| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I know that you've been gone. I think that's a good decision for you. But
> > what I still don't get is why, given that you had the opportunity to leave
> > .debate alone, the existence of it is problematic for you personally.
>
> I think this is a specific instance of a more general principle, one we've
> stumbled over repeatedly on vastly different topics.
Agreed.
> B needs to *show* X is infringing on B, that is, that X cannot just be
> ignored, or in the second case, that X is such a bad thing that it has to be
> banned apriori.
Out of curiosity, how does one show that and to whom does one make such an
appeal? Use the example of strategic nuclear holdings. (And as an aside, do
you feel differently about tactical nuclear weapons?)
> Many small l libertarians tend to hold that the class of Xs that infringe is
> much smaller than the class of X that they find annoying but can just
> ignore,
I think that this phenominon is not limited to libertarians. I think even the
most "in your face" maxarchists would still agree with that idea.
> Some others hold far different views, that it's appropriate for states to
> ban things that they personally find objectionable, for example, or that
> things that they don't personally care for, but which don't threaten rights,
> are morally wrong and have to be banned.
>
> Many of the second class don't grasp the distinction or don't find it valid,
> that is, they are perfectly OK with a might makes right worldview in which
> the majority impose preferences by force.
I am as frustrated by this as anyone. I just don't get it and no one from that
side of the fence has ever been willing to explain their philosophy. I have on
numerous occasions, explained my stances, and gotten them to generally agree
with me, and then reiterated a question about the issue (prostitution,
taxation, welfare, polygamy, Branch Davidians, Desert Storm, etc.) only to have
them answer in the same way that they did before. I just don't get it.
> Further, they don't even get that
> they are *taking* this worldview, they prattle about society taking
> decisions and unconstrained majority rule being fundamentally just.
Bad! Bad Larry! Go sit in the corner. Prattle is not a constructive word to
use. It would have done your argument no harm to use 'talk' instead and then
it wouldn't be a thinly veiled insult. (But other than that, I'm still in
agreement.)
> Viewed in this light, I find a great deal of congruence between the
> "polyamory" debate (and many other past debates) and the "is .debate
> harmful" debate. But then i tend to view everything through rights colored
> glasses.
>
> Scott S., I would say that if you wish to justify (as opposed to calling for
> Todd to exercise whim (perfectly OK, but different)) abolition of .debate,
> you need to make the case that the very existence of .debate is so harmful
> to the rest of LUGNet that the detractions outweigh the benefits.
>
> I think that's a hard case to make.
I would very much like to hear such a case. I don't think it can be done, but
it might clue me in as to why those who find .debate objectionable, do.
But the whole reason for responding to this note is to wonder if maybe Larry
has outlined one of the meta-debates. Are there others like this? Are there
common idea-threads that cross individual debates that can be expressed like
this?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) Not sure of the answers to either of those, at least not in an idealised society. (...) I think my threshold is somewhere around large tanks and fighter jets. Any sort of nukes just sort of "feel wrong" to me. It's a fuzzy argument. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) <tummy tuck> (...) Chris, The paranoid part of me makes me think that Larry’s text above is, at least in part, aimed at me. The irony is, off course, that Larry’s well chosen words are nothing but contradictory subjective prattle themselves. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) I think this is a specific instance of a more general principle, one we've stumbled over repeatedly on vastly different topics. A says "I tolerate/enjoy X" B says "I don't tolerate/enjoy X" So far so good. As long as X doesn't intrude on B, B (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
