| User Info
| Frog Stew ... Starving the Monkeys ... Freedom Radio in forum [FedUp]
|
Bezzle
Posts: 15043
Incept: 2009-08-02
Banned
|
Quote:Again, because SOME muslims behave like sadistic *******s, that means all of them are impervious to reason? Please. "Just becomes SOME Germans are Nazis who behave like sadistic *******s, that means that all of them are impervious to reason? Please."-- You mean like that? Quote:And you have absolutely NOTHING to say about the innocents killed by drone strikes or the like? You ****ing hypocrite. Don't talk to me about "morality" when you turn a blind eye to that ****. Audience note: it is this exact moment that I must regretably conclude that EW is insane. -- He is willing to condemn, inevitably, the entire world to psychopaths if it is not possible to thwart them without subjecting hostage populations to harm. Clue: When one is under attack, one is not ethically required to sacrifice oneself when the attacker holds hostages -- and scale does not alter this. It doesn't matter if it's a criminal holding a single victim at knife-point, or a regime of psyhopaths using a nation as a staging-area. -- You think maybe a few innocent people died in Murry Rothbard's "just wars"? Did you imagine, when you posted that tripe above, that I wouldn't immediately place one next to the other for a little ol' logical consistency checking? Quote:Anyone who is killed MUST be guilty of something b/c the mighty bezzle says so. Now watch the man just make **** up like a common liar.  Go ahead and try to prove that.
----------
El Sock-Puppeto exposed and killed by Tickerguy
|
Elliott_wave
Posts: 610
Incept: 2007-08-25
|
Bezzle,
How many people are forced to become muslims, or were forced to become nazis, via coercion?
How many muslims do you think need to die? Is it acceptable bezzle war policy for unarmed women and children to be killed in these strikes?
How is any of that libertarian?????
Stick to taxes bez, your bloodlust shows too easily when you talk about your personal Brown Menace of Middle East origin.
----------
Reason: spelling
|
Bezzle
Posts: 15043
Incept: 2009-08-02
Banned
|
EW wrote..Quote:Quote:And you have absolutely NOTHING to say about the innocents killed by drone strikes or the like? You ****ing hypocrite. Don't talk to me about "morality" when you turn a blind eye to that ****. Audience note: it is this exact moment that I must regretably conclude that EW is insane.
-- He is willing to condemn, inevitably, the entire world to psychopaths if it is not possible to thwart them without subjecting hostage populations to harm.
Clue: When one is under attack, one is not ethically required to sacrifice oneself when the attacker holds hostages -- and scale does not alter this. It doesn't matter if it's a criminal holding a single victim at knife-point, or a regime of psyhopaths using a nation as a staging-area.
-- You think maybe a few innocent people died in Murry Rothbard's "just wars"? Did you imagine, when you posted that tripe above, that I wouldn't immediately place one next to the other for a little ol' logical consistency checking?Quote:Anyone who is killed MUST be guilty of something b/c the mighty bezzle says so. Now watch the man just make **** up like a common liar.
Go ahead and try to prove that.
<blank-out>
----------
El Sock-Puppeto exposed and killed by Tickerguy
|
Elliott_wave
Posts: 610
Incept: 2007-08-25
|
Come on bez, answer my questions above.
How many people were forced to be muslims or nazis, and do they dserve to die?
The rest of your post is just emotive diarrhea.
----------
|
Bezzle
Posts: 15043
Incept: 2009-08-02
Banned
|
Quote:How many people were forced to be muslims or nazis, and do they dserve to die?
Come on bez, answer my questions. Not until you face your <blank-out> and answer mine. -- You're stiffing me on my direct question to you regarding Rothbard's "just wars", an opinion you apparently regarded high enough to not only cite, but chide me for not responding to with sufficient promptness. Not to mention the Clue, which addressed your question before you asked it. Something inside your head is logically broken, kid; and you need to get it fixed before I treat you any better than a myopic 60s flower-child (which is the status I've relegated you to now). --- Watch this from the beginning to 9:15 or so, then shut it off: http://www.graspr.com/videos/Objectivism....Essay Test: In his commentary from 8:05 to 9:15, Stefan Molyneux keys in on what he thinks is a problem, and forms an errant conclusion based upon a false premise. -- What is his error? (BTW, I'm about ready to punt all of his stuff out of this thread too.)
