4 ms·
"that constitutes a libertarian-fundamentalist rewriting of how American jurisprudence works" Also known as accurately representing what the document literally
by nirvana 15y ago
"that constitutes a libertarian-fundamentalist rewriting of how American jurisprudence works"
Also known as accurately representing what the document literally says. I find it really amusing that people pretend that the constitution is some vague indecipherable document that requires court cases to "interpret". It isn't, its written in quite plain english.
I'm sorry that the facts of reality, and the ultimate legal document in the country, disagree with your ideology. I'm sorry that your ideology leaves you ill equipped to make a counter argument, and thus instead choose to characterize me personally.
The definition of libertarianism is "Someone who believes in the nonaggression principle." I'm not afraid to stand behind my principles, though you have not mentioned what ideology leads you to attack me in this way. Whatever it is, obviously you want to initiate force against innocent people[1], so, by definition, you'll never have the moral high ground.
I am, however, quite fascinated that, despite people being obviously against the non-aggression principle, that I've yet to meet one who can make a counter argument against it. I really wonder why that is so. I can defend my arguments against attacks on them, but always it is the case that opponents attack me, instead of my arguments. The only possible reason I can think of for that is that my opponents follow ideologies the are not based on principle, but are instead a collection of beliefs that they swallow whole. That would explain why they cannot defend them, or construct counter arguments to philosophically based positions, such as mine.
All they seem to be capable of mustering is name calling-- like you called me "far out" "uninformed" "wrong", "misleading", "fundamentalist", etc, without never once backing up these claims, making them essentially pure ad hominem.
If your ideology is strong enough to hold such sway over your thinking, why doesn't it provide you with arguments you can make on the facts, and to the point?
Calling me names is really easy. But who do you expect to persuade that way? People who already agree with you?
[1] Because if you didn't, you'd have no motivation to hate libertarianism with such fervor. All libertarian positions derive from this principle, and this principle can be derived philosophically from basic moral premises. When I first became aware of it, I figured it would quickly sweep the nation-- as the idea of not using violence against the innocent seems compellingly right. However, I've been forced to accept that many people, either because they are taught it, or maybe just by their nature, actually do want to use violence against other people for their own profit. And that's sad. But its also embarrassing and so nobody wants to admit it, and so maybe that is why you chose to call me names.
- llambda 15y ago"All they seem to be capable of mustering is name calling-- like you called me "far out" "uninformed" "wrong", "misleading", "fundamentalist", etc, without never once backing up these claims, making them essentially pure ad hominem." Wrong. This is no ad hominem, this is you, nirvana, trying to reframe the discussion to your benefit: The OP explicitly says these things in regard to your "views" and the "post", not you[1]. It's only you who insists on characterizing yourself as the victim here. Rather than actually responding to the criticism of the content of your post you instead try to reframe the discussion as an attack on you (which it clearly is not) as opposed to an evaluation of our views (which it clearly is). Too bad you never seem to actually address criticism of your ideology and instead leave with the cop out, "You can't disprove my opinions to myself so therefore I must be right." Really disappointing to see this kind of shenanigans on HN. [1] "There's a whole bunch else about your post that's plainly wrong or misleading...In general your post is a rant...Finally I think the tolerance and celebration of these views--hardcore, far-out, and relatively uninformed--in the tech community is a discrediting force..." These are related to the "post" or the "views" and not the person making or holding them.
- nirvana 15y ago"Your post is fascist, and your views are mindless, based on an unthinking ideology which has, at its core, the exploitation of the innocent for your own personal gain." The above sentence is addressing your post, your views and your ideology, in the same way you claim he was addressing my "post" and my "views". (and my ideology). It is a painfully transparent way to call you "fascist", "mindless", "unthinking", "exploitative" and "evil". If he were actually addressing my points, he could rebut them. To rebut them, requires several elements. First he has to honestly accept what I'm saying-- thus knocking down a strawman is not actually addressing a point, and thus not rebutting it. Second he has to bring facts, logic or reason to show why the point is in error. Simply calling the point names (as you claim he is doing) is not actually rebuttal. He didn't respond to my point at all, he misrepresented it characterize me and then characterized me, while pretending not to. I saw thru it. It seems silly that you'd think that, having seen thru it, I would suddenly think otherwise. I think the motivation of your response is also that you disagree with me, but rather than rebut my points, you're jumping into the flay because he made it personal. Nothing convinces me of the correctness of my perspective like my opponents fear of it.