Safety or Liberty?

[BananaBob]

Safety or Liberty? Which option on this poll best describes you view?

[Lemur]

What part of "live free or die" is unclear?

[Ice]

Safety solely exists to ensure our freedom.

[CountArach]

Freedom, except to the point where your freedom starts to infringe on the safety of others.

[spmetla]

I think "pure freedom" would be anarchy and I do not support that. I also want little state interference in personal affairs, just enough to protect me from criminals, deter attack, safety from legal abuse, and some medical safety net. Too much would take too much of my money which I'd rather decide how to use.

[Mooks]

Freedom, except to the point where your freedom starts to infringe on the safety of others.


This man gots it completely right. Now if only the rest of america got it....

[CountArach]

This man gots it completely right. Now if only the rest of america got it....
Australia isn't America!

[Tribesman]

Australia isn't America!yet .

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

We're getting there though...:no:

Anyone else see Kevin Rudd's salute to George Bush? :thumbsdown: ... :laugh4:

I voted pretty much what Count Arach said. I mean I'm ridiculously egalitarean, some of the time. But without order there isn't society, so to function as a species we have to have some measure of control. If religion fufilled its purose then we'd be sorted. Sigh... without free will humanity would be sorted. :laugh4:

[CountArach]

yet .
We aren't in danger. We have no oil :2thumbsup:

[macsen rufus]

On topic:


Freedom, except to the point where your freedom starts to infringe on the safety of others.

:yes: There's a point where liberty ceases to be realizable without a certain degree of security. Complete liberty would mean no counter-measures against terrorism; total security would mean after-dark curfews for the entire population on pain of death...

Off topic:


We have no oil


But that's why you've got the UN to extend your territorial waters, isn't it? :clown:

[Fragony]

The liberty to take care of my own safety would be just wonderful, I take liberty.

[Adrian II]

Safety solely exists to ensure our freedom.Yup. As long as our freedom doesn't mean only my freedom.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Went for the 2nd bottom option, though it was 50/50 with the one above it.

[Vladimir]

Only the ignorant think the two are mutually exclusive.

[Lemur]

Only the ignorant think the two are mutually exclusive.
And only someone who hadn't read the poll would posit that the OP claims they are mutually exclusive.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I think there needs to be a balance.

[HoreTore]

I say....

https://youtube.com/watch?v=T4gUSdTY15I

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Freedom, except to the point where your freedom starts to infringe on the safety of others.

No this is incorrect...what this says is that it should be illegal to listen to music while you drive your car, because it infringes on the safety of the other people on the road (you are less focused on your driving when listening to music).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our
will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of
others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because
law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it
violates the rights of the individual.

And I suspect a lot of people who voted for the second option are blowing smoke, that they like to proclaim their love for freedom, but when push comes to shove they'll creep back into a position of making excuses for increased government control over our lives.

Or would they take the freedom side on issues like owning guns, much less carrying guns, seat belt laws, smoking in private establishments, land zoning, building permits, health insurance, employment laws and regulations, welfare, etc.?


Complete liberty would mean no counter-measures against terrorism;

Sigh. That is false - getting rid of the random searches at airports, and making the laws that govern that open to the public, doesn't mean no air marshals can be on flights. Having to get warrants to eavesdrop is not useless compared to eavesdropping without warrants.

CR

[Vladimir]

And only someone who hadn't read the poll would posit that the OP claims they are mutually exclusive.

*sigh* Read the title.


Freedom, except to the point where your freedom starts to infringe on the safety of others.

This is generally my view as well. Both in safety and law.

[macsen rufus]

Quote:
Complete liberty would mean no counter-measures against terrorism;


Sigh. That is false - getting rid of the random searches at airports, and making the laws that govern that open to the public, doesn't mean no air marshals can be on flights. Having to get warrants to eavesdrop is not useless compared to eavesdropping without warrants.