----------
El Sock-Puppeto exposed and killed by Tickerguy
|
Elliott_wave
Posts: 610
Incept: 2007-08-25
|
Bez,
You have done nothing but over-generalize, use argument from emotion, attack straw men, and finally blatant ad homenim.
This debate is over, as far as I'm concerned, until you answer my questions:
What is your opinion on "muslims" or "nazis" who were coerced in some fashion to join that group.Are they legit targets or not?
What percentage of the muslim population needs to die? At what point will you be satisfied, and call an end to operations? What are the risks and benefits to these acts of killing and destruction? These are questions you would be forced to answer if you were living in an an-cap society and wanted to voluntarily organize a force. Answer them now, or shut up!
Finally, why am I "morally" responsible for **** that happens thousands of miles away, that occurs amon people who I neither know, nor personally ask me for help? Tens of thousands of murders, rapes, and robberies occur in my geographic area (continental US), but no one in their right mind demands some random person here hunt down and avenge these injustices.
----------
|
Bezzle
Posts: 15043
Incept: 2009-08-02
Banned
|
Quote:This debate is over, as far as I'm concerned, until you answer my question You mean like this? "You think maybe a few innocent people died in Murry Rothbard's 'just wars'"? My question, which preceded yours, which you stiffed. Take your bull**** and get lost until you're ready to live up to your own criteria.
----------
El Sock-Puppeto exposed and killed by Tickerguy
|
Elliott_wave
Posts: 610
Incept: 2007-08-25
|
Bezzle,
Your question is inherently dishonest, and you know it. That is why I'm not answering it. Besides, you have some explaining to do. Let's not get distracted now.
Either put up and answer my queations, or shut up!
----------
Reason: spelling
|
Downrange
Posts: 5414
Incept: 2007-09-26
Just Say No to RomnobamaDingDong!
|
And, this is how this thread, and those like it always die: a Mexican standoff between a couple of self-appointed "experts," complete with threats and admonishments to take their ball and go home, or "go read my other posts," (no links provided, of course, it's up the plebe to do all their own homework.) Congratulations! You have successfully derailed any meaningful discussion of Baugh's ideas as you claim center stage with your grandstanding polemics, one-upmanship, and juvenile*****ing contests. Perhaps that's exactly what you have in mind? Meanwhile, the rest of TF just turns it off. It's very clear to me now why no one pursues a serious discussion of the work of Tom Baugh and others who truly champion freedom of thought and action. For any interested bystanders who may actually still be reading this, please investigate Baugh for yourself, and form your own conclusions, and take anything from the usual sources here with a metric **** ton of salt! Carry on, ladies. http://www.starvingthemonkeys.com/
----------
"If this is how the state treats its law-abiding citizens, it doesn't deserve to have any" A. Solzhenitzen
|
Lilvern1
Posts: 4768
Incept: 2007-09-28
Bender! You're blind, stinking, sober!
|
Very well said Down.
----------
"The Keynesian clowns will be howling that reduced stimulus killed the recovery. However, the reality is there was no recovery in the first place, only an illusion caused by unsustainable stimulus." Mish **** CNBC
|
Elliott_wave
Posts: 610
Incept: 2007-08-25
|
Downrange,
Is it that hard to use the search function on the boards? I've addressed this question many times. Search my username and the word "defense". You will find some posts of interest.
----------
|
Downrange
Posts: 5414
Incept: 2007-09-26
Just Say No to RomnobamaDingDong!
|
Elliott, I looked at some of your posts, I didn't find one where you addressed the very simple question I posed, although I do agree with you about the need for civilians to represent a "true militia" (with same infantry weaponry), and we are in agreement about the excesses of our central state (which need to be rectified). That does not answer the questions:
Nukes are here. Who controls them? I won't repeat all I've already said. I think you guys just like to argue with each other and won't address the real questions I posed, so why further waste time here?
Prove me wrong here and how. Just answer these questions: how do you manage the FACT that there are nukes? How do you control them? Who holds the codes? What is the chain-of-command? Just these few questions obviate any kind of loosely-structured utopian anarcho-capitalist system, because as soon as the ACs get plump enough, the centrally governed nation states who have the requisite force will take what they've produced. It is, in fact, the story of human history.
This should be obvious in most universes I'm aware of.
