Pope thinks child buggery isn't so bad

[John_fi_Skye]

Now I'm well bored. I'm going back to read the one about the boy who died wanking again. It raises truly meaningful issues.

[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.

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

No, it's just my impression based on observation.

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.

I'll grant that some here have been... let's say "other than calm". But given the subject of this thread and the other one, the sexual abuse of children, I don't think it's fair to condemn a mind wholesale for excessive anger over the issue.

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.

I'm up for some of that, I'll not guarantee that I want to get in depth about it. But I think a better understanding of where you're coming from would go a long way toward getting less heated reactions.

[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.

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

A Bruce! A Bruce!

Yer yiss o the Scots leid is as bad as yer reasonin, ya gowk!

And of course I wear pants under my kilt - as do all Scotsmen who aren't stereotype-conforming exhibitionists. Huv ee nivver heard o cock-burn?!

[Svartalf]

Din' ye be mindin' yon omadhaun.

[John_fi_Skye]

Din' ye be mindin' yon omadhaun.

Ah ken. Whit's ee like?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Now I'm well bored. I'm going back to read the one about the boy who died wanking again. It raises truly meaningful issues.

It takes dedication to keep talking at Seeth.

[Seth]

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.

I'll grant that some here have been... let's say "other than calm". But given the subject of this thread and the other one, the sexual abuse of children, I don't think it's fair to condemn a mind wholesale for excessive anger over the issue.

Well, I wasn't speaking directly about the reaction to this thread. We've gone somewhat off course towards discussing Libertarianism, where the poo-throwers are just as idiotic in their argumentation. That being said, I don't excuse bad behavior, either towards me or regarding sex abuse in the Catholic church, merely because someone might be angry about child abuse in general. I'm angry about it too, but (unless egregiously provoked and for the purposes of highlighting the irrationality of doing so) I do not accuse people who aren't guilty of a crime by implication or direct accusation. Guilt by association is not a valid argument.

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.

I'm up for some of that, I'll not guarantee that I want to get in depth about it. But I think a better understanding of where you're coming from would go a long way toward getting less heated reactions.

A different thread perhaps. Feel free to set one up and posit your questions or comments and I'll be along presently.

[Seth]

Now I'm well bored. I'm going back to read the one about the boy who died wanking again. It raises truly meaningful issues.

It takes dedication to keep talking at Seeth.

No, any idiot can jibber-jabber on endlessly AT anyone.

But it takes both dedication and intellect to talk WITH someone, among other social skills that you seem to be lacking.

[John_fi_Skye]

My mum always said, "If you can't say anything nice to a person, say nothing at all." So,

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My mum always said, "If you can't say anything nice to a person, say nothing at all." So,

"If you can't say anything nice about somebody, come over here and sit by me!" Olympia Dukakis, "Steel Magnolias"

[Seth]

My mum always said, "If you can't say anything nice to a person, say nothing at all." So,

Yeah, well that's a rule for polite company, which excludes this forum I'm afraid. Besides, he started it, and when he ends it, it'll stop, not a moment earlier.

[DaveD]

Besides, he started it.....

What do you want to be when you grow up, Seth.

[Seth]

Besides, he started it.....

What do you want to be when you grow up, Seth.

Growing up is overrated. It leads to being a stultified, ossified, brainless Atheist all too often. I prefer to remain young, which improves one's intellectual abilities and mental diversity.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Something over 3 would be nice, of course.

[DaveD]

Something over 3 would be nice, of course.

Seth seems to be going through the "terrible twos" in perpetuity.