Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

LOL @ Rand Paul being a shifty m*****f*****

YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 6:13:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rand Paul is being called a hypocrite for this remark:

"I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

Which is apparently in conflict with this remark:

"I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."

To be fair, Paul was talking about in the latter scenario, a myriad of hypothetical situations which he rejected categorically to, such as the use of a drone strike against such noted actresses as Jane Fonda.

But there is a broader point here:

When you promulgate political bombast, it will come back and bite you in the @ss.

Rand Paul supporters far and wide have been galvanized by his political sophistry, his grandiose style and his larger-than-life presence. He has achieved in the short years as a Kentucky senator, what his father never could: a substantive fan base. That is not to say he is any less a joke of a politician, but only rather that he has been caught with his pants down, and he knows it.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Tsar of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 6:33:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rand Paul should have originally shifted his dialogue slightly:

I'm worried about Jane Fonda being hit with a drone (unless she's holding a gun).
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 7:52:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Never liked him. Never trusted him. Not disappointed :)

One of the great things about a Voluntaryist society is that we don't have to concern ourselves with the banal minutiae of a stranger's belief system, because they don't have the illusory right to force it upon us. Conversations could involve more constructive, satisfying topics.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:07:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He doesn't care what weapon is used if someone poses an imminent threat, I fail to see where he's being hypocritical, other than the. Semantics of the one quote you pulled out of a 12 hour speech.

Its very clear to anyone paying even the slightest attention that Paul was for using these weapons against imminent threats and was filibustering their use for targeted assassinations of suspects who did not pose an imminent threat.

'If someone is shooting at us, a canon, a missile, a rocket, a plane, it is pretty easy to know what lethal attacks are. We're talking about people in their homes, at a restaurant, or a cafe that someone is making an accusation'
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:11:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 6:13:19 PM, YYW wrote:
Rand Paul is being called a hypocrite for this remark:

"I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

Which is apparently in conflict with this remark:

"I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."

To be fair, Paul was talking about in the latter scenario, a myriad of hypothetical situations which he rejected categorically to, such as the use of a drone strike against such noted actresses as Jane Fonda.

But there is a broader point here:

When you promulgate political bombast, it will come back and bite you in the @ss.

Rand Paul supporters far and wide have been galvanized by his political sophistry, his grandiose style and his larger-than-life presence. He has achieved in the short years as a Kentucky senator, what his father never could: a substantive fan base. That is not to say he is any less a joke of a politician, but only rather that he has been caught with his pants down, and he knows it.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Well...a way for Senator Rand Paul to escape:
Senator: I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.

Media: But you have said that that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime.

Senator: Indeed. I did say that. But whoever comes out a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash is not an American. So what's wrong with my statement?

Media: Well....
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:21:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

The only one engaging in sophistry here is the OP. This quote can only be taken as evidence for Paul's support of drones acting as a police officer would in this scenario. In this case, it's implied that criminal is resisting arrest, else it wouldn't make any sense that he would condone a police officer just killing him. The quote:

" no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime" describes an entirely different issue than the one described in the former quote. Do criminals need to be charged with a crime before a police officer can apprehend them - forcibly if need be? No.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:23:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:11:49 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/23/2013 6:13:19 PM, YYW wrote:
Rand Paul is being called a hypocrite for this remark:

"I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

Which is apparently in conflict with this remark:

"I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."

To be fair, Paul was talking about in the latter scenario, a myriad of hypothetical situations which he rejected categorically to, such as the use of a drone strike against such noted actresses as Jane Fonda.

But there is a broader point here:

When you promulgate political bombast, it will come back and bite you in the @ss.

Rand Paul supporters far and wide have been galvanized by his political sophistry, his grandiose style and his larger-than-life presence. He has achieved in the short years as a Kentucky senator, what his father never could: a substantive fan base. That is not to say he is any less a joke of a politician, but only rather that he has been caught with his pants down, and he knows it.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Well...a way for Senator Rand Paul to escape:
Senator: I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.

Media: But you have said that that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime.

Senator: Indeed. I did say that. But whoever comes out a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash is not an American. So what's wrong with my statement?

Media: Well....

I could imagine the following taking place:

*guy walks into liquor store, picks up Jack Daniels and pulls out gun*

*guy points gun at clerk*

Guy:Give me all of your money!

*clerk opens register, calls police*

*police arrive*

*guy walks out of liquor store holding a gun and 50 USD cash after robbing the place*

Police: Sir! Stop where you are!

