Computer nerds and losers in the Libertarian movement

GilesStratton:

Why limit it to the movement? Drug addicts should remove themself from society, not just the movement.

Smokers are drug addicts.  I don't understand why you hate smokers.

 

Jon Irenicus:

The question is what makes a libertine. You've not answered that, and so offered no refutation of the existence of such individuals.

Maybe if you are claiming that they exist, you should prove it ? Oh wait. I'm supposed to prove a negative ? No problem. (Maybe I should also refute the existence of flying pigs...?)

I did answer what makes a libertine according to 'popular wisdom' - Please refer to a dictionary. If the standard definition doesn't suit you, well, too bad.

I provided my own views on the subject : Libertinism is anything social conservatives don't like. As such, it's just an arbitrary category.

You then provided a list of actions and here's my comment on them : considering things as drug use (includes wine and beer I suppose ?), prostitution and oral sex as libertinism is laughable. Happy now ?

Well considering the activities in question may or may not be linked to things commonly associated with individuals of high TPs...

May or may not ? So your comment may or may not be relevant ? And you may or may not be saying something meaningful ?

I never said it implies it... as opposed to asking whether it counts as something a libertine would do.

How can I answer what an imaginary creature would do ?

What, exactly, do you think the violation of social conventions entails?

Entails for whom ? What exactly are you asking ? What exactly are you talking about ? What exactly is a 'social convention' ?

Jon Irenicus:

Juan:

If you're not sure about Molyneux, why bring him ?

To see if I am correct.

Correct about what ? If you don't know what Molyneux thinks about a given subject maybe you should ask him ? Or google ? Or something ?

Jon Irenicus:

Juan:

PR ?

Duh? Oh right, you probably have no idea what this is all about. As usual.

Haha. I know pretty well what this is all about -- that doesn't mean I've got to waste my time guessing your personal acronyms.

GileStratton:

Juan:

I'm only saying that social conservatives are conservatives, not libertarians. Conservatives are free to discriminate based on their narrow minded bigotries and religious superstitions or whatever. But if they do I don't see why they should complain when called bigots. It seems that it is actually conservatives the ones who don't want other people to form opinions about them.

Wait, since when are the two mutually exclusive?

I don't know. Since when A and not A are mutually exclusive ?

GilesStratton:

Why limit it to the movement? Drug addicts should remove themself from society, not just the movement.

Are you serious, or is that a so-called flame-bait ?

Maybe if you are claiming that they exist, you should prove it ? Oh wait. I'm supposed to prove a negative ? No problem. (Maybe I should also refute the existence of flying pigs...?)

No, I am asking you to flesh your definition out. Not to prove a negative. BTW, it is possible to prove a negative. In fact, that is a proof common in classical logic (--p = p), in addition to simpler things like proving my hair is not blue.

I did answer what makes a libertine according to 'popular wisdom' - Please refer to a dictionary. If the standard definition doesn't suit you, well, too bad.

How can you proceed, on the basis of such vagaries as enunciated by that dictionary, to deny the existence of the libertine?

I provided my own views on the subject : Libertinism is anything social conservatives don't like. As such, it's just an arbitrary category.

It's a convenient way of avoiding saying just what it is Hoppe is conjuring up, here, though.

You then provided a list of actions and here's my comment about them : considering things as drug use (includes wine and beer I suppose ?), prostitution and oral sex as libertinism is laughable. Happy now ?

How about drug abuse? Alcohol abuse? Random sex with strangers? Would these count as libertine? If not, why not?

May or may not ? So your comment may or may not be relevant ? And you may or may not be saying something meaningful ?

No, considering a concrete definition has not been offered, as of yet, it's still an open question as to whether it relates to high TP or not. All you've done really is ranted about the alleged non-existence of a very vaguely defined individual.

How can I answer what an imaginary creature would do ?

Question-begging. You're assuming what you're trying to show.

Entails for whom ? What exactly are you asking ? What exactly are you talking about ? What exactly is a 'social convention' ?

Playing dumb, are we? Entails, for the libertine. A social convention is no less and no more than the mores of a given society, e.g. what it considers acceptable or not, what is likely to result in dissociation with members of this society and so on.

Correct about what ? If you don't know what Molyneux thinks about a given subject maybe you should ask him ? Or google ? Or something ?

Or maybe I should put the idea out on a forum frequented by his followers. Which I did. Nitpicking, as usual.

Haha. I know pretty well what this is all about -- that doesn't mean I've got to waste my time guessing your personal acronyms.

PR is my personal acronym now? It's standard shorthand for "public relations"...

-Jon

liberty student:

GilesStratton:

Why limit it to the movement? Drug addicts should remove themself from society, not just the movement.

Smokers are drug addicts.  I don't understand why you hate smokers.

 

I don't hate any drug users, I just don't believe they belong in society. As for smokers, there's a huge difference, for one thing tobacco isn't a mind altering substance.

 

Why does it matter who you want in society?

GilesStratton:

I don't hate any drug users, I just don't believe they belong in society. As for smokers, there's a huge difference, for one thing tobacco isn't a mind altering substance.