----------
"If this is how the state treats its law-abiding citizens, it doesn't deserve to have any" A. Solzhenitzen
|
Elliott_wave
Posts: 610
Incept: 2007-08-25
|
Downrange, There is a legit question in there, but I want to respond with an answer I don't think will satisfy you -- at this point -- because I want to make you to make explicit some of your premises. Please bear with me, as I will ultimately give a meaningful response to your request for info. Downrange wrote..
Elliott, I looked at some of your posts, I didn't find one where you addressed the very simple question I posed, although I do agree with you about the need for civilians to represent a "true militia" (with same infantry weaponry)...
I'm just picking a nit, but language is important. The members of the militia would be sovereigns not citizens. Those who have leadership and skills in particular areas would gain TEMPORARY followers to accomplish a particular task, and when it is complete, their authority would CEASE, and those who decided to carry out certain acts and operations would do so because of a tacit trust in the direction of those recognized leaders. Quote:
Nukes are here. Who controls them? I won't repeat all I've already said. I think you guys just like to argue with each other and won't address the real questions I posed, so why further waste time here?
Yes nukes are hear. And the U.S. Air Force finds them to be a nuisance. http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/o....Atomic Bulletin wrote..
# During the Cold War, the U.S. Air Force received a bulk of the country's defense budget because of its significant role in delivering nuclear weapons.
# But after the Soviet Union disintegrated, the air force became more interested in traditional air missions and the next generation of fighter planes.
# This disinterest manifested itself in two recent nuclear-related mishaps that cost the air force chief of staff and secretary their jobs.
# Generally, the military considers nuclear weapons costly and unnecessary, as conventional weapons can capably complete nuclear missions
Who controls them now? Quote:
Given this lack of attention to nuclear weapons, it's not surprising that in August 2007 a B-52 accidentally flew six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles across the country, from North Dakota to Louisiana, or that four nuclear-missile fuses were mistakenly shipped to Taiwan in 2006. Gates was correct to hold Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne responsible for their lack of attention to nuclear weapons. But the bigger issue is why the Pentagon still needs to keep so many nuclear weapons in its inventory nearly two decades after the Cold War--particularly when just about everyone in the military believes they present minimal strategic utility. General Cartwright, who in 2007 moved from STRATCOM to become Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said as much. In Congressional testimony on March 8, 2007, he declared, "As good as [U.S. conventional weapons] are, we simply cannot be everywhere with our general purpose conventional forces, and use of a nuclear weapon in a prompt response may be no choice at all."
RE: Command and Control WHAT HAPPENED TO RUSSIA’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS? A PRIMER by Paul K. Barney, Major, USAF http://tinyurl.com/3qfryhxQuote:
A common fear associated with control of nuclear weapons after the breakup of the Soviet Union is rogue commanders in Russia or the former republics. This fear was dramatized in popular films. To the contrary, Russia designed weapons to operate like those of the United States: a missile that has its flight pre-assigned still requires a launch command with legitimate authority to fire. This command includes remotely unlocking chosen weapons and entering of
codes by higher command and the launch crew. Submarines and bombers (the latter must first load weapons) must reach designated launch points, and two-person teams must authenticate the orders to target and fire the weapons.28 Furthermore, the launch codes covering the entire arsenal before and after the breakup passed securely from Gorbachev to Yeltsin. To further ensure civilian control, the government removed nuclear “suitcases” from the Defense Minister
and Chief of the General Staff in 1991.29
Quote:
Prove me wrong here and how. Just answer these questions: how do you manage the FACT that there are nukes? How do you control them? Who holds the codes? What is the chain-of-command? Just these few questions obviate any kind of loosely-structured utopian anarcho-capitalist system, because as soon as the ACs get plump enough, the centrally governed nation states who have the requisite force will take what they've produced. It is, in fact, the story of human history.
Again, your question implies that the collapse of a central govt. means that: 1. Nuclear weapons won't be secured 2. There is a desire among nations to continually increase stockpiles. I think I've provided information that contradicts these assumptions.
