Libertarians should stop insulting cops

Truth Warrior said:
I would if you hadn't, but you did. I know what I said and meant. I wrote it.

You got it wrong, on purpose, or maybe just out of ignorance.

Do you deserve the benefit of the doubt on which? NO!
Click to expand...

And the question is STILL unanswered. :p
 
Truth Warrior said:
I would if you hadn't, but you did. I know what I said and meant. I wrote it.

You got it wrong, on purpose, or maybe just out of ignorance.

Do you deserve the benefit of the doubt? NO!
Click to expand...

Your argument is ridiculous:
You're essentially saying, "You're wrong. I'm right. That's why I'm not going to explain what I'm right about," as if that's somehow a convincing argument. Give me a break. I've supported my argument, and all you can come up with is childish "I'm right, you're wrong" taunting? Are you kidding me? Is this seriously how you debate with people in real life, too?

Let me repeat myself:
If you want to get anywhere with this, first answer this question flat out: Did you or did you not intend for your following statement to apply to all voters?
Do you vote? If so, you are a statist.<IMHO>
Click to expand...
It's a simple question...either you did, or you did not. There are a lot of questions that people frame as "either/or" questions when they really involve multiple shades of gray, but "either/or" questions of intent like this are straightforward and I can't see how a simple answer won't suffice...still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and allow you to explain your position if you truly feel that it's not an "either/or" question - but make sure to explain convincingly and in-depth. Of course, you could just answer the question.
 
Last edited:
Mini-Me said:
Your argument is ridiculous:
You're essentially saying, "You're wrong. I'm right. That's why I'm not going to explain what I'm right about," as if that's somehow a convincing argument. Give me a break. I've supported my argument, and all you can come up with is childish "I'm right, you're wrong" taunting? Are you kidding me? Is this seriously how you debate with people in real life, too?

Let me repeat myself:
If you want to get anywhere with this, first answer this question flat out: Did you or did you not intend for your following statement to apply to all voters?

It's a simple question...either you did, or you did not. There are a lot of questions that people frame as "either/or" questions when they really involve multiple shades of gray, but "either/or" questions of intent like this are straightforward and I can't see how a simple answer won't suffice...still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and allow you to explain your position if you truly feel that it's not a "either/or" question - but make sure to explain convincingly and in-depth. Of course, you could just answer the question.
Click to expand...

Yes. However I wasn't even talking to YOU. And you didn't even have the basic courtesy, integrity nor honesty of posting the full context.

It's not my problem. It's ALL yours. You can continue to try and BS your way out of it, but it ain't gonna fly Wilbur. :rolleyes:
 
Truth Warrior said:
Yes. However I wasn't even talking to YOU. And you didn't even have the basic courtesy, integrity nor honesty of posting the full context.

It's not my problem. It's ALL yours. You can continue to try and BS your way out of it, but it ain't gonna fly Wilbur. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And the question is STILL unanswered. :p
 
Truth Warrior said:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1611937&postcount=64
Click to expand...

Alright, you can continue to play games, patronize me, and dodge the question. I understand your fear, childish though it may be:
If you answer "I did," I automatically win because it means I obviously took your meaning exactly the way you intended it...ergo, I did not portray your statement out of context nor formulate a straw man argument.

If you answer "I did not," you know that my next question will be, once again, "If I had not omitted any of your post, precisely how would those extra passages demonstrate that you did not intend for the statement to apply to all voters?" However, no surrounding passages provide any such context which would change anybody's understanding of the statement in question. Therefore, you're completely incapable of proving otherwise.
 
Truth Warrior said:
Yes. However I wasn't even talking to YOU. And you didn't even have the basic courtesy, integrity nor honesty of posting the full context.

It's not my problem. It's ALL yours. You can continue to try and BS your way out of it, but it ain't gonna fly Wilbur. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

OH, so I DID take your meaning exactly the way you intended it: Ergo I did not portray your statement out of context nor formulate a straw man argument. I automatically win this argument, because you just conceded it by admitting that I took your statement exactly as intended and argued against it. Without engaging in cognitive dissonance and still insisting that I took your quote out of context, your only remaining claim in this department is that I shouldn't snip the irrelevant parts of your post, even if they're not important context...but longstanding netiquette standards say otherwise.

