Subject:
|
Re: boulders on shoulders
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:34:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
265 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > Katie, at the risk of enflaming your obvious passion on this issue, have
> > you been reading Bruce's clarifications (and/or mine) of Bruce's original
> > point?
>
> You can clarify all you want, I've read them all. I think Katie raised a
> valid point though.
By her own assertion, though, she "was trying to respond to the "a failing
on minorities and women to understand the Libertarian message."" She's
responding to a point that wasn't being asserted; in effect, she's having an
argument with an opponent who doesn't exist.
Katie, I apologize for referring to you in the 3rd person as if you
weren't present, but in the context of this post I hope you'll forgive me.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, nor to infer arbitrarily what
you're trying to convey. I just want to make sure that I understand that
you understand that you're arguing against a point that Bruce didn't raise.
> It may not be that it *isn't* convincing, or viable. It may just be that
> women and minorities are too busy fighting other fires to participate. How
> many times does that need to be clarified?
Once would be plenty for me, if that were the case. Are you asserting
that the LP's ranks would swell with women and minorities if day-to-day
activities could somehow be handled for them? I doubt that's your intent,
but your phrasing in the above quote suggests exactly that. Further, this
implies, unintentionally perhaps, that women and minorities (but not,
presumably, white middle class men) are so caught up in their day-to-day
that they can't muster the resources to comprehend what amounts to a quite
simple economic theory. I find that notion far more offensive than even a
deliberately oblique reading of Bruce's original post.
> I think Katie just vented some pent-up frustration and unfortunately Bruce's
> post was the catalyst.
Well, I'd like to let Katie speak for herself (and Bruce can likewise
correct my interpretations of his posts if I am incorrect) but it's odd to
me that a post from one of the biggest local opponents against
Libertarianism is singled out as if it were a recruitment poster for the party.
In addition, Duane, if I've read you correctly you're not exactly a
staunch supporter of the LP yourself, yet in this thread you're stirring up
debate by forcing the examination of a non-asserted point. If you're just
playing devil's advocate, I'd caution you that there are already devils
a-plenty on both sides of the debate! 8^)
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
| (...) Not even going there. (...) party. Who is doing that? I'm certainly not doing that. If my posts sound that way, then I'm perhaps choosing the wrong words. You can take this whole "LP" thread and insert any other party you'd like there and the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
| (...) <snip> (...) That's not my intent at all. I'm sure we all could find other things to do with our time if much of our resposibility were removed. (...) Comprehension has nothing to do with it in my mind. I've seen the question arise about how (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
| (...) You can clarify all you want, I've read them all. I think Katie raised a valid point though. (...) It may not be that it *isn't* convincing, or viable. It may just be that women and minorities are too busy fighting other fires to participate. (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
50 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
|
|
|
|