----------
|
Downrange
Posts: 5414
Incept: 2007-09-26
Just Say No to RomnobamaDingDong!
|
Ell, I don't understand how you can quote all that and still miss the point of the question: who controls existing nukes (not to mention their maintenance, etc.)? Actually your cites answered it pretty well, though. They are still under the control of CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS, especially Russia, and this country. That's the whole story. My question does no imply that nuclear weapons won't be secured; rather, it asserts they will be, and in the ONLY way possible - a central government. Your other assertion (2) is simply irrelevant to the discussion. So, once again, how does an A/C society, lacking a central government deal with the issue of nuclear weapons? I have no great quarrel with your "sovereign citizen" thesis, if I understand it correctly. I think once we can agree about how the issue of Nukes is to be handled, we should be able to proceed along the lines of how a proper, limited central government should be structured, and how to begin to "remove" those high powered "levers" that Baugh refers to in my sig line. While I'm here, and spending a post, I would point out that any readers who have followed and want to find a truly great series of Baugh articles to investigate need look no further than his "A Nation without a Country" six part series on Dump DC. Here's a link to the first article: http://dumpdc.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/a....I recommend these because, in them, Baugh projects very realistically what may very possibly happen as the TSHTF - maybe they're linked somewhere else here or elsewhere, if so, sorry for the dupe cite, but - definitely good material.
----------
"If this is how the state treats its law-abiding citizens, it doesn't deserve to have any" A. Solzhenitzen
|
Bezzle
Posts: 15043
Incept: 2009-08-02
Banned
|
EW wrote..Bezzle, Your question is inherently dishonest, and you know it. That is why I'm not answering it. Bull****, and bull****. You chided me over my presumed brusque lack of concern for the plight of war casualties right after whining of my lack of alacrity in responding to your citation of Murray Rothbard's "Just War" material at Lewrockwell, noted bastion of Confederate historical revisionism (a creepy outgrowth of the old-line white-power Klan/neo-Nazi/"Christian Identity" slime that infest these places like an undercurrent of sewage welling up from a basement drain until their stench pervades everything). Needless to say, my bemusement was peaked further when you accused me of latent racism right after evincing zero concern for the plight of the tens of millions of Africans who are slaves right now, all the while championing the work of a man who celebrates a break-away slave regime which started the most population-proportionately bloody war in American history. -- You're hoist on your own hypocrisy and now stamping your feet like a petulant child because you don't know how to honestly deal with it. downrange, to EW, wrote..And, this is how this thread, and those like it always die: a Mexican standoff between a couple of self-appointed "experts," <raised eyebrow> Expertise does exist; and rational men recognize it when they see it. Quote:It's very clear to me now why no one pursues a serious discussion of the work of Tom Baugh and others who truly champion freedom of thought and action. What am I? Chopped liver? The only reason virtually anyone here knows anything about Baugh is due to this thread; and the only reason his material is included within the thread is because that particular material is in accordance with my own, as the creator of the thread. -- Which is to maintain that you're not getting any more out of him than you are me. I.e., his is simply a supporting viewpoint. In retrospect, I should have never done so, as I don't need supporting viewpoints if all they do is mirror my own; and I certainly have no use for extended forays into potential insanities these guys may be indulging themselves in of which I was unaware when I originally included their material.
----------
El Sock-Puppeto exposed and killed by Tickerguy
|
Timbo
Posts: 2549
Incept: 2008-10-10
the holy mountain
|
Bez wrote..Essay Test Pedagogical note: in the Empty Tweed Jacketry of the People's Vanguard of Educatin', subjects are conditioned to associate the omission of an explicit and inflexible "due date" with the expectation a problem may be dismissed at flank speed.
----------
|
Bezzle
Posts: 15043
Incept: 2009-08-02
Banned
|
<laff>
But did you spot where Stephan screwed up?
----------
El Sock-Puppeto exposed and killed by Tickerguy
|
Timbo
Posts: 2549
Incept: 2008-10-10
the holy mountain
|
Spot it? *blink* Listen, mac, I had a guy haul back a 6' leg and drop-kick my ass into another zip-code over it -- I can tell you what it looks like from space.
It might be a useful exercise to transcribe and line-item the disjointed barrage of that 1:10 of video, to demonstrate why filling dead air with babble is counterproductive.
The crux: he blasts through "a rapist thinks he ought to rape, he prefers to rape, he should rape," equating (necessarily subjective) preference with (necessarily objective) rationality. (He lands right on the difference -- "[Rand says] moral is not just hedonistic" -- with no follow-through.)
The concept-bungling occurred when he hot-swapped "Man" for "sociopath," noticing straightaway preference cannot be an "ought," but not that he assumed it was.
It's not entirely clear whether he admits non-sociopathic men ("if everybody wanted to do the right thing to begin with, you wouldn't need philosophy" -- petitio principii, the Right Thing exists); in any case, it's trivial to recognize the logical project of "ethics for breachers-of-ethics" is doomed. The capacity for choice is an essential attribute: no particular choice is.
The interesting question he failed to deal with (front-and-center in, e.g., Atlas Shrugged), is what rationality means.
Students and *ackhem* critics in this direction may wish to consult the crib notes[1]; several million points of extra-credit to be awarded for detecting the bedrock premise. I had never put a name to it, more fool me.
[1] The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 1, "The Objectivist Ethics"
----------
|
Bezzle
Posts: 15043
Incept: 2009-08-02
Banned
|
His real error is in uncritically accepting the premise that there cannot be objective frames of reference vis-a-vis******(his example) or anything else (by extrapolation). -- Yet the rapist wouldn't be under any such illusion -- he would know that what was doing was wrong (he just wouldn't care, because he's an evil hypocrite).
You'd think that someone clearly appreciative of Atlas Shrugged and otherwise demonstrating above-average intelligence would familiarize himself with the basics of Objectivism before commissioning himself the task of critiquing Rand.
But he doesn't, because he's just another angry dilettante: all flash and fury with gossamer shreds of logic straining to hold it together (the inversion of Rand, for whom anger was a logical response when correctly deduced). Such persons can make excellent rabble-rousers (e.g., The Story of Your Enslavement,) but will invariably discredit themselves before long (e.g., his ludicrous, uncritical regurgitation of every single Islamist and old Marxist lie of over a hundred years as he accused the US of causing 26 million "murders" in his Bin-Ladin-dead video).
----------
El Sock-Puppeto exposed and killed by Tickerguy
|
Timbo
Posts: 2549
Incept: 2008-10-10
the holy mountain
|
Bez wrote..His real error is in uncritically accepting the premise that there cannot be objective frames of reference What I had in mind was to point out that critical rejection requires an existence proof, and the ol' girl gave a constructive one. Quote:You'd think that someone clearly appreciative of Atlas Shrugged and otherwise demonstrating above-average intelligence would familiarize himself with the basics of Objectivism before commissioning himself the task of critiquing Rand. I would, right up until someone pointed my head in the direction of know-nothing hatchet-jobs I used to assent because I hadn't bothered to make up my own mind.
----------
|
Abn0rmal
Posts: 9261
Incept: 2009-01-10
|
If he's made such a severe error you should call in to his Sunday show and correct him.
|
Bezzle
Posts: 15043
Incept: 2009-08-02
Banned
|
Quote:If he's made such a severe error you should call in to his Sunday show and correct him. Bezzle's first rule of debate: never argue with a guy with a cut-off switch. I have better things to do with my time.
----------
El Sock-Puppeto exposed and killed by Tickerguy
|
Jotapay
Posts: 16834
Incept: 2008-08-26
Tx
|
Quote:I have better things to do with my time. Rule #1, filter obvious bull****. |
Ck_dexter
Posts: 3950
Incept: 2007-07-19
the south parlor
|
Bezzle wrote..Bezzle's first rule of debate: never argue with a guy with a cut-off switch. Bah, that's a good rule, but he wouldn't do that. If the call was live he would lose too much cred if he cut someone off with a kill switch. How about a three way live call with Stef, Bez and Timbo.
----------
"In other words, that the discussion about what is good, what is beautiful, what is noble, what is pure and what is true, could always go on. Why is that important, why would I like to do that? Because that's the only conversation worth having." Christopher Hitchens.
|
Krzelune
Posts: 5513
Incept: 2007-10-08
|
A cutoff switch is a tool that can be used to make the most logical, intelligent person sound like a raving lunatic. Especially with the 12 second delay. You are helpless calling into one of those talk shows trying to argue with the person that has their finger on the cut off switch. The ONLY hope you would have is, "he wouldn't do that."
----------
The desire of millions, the inconvenience of millions, the suffering of millions, the death of millions, does not concern them because of the evolutionary humanist lens they peer through.
|
RSS available
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!