communistic claims of thinking we should be materially equal on a grand scale. That's completely stupid. A concert pianist needs a piano. Someone who does not play the piano does not. So to give the non-musician a piano just because someone who can put one to good use has one is stupid.
According to what standard? Who's to say who "needs" something and who doesn't? That is the fundamental problem with collectivist thinking.
If you want to argue a concert pianist does not "need" a piano, be my guest. Beyond this, food water shelter are needs, and in my "collectivist" view this makes them candidates for being inherent rights.
Quote:
Quote:
But I don't see how this rules out, just as an example, having a public venue with pianos that anyone can play.
Who's to say that can't be provided privately? How do you justify expropriating wealth from those that have no desire to play the piano to give to those that do? Shouldn't the ones who want to play be the ones paying
Further, how many pianos should be available? At what times, and to whom should they be available to? You see, there is no way to rationally answer these questions without the free interaction of the market. Anything else is just the arbitrary whim of whomever is allocating the resources.
I'd certainly be willing to experiment with private supply of such things. As it stands now, the richest give the least relative to what they have. This implies lots of things, but I'll leave it to you to figure them out.
The thing that amazes me about people like you (seem to be) is you seem to think some horrible ethical conundrum is created by, for example, the existence of public libraries and the solution therefore is to ban them for all eternity. It's a throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater mentality.
Quote:
Quote:
The only thing I advocate, and think is acheivable, is a minimum level of civilization that could be made avaliable to everyone...if we dared to set aside our apish pettiness and selfishness.
Indeed. If history teaches us anything, it's that civilization and private property (the opposite of the collectivism you advocate) are inexorably linked.
But it is not the ONLY component. Public works for the good of all paid for by the public are just as fundamental. This is why I see your view as shallow and one-sided. The one mistake about me you should not make is that I am one sided. This is not a Marx vs Rand debate, though you appear to keep trying to turn it into one.
Quote:
Quote:
Unfortunately, humanity as a whole is on about the same level as the marmoset. We did just climb down from the trees a few years ago and it still shows. I hope all we need is time to progress. Until then, I will defend a vision of a higher level of society for all until it actually becomes achievable not just physically but sociologically, which will certainly be long after I die. But I still believe we have the ability to achieve what I envision right now as we speak. We just lack the desire, because we're still fond of our monkey-brains. But until we have the desire, dog-eat-dog capitalism will have to suffice.
Ah, the old "New Socialist Man" bullshit.
There is your cynicism. We are apes and will remain apes. So we should shoot low since we're not capable of much.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:27 am
kmisho wrote:
Interesting you should say that since SJC is also a liberal, and so am I.
And as someone who sees things very similarly to SJC, i understand the schtick from the inside. He's very good at cutting through the bullshit and going for the jugular. I think we need more like him!
offsprng46 wrote:
If by "going for the jugular" you mean "not making any logical arguments whatever, and ad-homing anyone who disagrees," then yes.
kmisho wrote:
I know you won't agree with me. Because by going for the jugular I mean cutting through the semantics behind which narcissistic agendas try to hide.
IOW: logic is just a tool of Europhallocentric oppression.
kmisho wrote:
But he and I see things very similarly. The main difference between him and me as far as I see is that he stomachs the trash-talk more than I care to.
offsprng46 wrote:
Although usually fraught with basic errors of economics, you actually do make arguments, unlike SJC who simply insults anyone evil and uncaring enough to question his beliefs, and then runs away.
kmisho wrote:
I think these supposed errors of economics are very dubious. As I see it, economic theory is usually an Orwellian apparatus for the kind of oligarchic control we all want to avoid.
offsprng46 wrote:
And the evidence for that is?
kmisho wrote:
It would take a book to describe.
IOW: there isn't any evidence.
kmisho wrote:
It's always easy to take a necessarily abbreviated opinion from the internet and ask for evidence, thereby giving the illusion that you're winning the debate. As a teaser, though, I have problems with the basic concept of supply-and-demand.
