I finally did it...a critique of UPB

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

This is the sort of thing that has always bothered me about the Libertarian/anarchist* community. Intellectual honesty really isn't considered an important virtue.

I must say that is my experience as well.

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

The end always justify the means. It's really hard to get people to abandon bullshit arguments that they feel have utility.

I think that may be the definition of politics. Which is why I believe that political action is evil in and of itself.

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

Maybe there is something fundamentally wrong and untenable about political philosophy.

- NonE

addendum: * I'm not sure to what you refer when you say "anarchist community" as the word anarchist means without ruler. I don't see how you can have institutionalized problems absent an institution, so I present this as a caveat to my otherwise agreement with your sentiments.

Guest

NonEntity wrote:

addendum: * I'm not sure to what you refer when you say "anarchist community" as the word anarchist means without ruler. I don't see how you can have institutionalized problems absent an institution, so I present this as a caveat to my otherwise agreement with your sentiments.

I use the term "anarchist community" with about the same amount of gravity that people apply to the phrase "YouTube community" or "online community".

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

NonEntity wrote:

addendum: * I'm not sure to what you refer when you say "anarchist community" as the word anarchist means without ruler. I don't see how you can have institutionalized problems absent an institution, so I present this as a caveat to my otherwise agreement with your sentiments.

I use the term "anarchist community" with about the same amount of gravity that people apply to the phrase "YouTube community" or "online community".

Gravity? Gravity seems to imply a level of respect or consideration. I do not see how this is a response to my comment. I'm not commenting on their sense of importance, but rather am pointing out that the nature of anarchism differs from that of libertarianism in that libertarians seem to want to use the methods of politics to "cure" politics, whereas anarchism is a refutation of the idea of rulers.

So I'm still confused.

But I do agree that from what I've seen, the libertarian community tends to be just as religious as any other fundamentalist sect.

I think that anyone believing that they have "the answer" is dangerous, regardless of what form their "answer" comes in.

- NonE

Guest

NonEntity wrote:

Gravity? Gravity seems to imply a level of respect or consideration. I do not see how this is a response to my comment. I'm not commenting on their sense of importance, but rather am pointing out that the nature of anarchism differs from that of libertarianism in that libertarians seem to want to use the methods of politics to "cure" politics, whereas anarchism is a refutation of the idea of rulers.

So I'm still confused.

- NonE

A community, by definition, does not require a ruler. The sense in which I am using the word "community" is in the sense of "a group of people with common interests".

The reason I think you are "confused" is because you seem to think that any given word can only have one definition or "sense", and that you are the arbiter of which "sense" is ultimately valid. Accordingly, you impose your preferred definition of a word onto what someone else is saying, rather than infer from the context of what they are saying, what sense of the word they are using.

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Au contrare. I was simply pointing out the inference I was taking from your words and suggesting that it did not make sense. You are the one who is suggesting that I'm acting in a dictatorial fashion.

I brought up the point as it did not make a lot of sense to me and so I was providing space for you to amplify your meaning. If I'd understood your meaning from the context then there would have been no need to query further.

I'm still not clear, but that's okay as I don't care to engage in a hostile environment.

I'm imposing nothing. chill. ;-)

- NonE

Guest

NonEntity wrote:

Au contrare. I was simply pointing out the inference I was taking from your words and suggesting that it did not make sense. You are the one who is suggesting that I'm acting in a dictatorial fashion.

I brought up the point as it did not make a lot of sense to me and so I was providing space for you to amplify your meaning. If I'd understood your meaning from the context then there would have been no need to query further.

I'm still not clear, but that's okay as I don't care to engage in a hostile environment.

I'm imposing nothing. chill. ;-)

- NonE

Whatever.

Fuck you for:

a) splitting hairs and busting my balls over semantics, and

b) ejecting out of any conversation wherein someone objects to or disagrees with something you say.

If (like Stefantologists), you are too emotionally sensitive to cope with an objection or disagreement, then maybe you should go live in a cave with no internet connection.

I apologize to everybody else who thinks I'm being a dick, and this isn't the proper place to be a dick, but this is the second conversation I've had with NonE, and the first time he pulled the same crap.

If I hear ONE more person tell me that they are too emotionally delicate to cope with intellectual disagreement (despite the fact that they are posting on a philosophy forum where ideas are discussed *ZOMG*), then I will likely go and jump off a cliff. Thank you very much, and have a nice day. Smile

Stewart · Number of posts: 1186 Location: Boston, MA Registration date: 2008-04-03

Real-time relationships, LiMi style.

Guest

NonEntity wrote:

I was simply pointing out the inference I was taking from your words and suggesting that it did not make sense.