Try stopping smoking.  It does f*** with your mind.

GilesStratton:

tobacco isn't a mind altering substance.

So alkaloids such as nicotine are not mind altering ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

John Ess:

Why does it matter who you want in society?

Because we don't want any godless homosexuals or smack injectors or rock and roll RPG game players or politicians or people of different colours, or people of mixed breeding, or people who are too smart, and definitely not any people who are super dumb.  We don't want to be over run by men, or by women.  No enviro-fascists, no liberals, no conservatives.  Sick to death of the compassionate, and even more annoyed by Randians.

If there is a way to keep out mouth breathers and people who leave small tips or no tip at all, by all means, let's jettison them too.

Screw the gold bugs and the Keynesians.  In fact, if we could just keep a couple hot french maids to look after me, the rest of you can take a long hike off a short pier.

 

Juan:

GilesStratton:

tobacco isn't a mind altering substance.

So alkaloids such as nicotine are not mind altering ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

Not in low concentrations, no.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

GilesStratton:

tobacco isn't a mind altering substance.

So alkaloids such as nicotine are not mind altering ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

Not in low concentrations, no.

Newsflash : Smokers smoke tobacco because of the alkaloids tobacco contains and the effects those alkaloids produce in the smokers' minds. Tobacco smokers are drug users. Maybe they should be ostracized ?

I am a carpenter by trade and I read economic books, and history books for fun.  I also visit this site regularly but post in the forum sparingly.  I enjoy football, beer, women, and politics.  I am some what of an outcast at work due to my poor social skills and outright rudeness but I get along just fine.  Does any of this qualify my as a nerd? 

I thought a nerd was someone who is very passionate to the point of obsessivenesses in one or more pursuits knowledge during life.  A marine biologist is a nerd when it comes to fish.  Chris Berman is a sports nerd.  Rothbard was an economics nerd.  I am a carpentry nerd.  Or is that called a geek?

I think the main problem in recruiting is we generally spend way too much time debating the accepted definition of words and established theories.  It is a contrarian movement and many have a feeling of superiority and smugness towards those who disagree.  This is easily seen when listening to the jokes told by Lew or any other contributer to this site and philosophy. 

 

Juan:

GilesStratton:

Juan:

GilesStratton:

tobacco isn't a mind altering substance.

So alkaloids such as nicotine are not mind altering ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

Not in low concentrations, no.

Newsflash : Smokers smoke tobacco because of the alkaloids tobacco contains and the effects those alkaloids produce in the smokers' minds. Tobacco smokers are drug users. Maybe they should be ostracized ?

There's still a large distinction between tobacco and heroin, so no need to ostracize smokers. Homosexuals and drug users will suffice.

 

GilesStratton:

There's still a large distinction between tobacco and heroin, so no need to ostracize smokers. Homosexuals and drug users will suffice.

That's quite interesting. Both male and female homosexuals ? Or maybe only male homosexuals will 'suffice'... ?

Juan:

GilesStratton:

There's still a large distinction between tobacco and heroin, so no need to ostracize smokers. Homosexuals and drug users will suffice.

That's quite interesting. Both male and female homosexuals ? Or maybe only male homosexuals will 'suffice'... ?

No, both.

Juan:

GilsStratton:

There's still a large distinction between tobacco and heroin, so no need to ostracize smokers. Homosexuals and drug users will suffice.

That's quite interesting. Both male and female homosexuals ? Or maybe only male homosexuals will 'suffice'... ?

Wait.  Who cares at all who he wants removed from society?

Obviously, he's just reacting bitterly and not really supposing theory here.

 

[

liberty student:

Because we don't want any godless homosexuals or smack injectors or rock and roll RPG game players or politicians or people of different colours, or people of mixed breeding, or people who are too smart, and definitely not any people who are super dumb.  We don't want to be over run by men, or by women.  No enviro-fascists, no liberals, no conservatives.  Sick to death of the compassionate, and even more annoyed by Randians.

If there is a way to keep out mouth breathers and people who leave small tips or no tip at all, by all means, let's jettison them too.

Screw the gold bugs and the Keynesians.  In fact, if we could just keep a couple hot french maids to look after me, the rest of you can take a long hike off a short pier.

I thought you were joking. Until you mentioned the Randians.

 

GilesStratton:

No, both.

Why do you care?  As long as you're free, why do you care how anyone else lives their life?  Why do you care what they do in their bedroom?

Homosexuals and drug users will suffice.

Yeah, heaven forbid they make everyone gay, right!? Then what!

-Jon

Juan:

That's putting words in the mouths of 'libertines'...in other words, a straw-man.

No it isn't. Having spoken to many self-described libertines, I can tell you that's exactly what it means. They hold as virtuous any act which goes against social norms. They engage in promiscuity because it is reviled by mainstream society. They do drugs for the same reason. And they do it out of spite. They believe that nobody has the right to express disapproval of their activities. They are not anti-aggression, they are anti-assertion. It is an absurd philosophy, and epistimologically baseless. Yet it exists, and there are people who believe in it by name.