*drone flies overhead*

*guy points gun at police officer*

Police: Sir, ARE YOU AN AMERICAN CITIZEN?

Guy: I'm canadian, eh.

Police: Oscar mike. He's canadian.

*drone shoots canadian*

Police: Another job well done, boys. Man, I love those drones. Sucks to be a Canadian, eh?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:25:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:21:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

The only one engaging in sophistry here is the OP.

Oh that's rich.

This quote can only be taken as evidence for Paul's support of drones acting as a police officer would in this scenario.

lol

In this case, it's implied that criminal is resisting arrest, else it wouldn't make any sense that he would condone a police officer just killing him. The quote:

" no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime" describes an entirely different issue than the one described in the former quote. Do criminals need to be charged with a crime before a police officer can apprehend them - forcibly if need be? No.

Did you not read what I wrote/are you just reacting without reading? I think the hypocrisy charge is ridiculous too, but I'm enjoying the attention Rand Paul is getting because he's a such a blowhard.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:27:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.

At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.

Maybe the smug justification you gain from knowing most uneducated Americans support your statist politics while those who actually try their best to think and base an ideology on freedom struggle to maintain a foothole in the realm of public discourse.

But it's cool, no one expected you to actually respond to the OP, it's just a thread for your opinion of Rand Paul and Libertarians.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:30:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In one quote, Rand condones the use of drones as a replacement for a police officer KILLING someone that is resisting arrest; in the other, Rand rejects drones going out to kill Americans who haven't been charged with a crime. I see no contradiction here.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:31:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:30:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
In one quote, Rand condones the use of drones as a replacement for a police officer KILLING someone that is resisting arrest; in the other, Rand rejects drones going out to kill Americans who haven't been charged with a crime. I see no contradiction here.

I don't know why I capitalized 'killing'; it seemed important at the time :P
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:34:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:30:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
In one quote, Rand condones the use of drones as a replacement for a police officer KILLING someone that is resisting arrest; in the other, Rand rejects drones going out to kill Americans who haven't been charged with a crime.

Huzza! You've figured it out!

I see no contradiction here.

Wonderful. The point was that I am GREATLY enjoying the roasting Paul is enduring because of what MAY APPEAR AT FIRST GLANCE to be a hypocritical slip up.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:34:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:34:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:30:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
In one quote, Rand condones the use of drones as a replacement for a police officer KILLING someone that is resisting arrest; in the other, Rand rejects drones going out to kill Americans who haven't been charged with a crime.

Huzza! You've figured it out!

I see no contradiction here.

Wonderful. The point was that I am GREATLY enjoying the roasting Paul is enduring because of what MAY APPEAR AT FIRST GLANCE to be a hypocritical slip up.

What do I win?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:36:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:27:33 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.

At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.


Maybe the smug justification you gain from knowing most uneducated Americans support your statist politics while those who actually try their best to think and base an ideology on freedom struggle to maintain a foothole in the realm of public discourse.

But it's cool, no one expected you to actually respond to the OP, it's just a thread for your opinion of Rand Paul and Libertarians.

this is a good case in point.

You pretend as though Libertarianism has superior justification to the statist ideologies. They are all equally unjustifiable because they're all founded on ethical principles which are intrinsically subjective. What we have in political discourse is a battle of the whims. So the flagrant arrogance of young libertarians must be forever unfounded.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:36:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:27:33 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Maybe the smug justification you gain from knowing most uneducated Americans support your statist politics while those who actually try their best to think and base an ideology on freedom struggle to maintain a foothole in the realm of public discourse.

lol

But it's cool, no one expected you to actually respond to the OP, it's just a thread for your opinion of Rand Paul and Libertarians.

Actually the thread was ONLY about Rand Paul. Libertarians generally irritate me, but that's beside the point. Mocking the media coverage of Rand's latest foulup was the point.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:37:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:34:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:34:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:30:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
In one quote, Rand condones the use of drones as a replacement for a police officer KILLING someone that is resisting arrest; in the other, Rand rejects drones going out to kill Americans who haven't been charged with a crime.

Huzza! You've figured it out!

I see no contradiction here.

Wonderful. The point was that I am GREATLY enjoying the roasting Paul is enduring because of what MAY APPEAR AT FIRST GLANCE to be a hypocritical slip up.

What do I win?

Not a thing.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:40:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:27:33 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.

At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.


Maybe the smug justification you gain from knowing most uneducated Americans support your statist politics while those who actually try their best to think and base an ideology on freedom struggle to maintain a foothole in the realm of public discourse.