I think you missed the point that complete means the extreme case - complete liberty includes the liberty to blow planes out of the sky. Rightful liberty - in the Jeffersonian sense - is something else :yes:

[Tribesman]

But that's why you've got the UN to extend your territorial waters, isn't it?
No its why they got the UN to push for Timorese independance .

[JAG]

Liberty creates safety. It is only when authoritarian governments start controlling behaviour which doesn't cause harm, bringing in laws to control and divide, that people feel threatened and unsafe. Liberty - when people can do as they will, providing it does not harm others (though the definition of this is not as simple as it would seem) is the only way a free society can operate.


No this is incorrect...what this says is that it should be illegal to listen to music while you drive your car, because it infringes on the safety of the other people on the road (you are less focused on your driving when listening to music).

It is illegal over here to use your mobile phone while driving, for similar reasoning - that when on the phone the likelihood of a crash is so inflated that it is seriously endangering others liberty. If listening to music was proven to be as dangerous, and at such a level like being on the phone, then it would make complete sense to make it illegal - and that is not incorrect or contradicting anything. You may say that even if it impinges on someone else's liberty by even a fraction then this is just cause to ban it, following what I have previously said - but it isn't that simple. Many things impinge on others liberty a little bit, but you have to balance whether the withdrawal of liberty - in this case listening to music in a car - is actually creating a better society than that of leaving things as they stand - there is no need to make laws when the likelihood and effectiveness of them is so paper thin. Making a law that makes everyone wear seatbelts is a just law as it is proven that the restriction of this liberty, saves numerous lives every day.

If it was banning guns because of the likelihood of liberty being taken away from others, again it is different - because it has been proven, pretty much beyond doubt, that having a gun holding society creates far more deaths via guns. In this case taking away someone's liberty to have guns, is worth making the law. And so on and so on.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And I suspect a lot of people who voted for the second option are blowing smoke, that they like to proclaim their love for freedom, but when push comes to shove they'll creep back into a position of making excuses for increased government control over our lives.



If it was banning guns because of the likelihood of liberty being taken away from others, again it is different - because it has been proven, pretty much beyond doubt, that having a gun holding society creates far more deaths via guns. In this case taking away someone's liberty to have guns, is worth making the law. And so on and so on.


I'd bet that both you and JAG picked the same option.:clown:

I view gun ownership as a safety issue. I would feel more comfortable if good people had more guns. That safety would directly impact our ability to be free, protecting us from those who would strip us of it. Guns for their own sake are a hunters tools and I support it because it is yet another angle bolster my general support of gun ownership. I don't hunt though, so I wouldn't use a gun for that, most likely.

[HoreTore]

And I suspect a lot of people who voted for the second option are blowing smoke, that they like to proclaim their love for freedom, but when push comes to shove they'll creep back into a position of making excuses for increased government control over our lives.

Or would they take the freedom side on issues like owning guns, much less carrying guns, seat belt laws, smoking in private establishments, land zoning, building permits, health insurance, employment laws and regulations, welfare, etc.?

I voted #1 :2thumbsup:

Fortunately, gun control is an utterly irrelevant issue here, I can't understand why anyone would bother with seat belt laws and I'm against anti-smoking hysteria.

As for building permits, employment regulations and welfare, I don't see them as infringements on freedom at all. Regulations are needed no matter how free a society is, to ensure that one dude's freedom isn't restricting another dude's freedom. Ie. if one guy can build however he wants to, then he could build a huge wall and block out the sun for guy #2, and that wouldn't be very nice to the other guy... Same with welfare, when people are living on the streets and eating dust, they're not very free, so that's why we all need to pinch in a little to ensure that everyone gets a shot at a little dignity...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Liberty creates safety. It is only when authoritarian governments start controlling behaviour which doesn't cause harm, bringing in laws to control and divide, that people feel threatened and unsafe. Liberty - when people can do as they will, providing it does not harm others (though the definition of this is not as simple as it would seem) is the only way a free society can operate.
...
Making a law that makes everyone wear seatbelts is a just law as it is proven that the restriction of this liberty, saves numerous lives every day.