I don't even know what definition of "community" you think implies the existence of a "ruler", so your whole objection was just weird and made no sense in the first place. We were having a normal conversation and then you went weird on me. When I was all, "WTF?", you ejected (as usual) from the conversation.

Conrad · Subject: Re: I finally did it...a critique of UPB Fri May 15, 2009 5:28 pm

NonEntity wrote:

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

NonEntity wrote:

addendum: * I'm not sure to what you refer when you say "anarchist community" as the word anarchist means without ruler. I don't see how you can have institutionalized problems absent an institution, so I present this as a caveat to my otherwise agreement with your sentiments.

I use the term "anarchist community" with about the same amount of gravity that people apply to the phrase "YouTube community" or "online community".

Gravity? Gravity seems to imply a level of respect or consideration. I do not see how this is a response to my comment. I'm not commenting on their sense of importance, but rather am pointing out that the nature of anarchism differs from that of libertarianism in that libertarians seem to want to use the methods of politics to "cure" politics, whereas anarchism is a refutation of the idea of rulers.

So I'm still confused.

But I do agree that from what I've seen, the libertarian community tends to be just as religious as any other fundamentalist sect.

oh come on. I much agree that many libertarians cling to certain ideas even though their argumentation is flawed, but 'like any other fundamentalist sect'?

Quote:

I think that anyone believing that they have "the answer" is dangerous, regardless of what form their "answer" comes in.

tempted to put an FDR style 'And do you think that itself is "the answer"?' comment, with I believe some justification.

_________________
My Blog

Conrad · Subject: Re: I finally did it...a critique of UPB Fri May 15, 2009 5:30 pm

NonEntity wrote:

Au contrare. I was simply pointing out the inference I was taking from your words and suggesting that it did not make sense. You are the one who is suggesting that I'm acting in a dictatorial fashion.

I brought up the point as it did not make a lot of sense to me and so I was providing space for you to amplify your meaning. If I'd understood your meaning from the context then there would have been no need to query further.

the principle of charity (in the colloquial not the strict philosophical sense) helps with this sort of thing

_________________
My Blog

Conrad · Subject: Re: I finally did it...a critique of UPB Fri May 15, 2009 5:32 pm

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

NonEntity wrote:

Au contrare. I was simply pointing out the inference I was taking from your words and suggesting that it did not make sense. You are the one who is suggesting that I'm acting in a dictatorial fashion.

I brought up the point as it did not make a lot of sense to me and so I was providing space for you to amplify your meaning. If I'd understood your meaning from the context then there would have been no need to query further.

I'm still not clear, but that's okay as I don't care to engage in a hostile environment.

I'm imposing nothing. chill. ;-)

- NonE

Whatever.

Fuck you for:

a) splitting hairs and busting my balls over semantics, and

b) ejecting out of any conversation wherein someone objects to or disagrees with something you say.

If (like Stefantologists), you are too emotionally sensitive to cope with an objection or disagreement, then maybe you should go live in a cave with no internet connection.

I apologize to everybody else who thinks I'm being a dick, and this isn't the proper place to be a dick, but this is the second conversation I've had with NonE, and the first time he pulled the same crap.

if by 'first' you mean 'second' then that sentence makes sense

anyhoo, NonE and I have had similar interactions as NonE and you.

_________________
My Blog

Guest

Conrad wrote:

if by 'first' you mean 'second' then that sentence makes sense

Actually, what I meant was:.

This is the second conversation I've had with NonE, and the THIRD time he's pulled the same crap.

Guest

Conrad wrote:

anyhoo, NonE and I have had similar interactions as NonE and you.

I think he's a Stefantologist operative. You haven't allowed him access to classified information about our plans to occasionally poke fun at, bitch about, and subtly undermine FDR, have you?

Conrad · Subject: Re: I finally did it...a critique of UPB Fri May 15, 2009 6:04 pm

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

Conrad wrote:

anyhoo, NonE and I have had similar interactions as NonE and you.

I think he's a Stefantologist operative. You haven't allowed him access to classified information about our plans to occasionally poke fun at, bitch about, and subtly undermine FDR, have you?

just your address and phone number, as well as those of your high school sweetheart (she's called John now and works in construction)

_________________
My Blog

T.E.M. · Number of posts: 230 Location: 'ol Virginny Registration date: 2008-12-05

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

Conrad wrote:

if by 'first' you mean 'second' then that sentence makes sense

Actually, what I meant was:.

This is the second conversation I've had with NonE, and the THIRD time he's pulled the same crap.

Ah see I took in the original wording as meaning that the when he first pulled the crap, it wasn't yet "the same crap." So this was the first time the crap became the same crap.