That's not suprising, since you have no concept of what economics is.
kmisho wrote:
I doubt anyone here actually thinks SJC supports these kinds of ID cards. It definitely smacks of totalitarian control tactics,
offsprng46 wrote:
Like virtually all of the policies you and he advocate. As Hayek said: "A claim for a position of material equality can only be met by a government with totalitarian powers."
kmisho wrote:
I agree with Hayek, so the extent that humanity is scum. That is why I consider your, and knight's, and some others' outlook to be fundamentally, inherently, and basically cynical.
offsprng46 wrote:
Collectivism is far more cynical than liberalism.
kmisho wrote:
Cooperation stemming from solidarity of a marginalized sector stemming from identification with similar plights is cynical?
Marginalized sector? Bullshit! That's like the xers claiming about being oppressed in the US.
kmisho wrote:
I also make no communistic claims of thinking we should be materially equal on a grand scale. That's completely stupid. A concert pianist needs a piano. Someone who does not play the piano does not. So to give the non-musician a piano just because someone who can put one to good use has one is stupid.
offsprng46 wrote:
According to what standard? Who's to say who "needs" something and who doesn't? That is the fundamental problem with collectivist thinking.
kmisho wrote:
If you want to argue a concert pianist does not "need" a piano, be my guest. Beyond this, food water shelter are needs, and in my "collectivist" view this makes them candidates for being inherent rights.
That's nice. Now all you have to do is justify the expropriation. Think you can without delving into fallacies?
kmisho wrote:
But I don't see how this rules out, just as an example, having a public venue with pianos that anyone can play.
offsprng46 wrote:
Who's to say that can't be provided privately? How do you justify expropriating wealth from those that have no desire to play the piano to give to those that do? Shouldn't the ones who want to play be the ones paying
Further, how many pianos should be available? At what times, and to whom should they be available to? You see, there is no way to rationally answer these questions without the free interaction of the market. Anything else is just the arbitrary whim of whomever is allocating the resources.
kmisho wrote:
I'd certainly be willing to experiment with private supply of such things. As it stands now, the richest give the least relative to what they have.
Bullshit. The facts certainly prove you wrong.
kmisho wrote:
The thing that amazes me about people like you (seem to be) is you seem to think some horrible ethical conundrum is created by, for example, the existence of public libraries and the solution therefore is to ban them for all eternity.
Nice strawman. But then, you have nothing but fallacies and other sundry errors.
kmisho wrote:
The only thing I advocate, and think is acheivable, is a minimum level of civilization that could be made avaliable to everyone...if we dared to set aside our apish pettiness and selfishness.
offsprng46 wrote:
Indeed. If history teaches us anything, it's that civilization and private property (the opposite of the collectivism you advocate) are inexorably linked.
kmisho wrote:
But it is not the ONLY component. Public works for the good of all paid for by the public are just as fundamental.
Evidence?
kmisho wrote:
This is why I see your view as shallow and one-sided. The one mistake about me you should not make is that I am one sided.
But you are. There is no mistake about that.
kmisho wrote:
Unfortunately, humanity as a whole is on about the same level as the marmoset. We did just climb down from the trees a few years ago and it still shows. I hope all we need is time to progress. Until then, I will defend a vision of a higher level of society for all until it actually becomes achievable not just physically but sociologically, which will certainly be long after I die. But I still believe we have the ability to achieve what I envision right now as we speak. We just lack the desire, because we're still fond of our monkey-brains. But until we have the desire, dog-eat-dog capitalism will have to suffice.
offsprng46 wrote:
Ah, the old "New Socialist Man" bullshit.
kmisho wrote:
There is your cynicism. We are apes and will remain apes. So we should shoot low since we're not capable of much.
Talk about cynicism--your statement is the height of it.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 666
Posted:
Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:33 am
kmisho, just because you agree with someone's opinions doesn't mean that the someone makes good arguments, or even makes any arguments. You might want to consider that before you continue to support sjc.
On talk.origins, I often see creationists rushing to the defense of creationists, no matter how weak the original argument, since they're "on the same side".
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file