why do liberals ALWAYS take the side of the vile?

[Arthur Brain]

I think so. I could be convinced otherwise, but I think it would be.

I do see a difference, mind you. One is done with good intent, which is a mitigating factor. But that doesn't make it right.

How does it not make it right if the only alternative to lying is inadvisable attempts at 'misdirection' that are more often than not bound to end up with those you're supposedly trying to protect ending up being caught and killed?!

Seriously, how is it a sin to protect people from death camps and the like via lying if that's the only realistic way?

 

[Christian Liberty]

How does it not make it right if the only alternative to lying is inadvisable attempts at 'misdirection' that are more often than not bound to end up with those you're supposedly trying to protect ending up being caught and killed?!

Seriously, how is it a sin to protect people from death camps and the like via lying if that's the only realistic way?

The problem is that you seem like you are basically laughing at Romans 3:8.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The problem is that you seem like you are basically laughing at Romans 3:8.

I'm really not laughing at anything right now so how about you just answer the point put to you?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm really not laughing at anything right now so how about you just answer the point put to you?

That was my answer. I'm using scripture here. I'm not sure how I can reconcile a view that says its OK to take an ordinarily intrinsically evil action like lying and say its OK "when the circumstances warrant it."

If I were to take that position, I would need some evidence that lying is not an INTRINSICALLY immoral action.

There are things in the Bible that are generally suggested as good advice but are not morally binding every time. But I don't see any evidence that lying is among those. Perhaps you'd like to share some?

 

[Arthur Brain]

That was my answer. I'm using scripture here. I'm not sure how I can reconcile a view that says its OK to take an ordinarily intrinsically evil action like lying and say its OK "when the circumstances warrant it."

If I were to take that position, I would need some evidence that lying is not an INTRINSICALLY immoral action.

There are things in the Bible that are generally suggested as good advice but are not morally binding every time. But I don't see any evidence that lying is among those. Perhaps you'd like to share some?

Uh, kinda think that's already taken place here. Lying to protect people from harm as established, and done by many brave folk during wars and else. If you want to think they were 'sinning', especially when their own lives were on the line in the process then have at it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What does scripture say? That's all I care about.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What does scripture say? That's all I care about.

Where does scripture indicate that you, personally, should be the only one allowed to vote as you intimated previous? It's not all you care about at all on that arrogant note alone.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Where does scripture indicate that you, personally, should be the only one allowed to vote as you intimated previous? It's not all you care about at all on that arrogant note alone.

You took that post as a literal policy suggestion rather than as an illustration of a point. Considering you have been reading my posts for as long as you have, and you still took it literally, shows me that you are stupid.

I am a philosophical voluntarist who believes in the NAP. I could give you a scriptural argument, if you were interested, for this philosophy. With that said, the entire concept of "voting" only has two purposes. Either defensive, which is to protect one's rights, or aggressive, which is the opposite (I ignore here purely trivial cases such as voting to recognize a holiday or on a statement saying Santa Clause is the most wonderful thing in the world or other such). Since I understand that nobody has a right to engage in aggressive violence, I would vote to uphold such were I to be the only one to be able to vote. Thus, me being the only one voting would lead us closer to a peaceful, voluntarist society than would also letting control freaks vote.

Is that a serious policy suggestion? No, of course not. But I was, again, illustrating a point.

 

[Town Heretic]

You took that post as a literal policy suggestion rather than as an illustration of a point. Considering you have been reading my posts for as long as you have, and you still took it literally, shows me that you are stupid.

That you assume people who've read you have committed your positions or preferences to memory says something, but not that AB is stupid. Else...

...Intelligence should serve, not enslave. So if it helps you help others, communicates a thing of importance in a way that's memorable, etc., I say go to. If it keeps you mindful of the difference between you and your neighbor in a way that invites contempt into your reflections then it would be better to do without it or without considering it further until it doesn't.

I know, but I keep hoping at some point the light will come on.

 

[Granite]

On a long enough timeline a libertarian's claws and fangs come out and all you get is the arrogance and selfishness of a thirteen-year-old.

 

[bybee]

On a long enough timeline a libertarian's claws and fangs come out and all you get is the arrogance and selfishness of a thirteen-year-old.

Amen Brother!
But this particular Libbie is very young and typically opinionated.

 

[bybee]

You took that post as a literal policy suggestion rather than as an illustration of a point. Considering you have been reading my posts for as long as you have, and you still took it literally, shows me that you are stupid.

I am a philosophical voluntarist who believes in the NAP. I could give you a scriptural argument, if you were interested, for this philosophy. With that said, the entire concept of "voting" only has two purposes. Either defensive, which is to protect one's rights, or aggressive, which is the opposite (I ignore here purely trivial cases such as voting to recognize a holiday or on a statement saying Santa Clause is the most wonderful thing in the world or other such). Since I understand that nobody has a right to engage in aggressive violence, I would vote to uphold such were I to be the only one to be able to vote. Thus, me being the only one voting would lead us closer to a peaceful, voluntarist society than would also letting control freaks vote.

Is that a serious policy suggestion? No, of course not. But I was, again, illustrating a point.

Your lack of ability to engage in civil discourse precludes your being taken seriously.
You have set the tone which generates the responses you receive.
If an emergency committee were formed to face danger to the community knowledgeable and experienced adults would, perhaps, include young persons of good will to help meet the dangers in the most expedient means possible.
Bloviating, chest thumping, self defining youngsters would not be considered.