But it's cool, no one expected you to actually respond to the OP, it's just a thread for your opinion of Rand Paul and Libertarians.

this is a good case in point.

You pretend as though Libertarianism has superior justification to the statist ideologies. They are all equally unjustifiable because they're all founded on ethical principles which are intrinsically subjective. What we have in political discourse is a battle of the whims. So the flagrant arrogance of young libertarians must be forever unfounded.

They're unjustifiable if you want to throw out all the axioms that underpin our society. If we hold some basic axioms, philosophical discourse can be very effective at establishing a society that emulates said axioms.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:40:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

*raises hand*

I think that Rand Paul is the best supporter of individual rights, the Constitution, and the free market among everyone in Congress.

I hope he runs for President in 2016. Or Marco Rubio, he's also good; though he did tentatively vote for the NDAA and gave an okay justification for his vote.

Seriously I think it was just a mess up of words, if the man posed an imminent threat was what Rand meant, I'm pretty sure.

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.

Oh you. Liberal, tax and spend government escapades are surely the higher route aren't they :D

I know that most libertarians do come across as arrogant and condescending though, I try hard not to appear this way.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:42:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:36:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:27:33 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Maybe the smug justification you gain from knowing most uneducated Americans support your statist politics while those who actually try their best to think and base an ideology on freedom struggle to maintain a foothole in the realm of public discourse.

lol

But it's cool, no one expected you to actually respond to the OP, it's just a thread for your opinion of Rand Paul and Libertarians.

Actually the thread was ONLY about Rand Paul. Libertarians generally irritate me, but that's beside the point. Mocking the media coverage of Rand's latest foulup was the point.

Do I?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:44:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:40:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:27:33 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.

At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.


Maybe the smug justification you gain from knowing most uneducated Americans support your statist politics while those who actually try their best to think and base an ideology on freedom struggle to maintain a foothole in the realm of public discourse.

But it's cool, no one expected you to actually respond to the OP, it's just a thread for your opinion of Rand Paul and Libertarians.

this is a good case in point.

You pretend as though Libertarianism has superior justification to the statist ideologies. They are all equally unjustifiable because they're all founded on ethical principles which are intrinsically subjective. What we have in political discourse is a battle of the whims. So the flagrant arrogance of young libertarians must be forever unfounded.

They're unjustifiable if you want to throw out all the axioms that underpin our society. If we hold some basic axioms, philosophical discourse can be very effective at establishing a society that emulates said axioms.

There's no such thing as a moral axiom. Axioms arise from their universal self-evidence - that is, they are incontrovertible to all people of well-functioning intellectual faculties. The fact that I can soundly disagree with you that I sense no form of intrinsic logical self-evidence in ethical claims is it enough to discount them as possible axioms.

You're bastardizing the whole concept if you insist on calling subjective feelings axiomatic.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:50:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:42:55 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:36:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:27:33 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Maybe the smug justification you gain from knowing most uneducated Americans support your statist politics while those who actually try their best to think and base an ideology on freedom struggle to maintain a foothole in the realm of public discourse.

lol

But it's cool, no one expected you to actually respond to the OP, it's just a thread for your opinion of Rand Paul and Libertarians.

Actually the thread was ONLY about Rand Paul. Libertarians generally irritate me, but that's beside the point. Mocking the media coverage of Rand's latest foulup was the point.

Do I?

You're on the internet, so it's not likely that you could. But, listening to libertarians talk about politics in person does, yes. That's not to say that other's don't, only that libertarians generally do.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:51:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:44:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:40:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:27:33 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.

At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.


Maybe the smug justification you gain from knowing most uneducated Americans support your statist politics while those who actually try their best to think and base an ideology on freedom struggle to maintain a foothole in the realm of public discourse.

But it's cool, no one expected you to actually respond to the OP, it's just a thread for your opinion of Rand Paul and Libertarians.

this is a good case in point.

You pretend as though Libertarianism has superior justification to the statist ideologies. They are all equally unjustifiable because they're all founded on ethical principles which are intrinsically subjective. What we have in political discourse is a battle of the whims. So the flagrant arrogance of young libertarians must be forever unfounded.

They're unjustifiable if you want to throw out all the axioms that underpin our society. If we hold some basic axioms, philosophical discourse can be very effective at establishing a society that emulates said axioms.

There's no such thing as a moral axiom. Axioms arise from their universal self-evidence - that is, they are incontrovertible to all people of well-functioning intellectual faculties. The fact that I can soundly disagree with you that I sense no form of intrinsic logical self-evidence in ethical claims is it enough to discount them as possible axioms.