So you lied in your third sentence, then? Not wearing seat belts does absolutely nothing to harm others. You can make no claim to be a lover of liberty if you think it's ok for the government to tell us how to live for our own - and nobody else's - safety.

Your position completely contradicts your high-minded ideals.


If it was banning guns because of the likelihood of liberty being taken away from others, again it is different - because it has been proven, pretty much beyond doubt, that having a gun holding society creates far more deaths via guns. In this case taking away someone's liberty to have guns, is worth making the law. And so on and so on.

Firstly, your assertion is completely false. Injuries by firearms in Britain (excluding pellet guns) rose four fold in the years after the 1997 ban on handguns, for one.

But that is not the important point here. If a society banned cars, many more people would not die than banning guns (and imagining, preposterously, no one uses guns for self defense). Yet we allow cars. That is because a car, driven properly, will not cause death, just like a gun, used properly, will not hurt innocent people.

If a tool can be used responsibly without harming anyone - and guns certainly can - then it is against the principle of liberty to ban that tool and not just punish those who misuse it.

Anyone who wants gun control cannot claim to value freedom.

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.

Freedom is not always safe nor easy. It may not let us live longer. But what is the point of life if we are to be ruled the entire time?

CR

[HoreTore]

If there was one thing I never would've thought I'd see, it had to be CR quoting a socialist...


Not wearing seat belts does absolutely nothing to harm others.

Bah. If you don't wear your seatbelt, and I hit you head on, your body will be thrown through the front window and hit and kill me. So there. Wear your seat belt, you bastard.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I thought it might speak to JAG more.


Regulations are needed no matter how free a society is, to ensure that one dude's freedom isn't restricting another dude's freedom. Ie. if one guy can build however he wants to, then he could build a huge wall and block out the sun for guy #2, and that wouldn't be very nice to the other guy

The wall example would be wrong since its infringing on the other's rights. I was speaking of how many towns require permits for houses or sheds to be built on your own property.

CR

[Kagemusha]

This is too damn broad question to answer. Freedom and safety could mean myriad of things based on the views of different people.

[BetterDeadThanRed]

Safety solely exists to ensure our freedom.

I'm a libertarian, but not to the point of anarchy.

[HoreTore]

The wall example would be wrong since its infringing on the other's rights. I was speaking of how many towns require permits for houses or sheds to be built on your own property.

Well the reasoning behind them is that the regulations are there to prevent just that - one guy going bonkers and ruining life for his neighbors. I wouldn't be happy if I was going to sell my house only for the idiot next door to put up a buyer-repellent in his yard and halving the value of my own house...

BUT such laws shouldn't go further than that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Orwell was legit. Nobody is delusional enough not to have respect for him. Siggied (the quote bit)

[Rhyfelwyr]

So you lied in your third sentence, then? Not wearing seat belts does absolutely nothing to harm others. You can make no claim to be a lover of liberty if you think it's ok for the government to tell us how to live for our own - and nobody else's - safety.

You obviously don't get the advert we do over here in the UK where a son in the back seat headbutts his mother to death. PwNed!!11

Just wear your seatbelt and stop being so lazy! :shame:

Wow, who's stole my position as the most authoritarian in the poll, two voters at the second bottom option now...

You don't need the secret ballot.

[CountArach]

Safety solely exists to ensure our freedom.

I'm a libertarian, but not to the point of anarchy.
Surely a libertarian view is option #1?

[ajaxfetish]

I'd consider myself libertarian, and I picked option 3. Putting liberty first doesn't mean safety doesn't matter.

I appreciate police dealing with reckless and/or drunk driving, as it puts my right to life in serious jeopardy. I don't appreciate the police bothering people who are driving responsibly over choices like seat belt use. I always wear a seat belt while driving. I always require people to wear a seat belt if they're in a car that I am driving. But someone in their own vehicle is their own responsibility. I think it would be dumb of them not to wear a seat belt, but it's their choice.

I think putting firearms restrictions on those convicted of firearms-related crimes is a reasonable assertion of public safety. I'd also be willing to support mandatory firearms safety instruction for gun owners and their families. Generally speaking, though, the government should not be interfering in the rights of individuals to own guns unless they have already shown themselves irresponsible. I do not own a gun. I support the right of others to do so.

Infringing on the rights of others is a voluntary sacrifice of one's own rights, and the public should then intervene to protect the safety of others. Until that point, personal liberty should not be infringed.

Ajax

[BananaBob]

Only the ignorant think the two are mutually exclusive.

And that is why their are seven poll options...

I chose number two on the poll. I'd agree with statements such as 'Pure freedom until it interferes with the freedom of another'. Hence your urge to drink and drive interferes with another urge to live.

[Redleg]

I had to go with option 2 because it seemly is the closest to Liberty as defined by Thomas Jefferson. Rightful Liberty - which is you can not violate the rights of others in your pursuit of liberty.

[JAG]

So you lied in your third sentence, then? Not wearing seat belts does absolutely nothing to harm others. You can make no claim to be a lover of liberty if you think it's ok for the government to tell us how to live for our own - and nobody else's - safety.

No I said harm, which is not as easily definable as you may think -
Liberty - when people can do as they will, providing it does not harm others (though the definition of this is not as simple as it would seem) is the only way a free society can operate.

Firstly, not wearing a seat belt can potentially harm others but further than that as I stated it is governments duty to look at issues and legislate on things even if it means a restriction of liberty on an individual level, for the benefit of everyone. In my mind this is not loosing liberty, far from it, it creates far more liberty - it means more people will live than die every single day on the roads. It is quite possible to believe in liberty and believe in socially democratic, responsible government, which creates the best for everyone - such as creating more liberty for people at the bottom of society by giving them life chances they would never have had before.


Firstly, your assertion is completely false. Injuries by firearms in Britain (excluding pellet guns) rose four fold in the years after the 1997 ban on handguns, for one.

Blah, blah, blah - Your level of gun related crime is, and always has been, far higher than ours, nominally and in proportion.


If a society banned cars, many more people would not die than banning guns (and imagining, preposterously, no one uses guns for self defense). Yet we allow cars. That is because a car, driven properly, will not cause death, just like a gun, used properly, will not hurt innocent people.

Well apart from calling a spade an apple and saying its the same thing, a gun is built to kill people. A car is meant to let people travel from one place to another. Day in day out the fallacy in your argument of 'if guns are used properly', WAKE UP, guns are never used properly, that is qhy they should not be in the hands of everyone!

Anyway let us not turn it into a gun debate, I should have realised that before I posted about it.


Freedom is not always safe nor easy. It may not let us live longer. But what is the point of life if we are to be ruled the entire time?

A society, with a responsible government should not let us have this freedom which you speak of, freedom to die young and horribly, is false freedom.

[BetterDeadThanRed]

Surely a libertarian view is option #1?
Indeed, but don't forget that anarchy is merely an extremist view of libertarianism. Somebody already made the point that they are not mutually exclusive, and it certainly stands to reason that a society cannot exist (in the real world anyways) without a military or police force.

[naut]

Indeed, but don't forget that anarchy is merely an extremist view of libertarianism. Somebody already made the point that they are not mutually exclusive, and it certainly stands to reason that a society cannot exist (in the real world anyways) without a military or police force.
Fixed it for you, Liechtenstein and Andorra function perfectly well without a military. A military is only necessary upon having something worth stealing or having overly aggressive rivals.

[ajaxfetish]

Fixed it for you, Liechtenstein and Andorra function perfectly well without a military. A military is only necessary upon having something worth stealing or having overly aggressive rivals.
He said 'military or police force', not 'military and police force.' It didn't need fixing.

