Pope thinks child buggery isn't so bad

[Seth]

Awww, come on, Seth! I thought you were supposed to be tolerant!

Only of peaceable acts. Child buggery is not a peaceable act I'm afraid.

[John_fi_Skye]

Awww, come on, Seth! I thought you were supposed to be tolerant!

Only of peaceable acts. Child buggery is not a peaceable act I'm afraid.

Oh. I'm fair gettin ma eddication talkin tae you.

[Seth]

Awww, come on, Seth! I thought you were supposed to be tolerant!

Only of peaceable acts. Child buggery is not a peaceable act I'm afraid.

Oh. I'm fair gettin ma eddication talkin tae you.

Aboot time, ye manky Scots git! And ye wears panties under yer kilt I'll wager...

A Bruce! A Bruce!

[JimC]

Seeth's "church" is a fiction of his own making, like his ethics.

And a fiction full of cynical crap, designed to put a nice spin on hard-line libertarian bullshit...

He lives in a fantasy world, where Superman is real, and "truth, justice and the American way" are one and the same with the tooth fairy...

[Robert_S]

I gather that Seth places individual liberty and responsibility as the primary values from which all other values are derived and as the yardsticks they are measured with.

It's not rational, but neither is any other set of primary values.

[Seth]

I gather that Seth places individual liberty and responsibility as the primary values from which all other values are derived and as the yardsticks they are measured with.

It's not rational, but neither is any other set of primary values.

What's irrational about primary values, pray tell?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I gather that Seth places individual liberty and responsibility as the primary values from which all other values are derived and as the yardsticks they are measured with.

It's not rational, but neither is any other set of primary values.

Him heap big frontier man. He have very large rugged individual. Not need society for to live in wilderness killing caribou with teeth!

[Svartalf]

Seeth's "church" is a fiction of his own making, like his ethics.

And a fiction full of cynical crap, designed to put a nice spin on hard-line libertarian bullshit...

He lives in a fantasy world, where Superman is real, and "truth, justice and the American way" are one and the same with the tooth fairy...

Now I want to eat apple pie flavored (and salted) with the tears of molested altarboys.

[JimC]

Seeth's "church" is a fiction of his own making, like his ethics.

And a fiction full of cynical crap, designed to put a nice spin on hard-line libertarian bullshit...

He lives in a fantasy world, where Superman is real, and "truth, justice and the American way" are one and the same with the tooth fairy...

Now I want to eat apple pie flavored (and salted) with the tears of molested altarboys.

[Seth]

I gather that Seth places individual liberty and responsibility as the primary values from which all other values are derived and as the yardsticks they are measured with.

It's not rational, but neither is any other set of primary values.

Him heap big frontier man. He have very large rugged individual. Not need society for to live in wilderness killing caribou with teeth!

One can live in society quite nicely and peaceably without bending over and being ass-fucked by every selfish socialist and arrogant bureaucrat who comes along. It's a balance, like most things, between order and anarchy, and between freedom and slavery, and we all get to choose just who gets to bend us over, when, and to what extent.

I'm just less tolerant of ass-fuckings by fuckwitted socialists and despotic government bureaucrats and politicians than servile socialists and sheeple are. They seem to get off on being enslaved and robbed.

But that doesn't mean that I don't know how to get along with my law-abiding and liberty-respecting fellow citizens, the ones who don't want to fuck me in the ass and steal my property anyway. Those fuckwits I'd much prefer to just shoot, because they are a scourge on society and a danger to liberty.

And again I ask, what's irrational about having a set of primary values, pray tell? Even Nimrods like Gawdzilla have them. I think it has more to do with precisely WHAT those primary values are. That's what's important at any rate.

[Robert_S]

I gather that Seth places individual liberty and responsibility as the primary values from which all other values are derived and as the yardsticks they are measured with.

It's not rational, but neither is any other set of primary values.

What's irrational about primary values, pray tell?

Non-rational != irrational.

[Seth]

I gather that Seth places individual liberty and responsibility as the primary values from which all other values are derived and as the yardsticks they are measured with.

It's not rational, but neither is any other set of primary values.

What's irrational about primary values, pray tell?

Non-rational != irrational.

Hm. Interesting assertion. It would seem that a thing is either rational or not rational. The definition of "irrational" is "not rational."

So, just to play the game, what is "not rational" about primary values, pray tell?

[JimC]

I gather that Seth places individual liberty and responsibility as the primary values from which all other values are derived and as the yardsticks they are measured with.

It's not rational, but neither is any other set of primary values.

What's irrational about primary values, pray tell?

Non-rational != irrational.

Hm. Interesting assertion. It would seem that a thing is either rational or not rational. The definition of "irrational" is "not rational."

So, just to play the game, what is "not rational" about primary values, pray tell?

Mainly, deciding they eminate from a sky fairy...

[Robert_S]

I gather that Seth places individual liberty and responsibility as the primary values from which all other values are derived and as the yardsticks they are measured with.

It's not rational, but neither is any other set of primary values.

What's irrational about primary values, pray tell?

Non-rational != irrational.

Hm. Interesting assertion. It would seem that a thing is either rational or not rational. The definition of "irrational" is "not rational."

So, just to play the game, what is "not rational" about primary values, pray tell?

AFAIK, values aren't derived completely rationally. It seems to me that you see individualism as an end in itself. If you can derive that from stone cold logic, I'll eat my words. If anyone can refute that, I'll also eat my words. If people can do both, I'll be vindicated.

[Seth]

I gather that Seth places individual liberty and responsibility as the primary values from which all other values are derived and as the yardsticks they are measured with.

It's not rational, but neither is any other set of primary values.

What's irrational about primary values, pray tell?

Non-rational != irrational.

Hm. Interesting assertion. It would seem that a thing is either rational or not rational. The definition of "irrational" is "not rational."

So, just to play the game, what is "not rational" about primary values, pray tell?

AFAIK, values aren't derived completely rationally. It seems to me that you see individualism as an end in itself. If you can derive that from stone cold logic, I'll eat my words. If anyone can refute that, I'll also eat my words. If people can do both, I'll be vindicated.

I don't think I've ever said that "individualism is and end in itself." Can you cite your reference?

One of my primary values is individual liberty. But don't mistake that for absolute unfettered liberty. I accept the notion that civilization requires ordered liberty, which is the acknowledgment of a set of explicit and implicit individual rights by society as well as acceptance of reasonable regulation of those rights in the interests of public peace and order where the exercise of individual rights by persons come into conflict with the exercise of rights by others. Ordered liberty also includes the processes of balancing and adjudicating such rights and conflicts in ways that allow civilization to proceed with the maximum possible degree of individual liberty but also peacefully and in an orderly manner.

This is the problem with socialist Libertarianism critics; they fail, or more often refuse to ask, understand or accept the fact that Libertarianism is not what THEY think it is, which is usually a complete strawman construct they erect conveniently so they can attack it.

I'm not disposed however to engage in reams of educational material about the truths of Libertarianism in response to ignorant fuckwits who just want to throw shit through the bars of the intellectual cage they are trapped in, so I just play along and take all sorts of unpleasant absolutist positions just to fuck with their tiny minds so I can watch them foam at the mouth and display their fractional wits.

Occasionally someone comes along who wants to have a legitimate, respectful and insightful discussion about Libertarianism, and I'm happy to oblige, if the peanut gallery can be kept at bay...which is nearly impossible here.

Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at actually exploring the details of Libertarian philosophy? It would be a great relief and pleasure if you would.