On the separate issue of you whining, "Boo hoo, I wasn't talking to you, and you had no right to butt in," I already explained exactly why it became my business when you disparaged a group that I'm a part of (voters). I gave two illustrations in earlier posts explaining exactly why this is so (the brown clothes parable and the parable of the whores).
 
Last edited:
Mini-Me said:
OH, so I DID take your meaning exactly the way you intended it: Ergo I did not portray your statement out of context nor formulate a straw man argument. I automatically win this argument, because you just conceded it by admitting that I took your statement exactly as intended.

On the separate issue of you whining, "Boo hoo, I wasn't talking to you, and you had no right to butt in," I already explained exactly why it became my business when you disparaged a group that I'm a part of (voters). I gave two illustrations in earlier posts explaining exactly why this is so (the brown clothes parable and the parable of the whores).
Click to expand...
Of course you did and you know it, Wilbur. :p
 
Truth Warrior said:
Of course you did and you know it, Wilbur. :p
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm debating with Pee-Wee Herman, whose sole argument is, "I know you are, but what am I?"

With your concession that I took your statement exactly as it was intended when I argued against it, I've sufficiently proven my case that I did not quote it out of context...and my particular remarks regarding your excessive use of the word "statist" have gone entirely unchallenged, so I have no other option but to assume your silence means agreement. There's really nothing else I can add.
 
Mini-Me said:
Alright, you can continue to play games, patronize me, and dodge the question. I understand your fear, childish though it may be:
If you answer "I did," I automatically win because it means I obviously took your meaning exactly the way you intended it...ergo, I did not portray your statement out of context nor formulate a straw man argument.

If you answer "I did not," you know that my next question will be, once again, "If I had not omitted any of your post, precisely how would those extra passages demonstrate that you did not intend for the statement to apply to all voters?" However, no surrounding passages provide any such context which would change anybody's understanding of the statement in question. Therefore, you're completely incapable of proving otherwise.
Click to expand...
Post # 107 wasn't even for you either. Geeze what a lame and pathetic goober. :rolleyes:

I think our conversation is over.

WAKE UP! GROW UP! GET REAL!
 
Last edited:
Truth Warrior said:
I'm sorry, but I am unable to accept nor believe your claimed position on the Nolan chart. Do you vote? If so, you are a statist.<IMHO>

What is your opinion of the Non Aggression Principle? Does the state aggress? Obvious answer, YES.

Of course cops ( AKA "law enforcement" officers ) are human and make mistakes. DUH!! ALL people are and do. :rolleyes: That is precisely why they should not be given too much power. Most people can not handle too much power. It tends invariably to corrupt them.

Weak ideology? By what moral right and / or legitimate authority do some people get to rule other people against their will? Simple question, simple answer.<IMHO>

Aw go ahead, I can handle rude. ;) I am here because I like Ron Paul and have now for decades. Also because I choose to be here. And yet Ron Paul also clearly supports LRC. As do I. Curious, no? Actually it will be necessary to pass through Ron Paul's world on the road to get to mine. Currently humanity is STILL being dragged in the exact opposite direction.

Ron has a campaign slogan of "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity". Sign me up. I'm a HUGE fan of all three of those. The state is NOT.

An anarchist is anyone that wants less government than you do. ;)

nwo-logo_130x.gif


Thanks! :)

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"
Click to expand...

bump
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
"wrong house" police raids
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
jmdrake
"Mr. Bean" evicertates the UK's government attack on free speech
Replies
0
Views
1K
jmdrake
jmdrake
PAF
Conservatives Versus Libertarians on Education and Healthcare
Replies
1
Views
83
Working Poor
Working Poor
PAF
Libertarianism vs. Microlibertarianism
Replies
0
Views
290
PAF
PAF
PAF
Why Are Some Libertarians So Concerned about Tax Loopholes?
Replies
18
Views
322
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top