 

[Christian Liberty]

On a long enough timeline a libertarian's claws and fangs come out and all you get is the arrogance and selfishness of a thirteen-year-old.

Your lack of ability to engage in civil discourse precludes your being taken seriously.
You have set the tone which generates the responses you receive.
If an emergency committee were formed to face danger to the community knowledgeable and experienced adults would, perhaps, include young persons of good will to help meet the dangers in the most expedient means possible.
Bloviating, chest thumping, self defining youngsters would not be considered.

Think what you want. I don't really care anymore. I'm only here for a subset of the forum now anyways.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Amen Brother!
But this particular Libbie is very young and typically opinionated.

Reminds me of... me, seven or eight years ago.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Reminds me of... me, seven or eight years ago.

The problem isn't that people diagree, but that they misrepresent my positions and dismiss them without ever understanding them. Combined with the fact that their positions are often formed in a vaccuum. I get why an atheist would do that, but for a Christian its a serious thing.

Now, I know you went from being Christian to being atheist. That in and of itself is a huge change. Of course other changes would follow. I'd probably be a nihilist myself if I were atheist.

 

[Caledvwlch]

The problem isn't that people diagree, but that they misrepresent my positions and dismiss them without ever understanding them. Combined with the fact that their positions are often formed in a vaccuum. I get why an atheist would do that, but for a Christian its a serious thing.

I don't know how anybody's positions could ever be formed in a vacuum, but yes it's tough to find people who will make the effort to understand what you're saying before they dismiss it.

Now, I know you went from being Christian to being atheist. That in and of itself is a huge change. Of course other changes would follow. I'd probably be a nihilist myself if I were atheist.

Yes, although unlike you, I became a libertarian for a few years after becoming an atheist. However I think there's a little bit of shared experience there and we can understand each other despite our frequent disagreements.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, although unlike you, I became a libertarian for a few years after becoming an atheist. However I think there's a little bit of shared experience there and we can understand each other despite our frequent disagreements.

I can understand that to, actually. RJ Rushdoony was always very clear about the similarities between Reconstructionism and libertarianism, as has Joel McDurmon, and Gary North worked for Ron Paul. Yet, being a Reconstructionist and an atheist at the same time is clearly impossible. libertarianism was likely the closest thing you had to move to. I love pointing the similarities out to libertarians who can't stand recons and recons who can't stand libertarians

What I don't quite understand is why you'd give up the Truth for atheism. But if we take that as a given, I could probably figure out why you went the route you did from there. Or at least you can make a guess.

I've noticed that you seem to try not to strawman me, which I appreciate. Granite makes no such effort, which is why I call him an idiot. He's not the biggest idiot here, certainly, but he has no clue what I am actually advocating or why.

 

[Granite]

The problem isn't that people diagree, but that they misrepresent my positions and dismiss them without ever understanding them. Combined with the fact that their positions are often formed in a vaccuum. I get why an atheist would do that, but for a Christian its a serious thing.

Now, I know you went from being Christian to being atheist. That in and of itself is a huge change. Of course other changes would follow. I'd probably be a nihilist myself if I were atheist.

You assume people dismiss your opinions because they've misunderstood them. You need to entertain the possibility they've dismissed what you have to say precisely because you've explained yourself quite well.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You assume people dismiss your opinions because they've misunderstood them. You need to entertain the possibility they've dismissed what you have to say precisely because you've explained yourself quite well.

Granite, you proved you didn't understand it when you lied about me wanting people to starve to death and of getting my jollies out of the thought of hoarding money at everyone else's expense.

You think that just because a person opposes compulsory taxation, refusing to "contribute" at gunpoint, that he also must be obsessed with the idea of hoarding money at the expense of other people. You think that just because a person opposes economic regulation that he must want to abuse workers under his authority. And so forth.

And you fail to make the logical connection between YOU mugging people to get them to support a cause you support, and hiring a thug in a blue costume to do the same thing.

Now, you're an atheist, so I get that your god is the State (some atheists have different gods other than the State, but its clear that yours is.) But if you had a brain, you'd be able to comprehend why a Christian would not wish to similarly bow down.

 

[Caledvwlch]

I can understand that to, actually. RJ Rushdoony was always very clear about the similarities between Reconstructionism and libertarianism, as has Joel McDurmon, and Gary North worked for Ron Paul. Yet, being a Reconstructionist and an atheist at the same time is clearly impossible. libertarianism was likely the closest thing you had to move to. I love pointing the similarities out to libertarians who can't stand recons and recons who can't stand libertarians

While I might not have recognized it at the time, this is not that crazy of a theory.

What I don't quite understand is why you'd give up the Truth for atheism. But if we take that as a given, I could probably figure out why you went the route you did from there. Or at least you can make a guess.

Well, once it doesn't look, smell or feel like the Truth anymore, it's much easier to understand. I think I already gave you a pretty thorough, and perhaps a bit brutally honest run-down of my deconversion process, so I don't think there's any need to go into that here.

I've noticed that you seem to try not to strawman me, which I appreciate. Granite makes no such effort, which is why I call him an idiot. He's not the biggest idiot here, certainly, but he has no clue what I am actually advocating or why.

I won't speak for Granite, because he's better with the language than I am, and it's his turn to buy the beer next time. ( ) However I suspect his experience with and knowledge of libertarian thought is a bit more nuanced than you think it is.