You're bastardizing the whole concept if you insist on calling subjective feelings axiomatic.

The point that I was trying to make was that justifications for ideological arguments can be objectively valid if some moral axioms are taken for granted.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:52:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:51:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:44:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:40:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:27:33 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.

At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.


Maybe the smug justification you gain from knowing most uneducated Americans support your statist politics while those who actually try their best to think and base an ideology on freedom struggle to maintain a foothole in the realm of public discourse.

But it's cool, no one expected you to actually respond to the OP, it's just a thread for your opinion of Rand Paul and Libertarians.

this is a good case in point.

You pretend as though Libertarianism has superior justification to the statist ideologies. They are all equally unjustifiable because they're all founded on ethical principles which are intrinsically subjective. What we have in political discourse is a battle of the whims. So the flagrant arrogance of young libertarians must be forever unfounded.

They're unjustifiable if you want to throw out all the axioms that underpin our society. If we hold some basic axioms, philosophical discourse can be very effective at establishing a society that emulates said axioms.

There's no such thing as a moral axiom. Axioms arise from their universal self-evidence - that is, they are incontrovertible to all people of well-functioning intellectual faculties. The fact that I can soundly disagree with you that I sense no form of intrinsic logical self-evidence in ethical claims is it enough to discount them as possible axioms.

You're bastardizing the whole concept if you insist on calling subjective feelings axiomatic.

The point that I was trying to make was that justifications for ideological arguments can be objectively valid if some moral axioms are taken for granted.

yes, I got that the first time. My point was that there are no such things as moral axioms, and I just explained why.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:54:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
this is a good case in point.

You pretend as though Libertarianism has superior justification to the statist ideologies. They are all equally unjustifiable because they're all founded on ethical principles which are intrinsically subjective. What we have in political discourse is a battle of the whims. So the flagrant arrogance of young libertarians must be forever unfounded.

I always forget the entirety of political discourse is below you, can I ask why you bother troll the politics forum? Is it to spread your wisdom to us laymen who've yet to achieve your height of true enlightenment and still toil in the arbitrary sport of politics?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:55:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 8:52:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:51:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:44:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:40:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:36:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:27:33 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.

At 4/23/2013 8:19:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
Whoever liked Rand Paul to begin with?

I don't know what's more repelling, the arrogance and immaturity of teenage libertarians or Rand Paul's middle-aged version of it.


Maybe the smug justification you gain from knowing most uneducated Americans support your statist politics while those who actually try their best to think and base an ideology on freedom struggle to maintain a foothole in the realm of public discourse.

But it's cool, no one expected you to actually respond to the OP, it's just a thread for your opinion of Rand Paul and Libertarians.

this is a good case in point.

You pretend as though Libertarianism has superior justification to the statist ideologies. They are all equally unjustifiable because they're all founded on ethical principles which are intrinsically subjective. What we have in political discourse is a battle of the whims. So the flagrant arrogance of young libertarians must be forever unfounded.

They're unjustifiable if you want to throw out all the axioms that underpin our society. If we hold some basic axioms, philosophical discourse can be very effective at establishing a society that emulates said axioms.

There's no such thing as a moral axiom. Axioms arise from their universal self-evidence - that is, they are incontrovertible to all people of well-functioning intellectual faculties. The fact that I can soundly disagree with you that I sense no form of intrinsic logical self-evidence in ethical claims is it enough to discount them as possible axioms.

You're bastardizing the whole concept if you insist on calling subjective feelings axiomatic.

The point that I was trying to make was that justifications for ideological arguments can be objectively valid if some moral axioms are taken for granted.

yes, I got that the first time. My point was that there are no such things as moral axioms, and I just explained why.

"no such things as moral axioms"

Irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 8:57:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The great irony of our current system is that the impact that one has on policy is inversely proportionate to the integrity of one's character and clarity of one's thought. It is only through unthinking obedience to the fickle whims of our slovenly and ignorant vox populi that any politician can gain power, and in this pursuit rationality and enlightened rule are inevitably eschewed. I find figures like Rand Paul to be quixotic, and those who think that our system of governance will be improved, or worse, that it is somehow optimal, to be delusional. Unjustified hope, the most prevalent of all delusions, is a part of the human condition, and probably always will be. It is the greatest enabler of tyranny, as it's ultimate effect is justification of the status quo, no matter how abhorrent. I think that it is also what leads people to follow such flawed and tragic figures as Rand Paul.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -