|
 |
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:22:35 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:19:20 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > I said, and I quote: "Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong
>> > because of what kind of person you are, or what you have done, or
>> > anything of the sorts."
>
>> You tried to imply that if I disagree with you, I'm a horrible,
>> horrible,
>> immoral person.
>
> Yes, and I'm still saying it.
>
> However, you accused me of making ad hominems (ie. claiming that you are
> wrong *because* you are a horrible person), and I didn't, as
> demonstrated.
*sigh*
You seem to be thinking that "ad hominem" only is used in the context of
"argumentum ad hominum".
So, here's a very simple explanation. If you don't understand it, well,
I guess then you're just stupid.
"Ad hominem" is latin: "ad" meaning "to", and "hominem", which is the
accusative form of "homo", which means "person".
Clear?
By definition, this means "Relating to or directed at a particular
person; (also) directed against the individual concerned rather than the
relevant issue; personal.¨ (Citation, Oxford English Dictionary, Online
edition)
An "ad hominem attack" is therefore an "attack directed at a particular
person".
Clear?
Now, you said that I make you sick because I don't agree with you that
forced vaccination is appropriate, because the goal of eliminating deadly
diseases trumps everything. You favor an authoritarian approach, whereby
you force people to be vaccinated whether they want it or not.
You want to use the force of your authority to vaccinate people to make
them not have a choice. That's the definition of authoritarianism. It
has nothing to do with government, it has everything to do with your own
self-perceived position of authority. "I know better then them, so I'm
going to force them to do what I think they should do." That is, by
definition, and authoritarian approach to solving a problem.
You say that anyone who has a problem with that (a) doesn't really want
to rid the world of disease, (b) makes you sick.
Now.
I have a problem with that approach. NOT because I think deadly diseases
are wonderful things and should be allowed to flourish. I have a problem
with that approach because it dehumanizes the people you would force to
be vaccinated. It treats them as less than people, and it imposes your
will and your sense of "I know better" on them, regardless of the actual
consequences.
The approach that I favor (which - surprise - doesn't include NOT
VACCINATING PEOPLE AGAINST DEADLY DISEASES) is educating the people you
want to vaccinate, and give them the choice after they've been educated.
I DO NOT advocate doing so by force. I advocate vaccinating them by
educating them and giving them a choice. I would advocate encouraging
them to make the "right" choice, but in the end, THEY GET TO MAKE THE
CHOICE BECAUSE THEY ARE PEOPLE AND NOT CATTLE.
Now, if you have a problem with that, you are a sick, twisted individual
who doesn't understand the value of individual freedoms, and because
people with less education than you are nothing more more than cattle to
be "managed". That makes me want to vomit. If you think that, then you
are an asshole and I don't want you anywhere near having the authority or
the power to actually put your plan into action.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On 8/10/2013 4:33 AM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:5205a3f5$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> And, I think you are being naive, like most people that suscribe to
>> their "vision", that you can kill the beast, instead of just breeding
>> a new one. At the core, you will always get the same result, if you
>> don't have someone making sure that megacorps don't form, or that the
>> smaller ones band together, to control the government too, etc. The
>> beast can get smaller, or bigger, but you don't kill it by someone
>> deregulating everything, shutting down the government, getting rid of
>> a military, and replacing it with 500 groups of thugs, instead of one,
>> etc.
>
> And I thing you are being naïve, like most people who subscribe to the
> centralized-power "vision" that you can control a larger share of the
> government than you do the economy. And worse, you *!*want*!*
> price-fixing, selective taxation, and a massive military. Doesn't work.
> Hasn't worked. Won't work.
Oh, I do huh? So glad you know what is going on in my mind. No, I don't
want a massive military. That is just wasteful and stupid. I want
government that works, unfortunately, time after time, we see that
"works" generally means that there are lots of small fish, fighting over
things, such that they are forced to compromise with the people that
elected them to get a nibble at things they want themselves. What we
have now, instead, is a two party mess, where the only thing that
changes is which species of fish is in charge, and maybe, once in a
while, the ecosystem shifts enough that the smaller ones among that
species rise up, and replace the bigger ones, hence the right wing,
ultra-religious, government so small it will fit in your back pocket, or
a woman's uterus, "republicans", we are seeing right now.
There is such a thing as both too big, and too small. But, that isn't
the only problem. Libertarians can, and do, play the game the same way,
and are already turning into another big fish. That is what won't work.
As for price fixing and selective taxation.. This one really gets me...
How many technologies, short of a damn war, have grown, only because
someone, other than the public sector, decided they where worth
pursuing, and "funded" research? How would any of them have ended up
being created, without some sort of incentive, from "non-public"
sources, who, I don't give a frak what kind of economist you are, your
company, mega-corp or otherwise, will want to, unless they can
monopolize the new technology in some way, maintain the status quo
instead. Don't you dare tell me libertarians don't think that way, I see
it all the time from them. If it can't benefit them, more than someone
else, then its a "bad investment". Not, in fact, actually true, and if
they really did give a damn about helping other people, they would have
been building, for example, light rail, in recognition of the necessity,
and improvement to everyone's well being, including their workers, and
thus, their odds of having workers, 30 years ago. Oddly, the only people
bothering has been "government", and they have been so two faced about
it, that all that has ever been done is to waste tens of millions of
dollar, "studying" the problem, like.. at least once every 5 years, like
clockwork, and increasing costs, every single time.
And taxation.. I have heard all about the whole "tax everyone the same".
It has *exactly* one thing, and only one thing, going for it - if you
could manage to keep people from having loopholes (Whoops, there goes
incentives for charity, running needed, but poor profitability
businesses at a loss, or dozens of other legit reasons to allow
loopholes, along with the 50 times as many illegitimate ones), you might
get "some" of them to actually pay taxes. Of course, all the extra money
they make would, instead of flowing back into our economy, would instead
flow into a offshore Caiman Island account, just like it does now,
because, surprisingly, they a) don't have enough to spend their money
on, that offsets the slow, inevitable, bankruptcy of the entire rest of
the economy, as money disappears, never to be seen again, and b) there
is no way, under such a so called "fair" tax system to recover any of it.
I really do not comprehend why this basic math is so hard. Its like a
hydraulic leak, or an air leak, or heck, a bloody memory leak.
Eventually, it **must** crash the system. Do we, every few thousand
years, have another French revolution, to fix this, or actually admit
that its total bullshit that being rich, making a lot of money, and then
railing about people taking it, is "acceptable", because someone you
"earned it" by being better than all the people for which the
combination of, yes, government spending, but also, your own damned
unnecessary greed, inflates costs by 600% in fewer decades than I need
the fingers on one hand to count them?
I will be honest, I am a "social" libertarian. A lot of liberals would
likely admit the same. Its the whole, "My neighbor believing differently
than I do, neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my bones." The problem
is, that is only half right. Belief can be challenged by fact,
knowledge, especially of ourselves, undermines differences. Ideals, and
beliefs, can become tolerable, when "understood", or must be through
out, when they prove to be intolerant of change, reality, or the well
being of a people. Economics.. doesn't work like this. When that has to
change, real people get hurt, in real ways, and sometimes killed,
because, some bastard out there, right now, is figuring out that they
can pick my wallet, even while finding a way to convince someone else,
to pay a fourth party, to break my legs, all so they can shove what ever
they got out of my wallet, into their shoe box.
There is no ideology in that, other than, "I deserve", no argument you
can make in its disfavor, which doesn't demand that the perpetrator
admit they don't deserve it, no solution that can be proposed, which
will not inconvenient the one planning it, and yet no way that it can be
allowed to continue, without all of the problems such thinking causes,
getting worse. Introduce the concept of "I own", to any object you
cannot physically carry on your person, and pretty soon some idiot is
applying it to intangible ideas, patches of land, which they don't want
other people on, food and other basic needs, and finally, to *people*,
who after all, are just one more commodity, which, if they are not
"earning" enough, must simply not be "trying hard enough".
Economic libertarianism in inhumane, it ignores "why" we don't have
freer markets (or, rather, it ignores the sound reasons some laws where
passed, and simply asserts that only the corrupt ones count), and then,
kind of like someone who says, "There have never ever been true
communists", they proclaim, as you just did, "No one has tried a true
libertarian economy!" From where I am standing, and given the things
that the moment have flat out, boldly stated, about some things.. I have
no problem understanding why, and being terrified at the prospect
someone might actually attempt it. Because, all I can see, given its
leaders, is Dystopia.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