Ajax

[CountArach]

He said 'military or police force', not 'military and police force.' It didn't need fixing.

Ajax
A state with no police force and only a military presence is going to be far worse than one that has both. The military in general has fewer safeguards on it - police forces exist to serve the public only.

[Adrian II]

A state with no police force and only a military presence is going to be far worse than one that has both. The military in general has fewer safeguards on it - police forces exist to serve the public only.Libertarianism is rural nostalgia, and the movement is populated by one-track robots who make me sick with their continuous talk of guns and taxes.

I'm with this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYCr_718ccI). Watch out kids, the video has some language in it! :balloon2:

[HoreTore]

A state with no police force and only a military presence is going to be far worse than one that has both. The military in general has fewer safeguards on it - police forces exist to serve the public only.

Bah, the police force is nothing more than the civilian version of the military.

[CountArach]

Bah, the police force is nothing more than the civilian version of the military.
I know, but what are the alternates?

EDIT: And they are also less heavily armed, and hence less dangerous.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No I said harm, which is not as easily definable as you may think -

Firstly, not wearing a seat belt can potentially harm others but further than that as I stated it is governments duty to look at issues and legislate on things even if it means a restriction of liberty on an individual level, for the benefit of everyone.

That is directly contrary to this statement of yours:

Liberty - when people can do as they will, providing it does not harm others (though the definition of this is not as simple as it would seem) is the only way a free society can operate.

Why not just admit you value safety over freedom?


In my mind this is not loosing liberty, far from it, it creates far more liberty - it means more people will live than die every single day on the roads. It is quite possible to believe in liberty and believe in socially democratic, responsible government, which creates the best for everyone - such as creating more liberty for people at the bottom of society by giving them life chances they would never have had before.

Nice to see double-speak is alive and well in Britain...

Liberty is not necessarily proportional to your longevity.


Blah, blah, blah - Your level of gun related crime is, and always has been, far higher than ours, nominally and in proportion.

Just ignore the facts, then, eh? Lol. Too bad the facts go against your statements, hmm?


Well apart from calling a spade an apple and saying its the same thing, a gun is built to kill people. A car is meant to let people travel from one place to another. Day in day out the fallacy in your argument of 'if guns are used properly', WAKE UP, guns are never used properly, that is qhy they should not be in the hands of everyone!

Hahaha! Oh, man, this is good! I'm amazed at how far a person can distort reality in their own head. Are you telling me a woman using a gun to prevent someone from raping her is not using a gun properly? Lol.


A society, with a responsible government should not let us have this freedom which you speak of, freedom to die young and horribly, is false freedom.

No, it is freedom. You take government authority and call it freedom. If a government tells us what to do for our own good, that is not freedom. And your Orwellian speech will not change that.

CR

[Faust|]

Am I the only one having a difficult time understanding the poll? The options seem pretty nebulous... using such broad constructs as "freedom" and "safety" and actually relating them as if they were precise terms. I don't think it's useful to go all the way back to the stone age when considering questions like this. Why not frame the question in the context of one of our modern societies? That way, such a poll would be both more useful and easier to understand. Otherwise this is just time-wasting philosophizing.

If you are talking about "the extent of law enforcement" vs "the threat of bodily harm" (say, as a weighted percentage), then I would say, in general, a certain amount of reactive law enforcement to prosecute crimes will do good, but beyond a certain point I would rather just deal with the slight risk of death than having more liberties taken away.

The main threats to "safety" are: accidents (car, workplace, etc) and illness (heart disease, cancer, etc). If I have to also run the risk of being blown up by a terrorist on my way to work on top of those, so be it... Oh yes, and add to that my risk of being struck by lightning.

I would say that tactics in law enforcement must vary from area to area, but unless you are Israel, Iraq, or some such place, such tactics should be local concerns, not national ones.

*edit: Well, the poll is ok I guess, overall, sorry TS. I still have problems with the second and sixth options though... I don't think the relationship they posit is a valid one.

[Faust|]

I'm with this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYCr_718ccI). Watch out kids, the video has some language in it! :balloon2:

Not only am I with him also, but I think that guy should actually run for political office in the federal government! Surely he is a natural if ever I saw one.

Funny how you mention "one-track robots" and then post a link like that... I didn't hear so much as a single thought from that you-tuber that didn't sound like it was from your run-of-the mill political pundit. If this guy shouldn't be considered a "one-track robot" it must only be because he engages in multiple and various pretensions.

[Adrian II]

Not only am I with him also, but I think that guy should actually run for political office in the federal government! Surely he is a natural if ever I saw one.

Funny how you mention "one-track robots" and then post a link like that... I didn't hear so much as a single thought from that you-tuber that didn't sound like it was from your run-of-the mill political pundit. If this guy shouldn't be considered a "one-track robot" it must only be because he engages in multiple and various pretensions.If this guy were a beltway 'natural', surely he would have said that Ron Paul is a 9/11 conspiracy buff. That is the easiest way for establishment politicians to lock Ron Paul out of the supposed mainstream and throw away the key: paint him with the conpiracy brush.

Now we all know (or should) that Ron Paul is not a conspiracy buff and that 9/11 is about the only issue on which he has something worthwhile to contribute. I think the guy in the video (who deeply hates 9/11 'Truthers', judging by some of his other video's) ought to be recommended for criticising Ron Paul's actual program, not his supposed conspiratorial views. So the asnwer is no, you are dead wrong.

[Faust|]

If this guy were a beltway 'natural', surely he would have said that Ron Paul is a 9/11 conspiracy buff. That is the easiest way for establishment politicians to lock Ron Paul out of the supposed mainstream and throw away the key: paint him with the conpiracy brush.


Ummmm :inquisitive:... really?... that is rather stodgy logic isn't it? See this below:


Now we all know (or should) that Ron Paul is not a conspiracy buff and that 9/11 is about the only issue on which he has something worthwhile to contribute. I think the guy in the video (who deeply hates 9/11 'Truthers', judging by some of his other video's) ought to be recommended for criticising Ron Paul's actual program, not his supposed conspiratorial views. So the asnwer is no, you are dead wrong.

The point is is that the guy is blatantly misrepresenting libertarian views (second half of the video) and is using questionable methods in the first half of the video. These are familiar Washington tactics used versus opponents.

I don't have time to research all of his claims, but one I can criticize immediately is his first one: he says of Paul's opposition to abortion that he has written off half the country. I'm not sure actually what his specific stance on abortion is, but even if it is a hardline conservative stance, it still wouldn't "write off" half of the voting population. If this was the case, conservatives wouldn't have any female supporters.

Paul shouldn't be above reproach, but this guy doesn't do the trick. And as to your first point that if the author was a "beltway natural", he should have discredited Paul by inaccurately painting him as a CT'er, well this Matrix-looking guy comes close... he paints him as an extremist (don't tell me this is not a familiar political tactic).

As to your assertion that he criticizes Paul's actual program, I'd have to disagree. In the first half of the video, the author gives examples of Paul's program that will turn away various chunks of the voting population. In the process of listing these views and how Paul will end up abandoning pretty much all voters, the author advances the implication that Paul is an extremist. It can't be a coincidence that the second half of the video then attacks libertarians in general as extremists.

So, as I said, more so than criticizing the program, the author is really just undermining the credibility of Paul (and Libertarians) by calling them extremists. Am I correct in this assessment? Would you tell me this is a novel and above-board tactic?

I'd like to clarify that I'm not a Paul fanatic, but to me he does represent a much superior alternative to our present options. He is most certainly not perfect, and I would be wary of anyone who claims so. The author of the video is correct in saying that the Paul campaign stands less than a slim chance of winning... but how that relates to justifying the author's following criticisms is unclear to me.

So I'm certainly not "dead wrong" when I say that the author of video is nothing more than a typical pundit using less than honest methods, sorry. In fact, I typically see more responsibility and accountability in the arguments of most libertarians than in those of this you-tuber, and if you're really that impressed by his arguments then I would say you lack objectivity. Personally, the sort of argument the author uses would not very well convince me of the validity of positions that I am sympathetic towards, let alone ones I have no prior opinions about.

[Adrian II]

Ummmm :inquisitive:... really?... that is rather stodgy logic isn't it?Don't think so.

1. Beltway thinking dismisses Ron Paul as conspiracy buff.
2. Youtuber does not dismiss Ron Paul as conspiracy buff.
3. Hence YouTuber is no Beltway thinker

You may dispute the truth of either premise, but the syllogism is valid.

[Faust|]

Don't think so.

1. Beltway thinking dismisses Ron Paul as conspiracy buff.
2. Youtuber does not dismiss Ron Paul as conspiracy buff.
3. Hence YouTuber is no Beltway thinker

You may dispute the truth of either premise, but the syllogism is valid.

Am I supposed to take this seriously? Thanks for ignoring 99% of my argument and zeroing in on the 1% that you can semantically take advantage of.

First: you introduced the term "beltway", not me. I certainly didn't ever use the term "Beltway thinking" which you have in "your first premise". In fact, I was pointing out that he used the same style of argument as your run of the mill political pundit, not that he was a Washington political pundit. So you are really distorting what I said, there. But I'll put that aside for now.

Second: I doubt that in practice all in the "beltway" dismiss Ron Paul as a conspiracy buff all the time when attacking him.

Third: By saying that because a pundit calls Paul an "extremist" rather than a "conspiracy buff" means that he cannot be a typical beltway-type pundit is deceptive (and stodgy).

On the other hand, I'm beginning to see why you don't find the author's arguments disagreeable. And in fact your syllogism is, strictly speaking, not valid. :duel:

[Adrian II]

I don't have time to research all of his claims, but one I can criticize immediately is his first one: he says of Paul's opposition to abortion that he has written off half the country. I'm not sure actually what his specific stance on abortion is, but even if it is a hardline conservative stance, it still wouldn't "write off" half of the voting population. If this was the case, conservatives wouldn't have any female supporters.He didn't mean the female half, he meant the pro-choice half of the electorate. You seem hellbent on misinterpreting an opponent's every statement, whether it's YouTuber's or mine. This makes any sort of debate rather improductive as well as extremely boring.

[Faust|]

He didn't mean the female half, he meant the pro-choice half of the electorate. You seem hellbent on misinterpreting an opponent's every statement, whether it's YouTuber's or mine. This makes any sort of debate rather improductive as well as extremely boring.

Well, again thanks for ignoring the majority of my argument. As to your first sentence, ok, thanks for the correction. Still I'm not sure about the claim's validity. As to your second sentence on: ~:mecry: give me a break... where is the "rolls eyes" emoticon? As to me correcting your syllogism, "live by the sword, die by the sword", so to say. If you're going to use a single syllogism to counter a whole argument then at least make it correct and relevant... otherwise no pity!

You may have some valuable insights on this issue, but I'm not seeing much of substance so far... and that includes your original post (#44). Why don't you review your posts and my posts and see which are more substantial and/or conducive to productive debate.

*No wait, your posts are better for debate amongst dilettantes, sorry.

Anyway, I'm ready to let it rest also.

[LittleGrizzly]

No, it is freedom. You take government authority and call it freedom. If a government tells us what to do for our own good, that is not freedom. And your Orwellian speech will not change that.

Tell me CR whats your views on personal ownership of rocket launchers and tanks ?

Also i am intrested in your views on abortion, taxes for things like the military, recreational drugs and lastly do you think people should have to have some kind of education ?

[Adrian II]

*No wait, your posts are better for debate amongst dilettantes, sorry.So what makes my syllogism invalid?

It's a syllogism of the Baroco variety. Its symbolic form is this:

1. All S are P
2. X is not P
3. X is not S

Premise 1 is a universal affirmative. Premise 2 is a particular negative. As it should, the conclusion is a particular negative with YouTuber as its subject.

Its simplified form is this:

1. All men are mortal
2. Zeus is not mortal
3. Zeus is not a man

[Faust|]

So what makes my syllogism invalid?

It's a syllogism of the Baroco variety. Its symbolic form is this:

1. All S are P
2. X is not P
3. X is not S

Premise 1 is a universal affirmative. Premise 2 is a particular negative. As it should, the conclusion is a particular negative with YouTuber as its subject.

Its simplified form is this:

1. All men are mortal
2. Zeus is not mortal
3. Zeus is not a man

Ok, first sorry if I personally offended you before.

But yes, like I said, strictly speaking your syllogism was invalid:

"1. Beltway thinking dismisses Ron Paul as conspiracy buff.
2. Youtuber does not dismiss Ron Paul as conspiracy buff.
3. Hence YouTuber is no Beltway thinker"

...because you replaced "Beltway thinking" with quite a different term in the conclusion. Keep in mind the "strictly speaking" part...

However, my complaint wasn't completely frivolous, because I think that if you worded the first premise "All beltway thinkers dismiss Ron Paul as a conspiracy buff", then the entire argument would lose much of its face value (that first premise would be easier to dispute).

Anyway, sincere apologies if I was out of line... I think we have very different viewpoints on the thing, and maybe should agree to disagree.

[HoreTore]

Forgive a young ignorant poking his head in between the bickering, but...


What is "beltway thinking"?

[drone]

Forgive a young ignorant poking his head in between the bickering, but...


What is "beltway thinking"?
The Washington DC area has an interstate highway loop that goes around it (I-95/I-495). This loop is locally called the Beltway. So "beltway thinking" is generally applied to US Federal government insiders and such.

[Adrian II]

Ok, first sorry if I personally offended you before.

But yes, like I said, strictly speaking your syllogism was invalid:

"1. Beltway thinking dismisses Ron Paul as conspiracy buff.
2. Youtuber does not dismiss Ron Paul as conspiracy buff.
3. Hence YouTuber is no Beltway thinker"

...because you replaced "Beltway thinking" with quite a different term in the conclusion. Keep in mind the "strictly speaking" part...

However, my complaint wasn't completely frivolous, because I think that if you worded the first premise "All beltway thinkers dismiss Ron Paul as a conspiracy buff", then the entire argument would lose much of its face value (that first premise would be easier to dispute).

Anyway, sincere apologies if I was out of line... I think we have very different viewpoints on the thing, and maybe should agree to disagree.Define 'speaking'. :beam:

The trouble with dissecting a video rant is that you can easily talk it to shreds without doing it justice. If you have to run it five times and explain every sarcastic twist to your roommates, it somehow loses its appeal.

So yeah, I guess we're cool. And who knows, maybe you and I will see eye to eye on other subjects. Welcome to the Backroom, Faust|.

[Faust|]

Define 'speaking'. :beam:

The trouble with dissecting a video rant is that you can easily talk it to shreds without doing it justice. If you have to run it five times and explain every sarcastic twist to your roommates, it somehow loses its appeal.

So yeah, I guess we're cool. And who knows, maybe you and I will see eye to eye on other subjects. Welcome to the Backroom, Faust|.

Ah good, thank you. Cheers! ~:cheers:
And please, just call me Faust, (Faust-pipe isn't as attractive)

[Adrian II]

Ah good, thank you. Cheers! ~:cheers:
And please, just call me Faust, (Faust-pipe isn't as attractive)It's your call, Faust it is. ~:cheers: