I’ve never understood the appeal of Ron Paul. I mean, I loved my crotchety nasty racist old Grandpa, but I also recognized his failings, and would never have voted for him for local garbage collector, let alone president. But once you strip away the filial affection and the personal history of good moments, which Ron Paul completely lacks, there’s nothing left but a hypocritical and bigoted elf with an incomprehensible libertarian agenda, so no, please, don’t put him in a position of any influence at all.
Wonkette has an excellent summary of Ron Paul’s contradictory and un-American positions. Read it, Paulites, and go away.
I have to disagree with this character assessment of Ron Paul. He is quite clearly a gnome, not an elf.
Goblin not a gnome
Clearly, I have failed to get the D&D character race perfectly labeled. But the rest of the description is good, I presume.
Actually as an objectivisturd his closest philosophical match would be a Mindflayer.
But you’d have to honor him with a squid head
Confederate Garden Gnome Ron Paul?
He’s beaten up fewer gays then Romney; so there’s that.
@Fallingwhale
Romney’s written fewer newsletters promoting racism.
Mindflayers are way too damn smart for Paul. Remember, this is the dude who seriously suggested that the ‘founding fathers’ solved piracy with letters of marque, apparently confusing carribean governors with Meriken. XD
@Rutee
A +4 to INT still doesn’t do much good when it’s your dump stat.
From the Wonkette link:
What is Constitutional:
I wish you all could see how hard I’m giving Ron Paul and all of his fucking little numbskull supporters the finger right now.
Could be worse. At least he never promised that one dumb shit a moon base.
…and at least he’s not married to someone running an gay deconversion center.
…and at least he can keep three bullet points in his head at once.
…horror show.
At least he never shot his friend in the face at point blank range
But what about ME? Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me and me, therefore . . . RON PAUL!
I await the flaming derpocalypse that inevitably follows any mild mockery of Libertarianism.
@coledbiers
“Confederate Garden Gnome Ron Paul?”
As a gnome, please don’t. :(
Allow me to pre-empt any “No true Libertarian” posturing.
Guys (and you are probably a guy) why do you cling to a label that has been so thoroughly coopted? Maybe libertarianism once meant the awesome thing you think it means inside your own head, but it doesn’t anymore.
Think Paul is a buffoon? Pick a new political label. This one is irrevocably tainted, at least in the USA.
Thus the necessity for all out, no holds barred, everything that is the opposite of mild mockery. If your gonna get the derpitude, may as well earn the derpitude.
Exactly. When they rolled up dear old Ron on the character sheet, using the old six sider method, it came up 2 + 2 + 2, so 6 + 4 = 10, which is, well, if you assume its like an IQ, it would be the “national average” (10 and 11, without the extra +4 is the highest probability with 3 dice, at 12.5% odds), and we all know that the “market demographic” for those people is apparently shows about the paranormal, ‘reality TV’, Nascar, and an endless list of programs about Mermaids, Ancient Aliens, and ‘Biblical’ Archeology.
On the other hand, without that +4 bonus… there would be inanimate objects, in the real world, never mind D&D, which are smarter.
Mind, Ron Paul probably thinks “Ancient Aliens” are unconstitutional, because they are not “Biblical”, so there is that, I suppose… lol
There’s a passage from Lee Sandlin’s AMAZING (<—exclamation point eschewed so as not to trespass trademark) essay
“He’s the walking embodiment of all the free-floating anger behind the mask of civilized behavior, so well described by Auden in a despairing vision at the end of the 30s:
Behind each sociable fun-loving eye
The private massacres are taking place —
The rich, all women, Jews, the human race. ”
Sandlin was referring to Hitler of course, but the impulse to reach for and reside within the increasingly shrinking circle of concern was the same then as it is now.
Paul seems to think that a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment is unconstitutional, which just goes to show how shallow his understanding of the constitution is.
Almost by definition, the text of a proposed constitutional amendment would be unconstitutional if passed as a regular federal law. But as a proposed amendment, once it passes with the required votes in the Congress and is subsequently ratified by the designated number of state legislatures, it becomes constitutional on its face — because it would become part of the written text of the constitution.
(The current incarnation of the Federal Marriage Amendment is a bad, bad idea — but that’s not really the point here. It would be constitutional if duly passed and ratified. And a hypothetical version of the FMA that protected the right of citizens to enter a marriage arrangement regardless of gender permutations would be a good idea, and just as constitutional if it is duly passed and ratified.)
I anxiously await the arrival of enlightened souls who will explain to us how the free market will solve all forms of bigotry. That one’s always good for a laugh.
Caerie:
Me too.
Come on libturds, I don’t have all fucking afternoon.
The biggest problem with Paul is simply this:
I trust him as far as I can throw him (and I’m a really small guy)
All the contradictions all the lies all the hypocrisy. It doesn’t matter if what he says may be right on some things, it doesn’t matter because quite frankly I suspect that just like most other “Libertarians” liberty and freedom are not his goals. Rewarding power and dominance are his goals.
And in this, he’s little different from the religious right these days.
I’m not a fan of Ron Paul but that post is completely off base.
Paul’s philosophy is fairly straightforward, the federal government is extremely limited by the constitution, states a bit less so, and people have a the right to act on their beliefs, including not hiring black people, or working for someone who sexually harasses you.
The religion stuff has to do with his views on society, not on government. The pro-life stuff is a bit off, but depending on how you define person-hood, which he apparently does at insemination, it is consistent.
I for one think Paul is a nut, that his philosophy is overly simplistic and completely impractical as it fails to account for human nature. But it is broadly consistent and the referenced post would do much better to attack the man rather than a caricature.
Consistent? Not hardly. Did you bother to read the linked article?
The only consistency to it is that rich white men always win, no matter how he has to twist, bend, and break his “philosophy” to make sure it works out that way.
Do you know what the first amendment actually says?
Let’s put this into perspective:
Healthcare: Unconstitutional, the federal government has no right taxing us to provide for the health and well being of its citizens because that is MY MONEY.
Abortion: Bitchez ain’t got bodily autonomy; if a baby wants their uterus, it gets it, ain’t no room to deny that. But don’t be thinking any organs a dude can use are community property, that just ain’t gonna fly.
You can permit abortion and health care because bodily autonomy != money, but you can not coherently ban abortion unless you state that all peoples’ organs are community property at any given time, and if someone needs a kidney you’re a match for, they’re entitled to that kidney. It’s about bitches not being shit to these assholes, nothing more.
Yes, and I even read a few of the references (I couldn’t actually find anything about stem cells in the reference for him supporting stem cell research). And some of the others like “A patriarchal society wherein the church appoints judges to solve all of our problems.” mischaracterize the referenced opinion.
Also notice how my points are all responses to the linked article, hiring black people, sexual harassment, religion in society vs government, etc.
As it is rich white men will generally win with his philosophy since libertarianism gives you a broad ability to control your life situation, and rich white men have a strong ability to control their life situation. But I don’t believe that’s the actual basis of his philosophy (though he might have thought differently if he was a poor black woman).
He removes the ability to control the situation from women and non-whites.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Or, for the russians in the house, What the лuck is wrong with you??
Where does Paul want to violate the first amendment? The fact he believes in a religious society doesn’t mean he’d implement that at the government level. As for gay marriage he’s resolved the question by coming of the opinion that the government has no business defining marriage at all.
As for abortion vs healthcare. People have the right to make decisions about their own wellbeing. That includes buying health insurance, or not buying health insurance. But with a pregnancy there are now two individuals intertwined, and in this case the baby’s right to life trumps the mother’s right to control her body.
a) Learn to separate what YOU SEE as the consequences of his philosophy from what HE SEES as the consequences of his philosophy. The world makes much more sense once you do this.
b) Please learn the difference between someone endorsing another person’s philosophy and someone explaining another person’s philosophy.
c. Your “Russian” best translates as “luck”, I think the character you were looking for was “ф”.
If someone needs my bone marrow, their right to life trumps my right to control my body?
If someone needs my kidney, their right to life trumps my right to control my body?
No? Then why the fuck does anyone get a right to my uterus?
I don’t see anything hypocritical about him taking his social security check tbh. To my knowledge, and by his word, he wants a gradual transition out of social security , not everyone to immediately drop it, and he has already paid into it. I would imagine a transition would be getting the younger people who are starting to pay for it to start paying less and less. Although I am not intimately aware with what he wants to do with social security.
Not that I support Ron Paul at all. Even if his social security plan is consistent I still think it’s stupid. Also, his main argument for everything is the constitution and I think that it’s about time we stop binding ourselves to a multi century old document and thinking that if our views contradict the constitution than we must be wrong. I find extreme reverence for the constitution even more illogical and stupid than reverence for things people actually believe are holy documents, since at least they’re pretending that some higher power had something to do with them which would hypothetically give them some authority.
@aluchko #30
Ron Paul like to pretend the 14th amendment never happened, he’s on record claiming that a state government should be allowed to established an official religion. If his “we the people” act ever passes then the 1st amendment will be a dead letter since without access to the courts you will have no recourse even if the laws passed by your state are unconstitutional.
In Shimp v. McFall, a man sued to have his cousin forced to donate bone marrow to save his life. The judge’s ruling said this:
“For a society which respects the rights of [the] individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting….”
Thanks to this ruling, it is actually illegal to compel ANYONE to donate bodily tissue or organs to another person. Full stop. That means you can’t compel women to donate their organs, including their uteruses (uterii?), for a fetus’s use. Anti-abortion laws are not just unconstitutional, they actually subject pregnant women to laws controlling their bodies from which everyone else has been exempted.
If you fail to see the inherent inequality behind requiring pregnant women to submit to a law that everyone else is exempt from based on everyone else having the right to control their own bodies, then you fail at anything resembling logic.
If you are for forced pregnancy, then you must be consistent and support forced organ and bone marrow donation as well in order to preserve the lives of others. Otherwise, you’re a misogynist hypocrite.
That depends on the outcome of particular actions.
I believe the world would be a better place with fewer libertarians. Some of the methods by which I could act upon this belief are not methods recognized as among my legal rights.
Since that method produces unacceptable outcomes for so many black people, we’ve decided it shouldn’t be a legally protected method.
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!?
The dude regularly worships the Founding Deities, to the point of using their example as a cudgel whenever he can conceivably do so, and he conceives to do so quite a bit. If that were his argument (Which is obviously false), he’d be shit at it, but he’s not. How did you even begin to construct this interpretation?
You claimed to read the links…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA
Paul supported it.
Paul supports state governments defining it. You are either stupid or dishonest, at this point.
Because special pleading, which is the opposite of consistent, you fucking asshole.
It’s not a matter of fucking opinion, you blazingly stupid asshole.
Because that’s never used as cover by various trolls. Yepperoni, when people insist htey are only /explaining/ some abhorrent philosophy that is already understood by the people it is being /explained/ to, they are always being 100% honest.
I’m going to assume this is sarcasm. There was a grand total of one cyrillic letter and 0 russian words in that, so surely, nobody could take that as an actual attempt at russian.
Since you’ll be getting a quality dressing down (and more careful attention than you deserve) let me bear the standard for the coarse set: you are really fucking dumb.
What was it I was saying not too long ago about the kind of people who use this phrase? Still wanna debate me StevOr?
Yeah, I thought so.
:))
Whether a philosophy has consequences Y or X is an empirical claim that can be investigated.
Paul’s claims about the results of his philosophy have not stood the test of history or contemporary research.
His positions are inherently inconsistent because he eschews reason and empirical evidence in favor of faith-based decision making, whether his god is Yahweh or the Invisible Hand, it’s the same flawed process.
I can see that Paul thinks (or claims to think) that enacting his philosophy would have positive results. It’s just that the available evidence suggests he’s dead wrong. So wrong it takes drastic stupidity, mendacity, and/or an extremely high level of cognitive dissonance to maintain that level of wrongness. And I don’t think he’s stupid.
Ron Paul supporters seem to believe that Paul stands for “freedom”, but they’re wrong. Mostly, he’s against the federal government and wants all the powers to be conferred to the states and to individuals. The problem is that there’s nothing “free” about breaking the power into chunks that are more easily seized by rich white men on a more local level. So for instance if you think he’s actually for legalizing drugs from a political standpoint, you’re wrong. He’s for getting rid of the DEA, but he doesn’t really care if your state government creates even more draconian drug laws than what currently exist.
@SallyStrange:
I think you’re misreading Ron Paul ever so slightly here. It isn’t that Paul believes that enacting his philosophy will have positive results as you and I and other sane people define them. It is that Paul believes that whatever results arise from his philosophy are good by definition. So if his policies lead to tens of millions of people dying of starvation and disease and poisoning by industrial pollution and unsafe products, then that’s the result that’s best for society because those people were “free” by his twisted definition and somehow chose to die horribly through their own agency.
Come on, let’s not do the crazy-blaming. It’s not helpful; indeed it obscures just how evil people can be.
Ron Paul is evidently sane and a bad person.
@ Improbable Joe
I think we could debate about whether or not that chain of reasoning falls under the “cognitive dissonance” category, but still it’s a good point.
Argh, read right past the “sane people” remark. Thanks for catching that, life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ. I agree entirely, Paul seems quite sane and it’s unfair to the actually insane to blame his evilness on mental illness.
Apologies for the “sane” comment. I suffer from mental illness, and I sure as shit don’t want to be lumped in with that goon.
But with a pregnancy there are now two individuals intertwined, and in this case the baby’s right to life trumps the mother’s right to control her body.
A clump of cells isn’t an individual, you piece of shit.
Why? Our perception of its consequences is realistic. Either he is blinkered in grasping said consequences, or the oppression of people unlike himself is, for him, a feature and not a bug. Oppression of others isn’t something people can politely agree to disagree on.
#37 you read what I said completely wrong. I”m saying that’s why I don’t agree with Ron Paul, because I think founding father worship is stupid and that strict constitutionalism is stupid.
Ron Paul, and all those who want society to live by “First Principles” that are inviolable and self-evident and rock-solid do not actually worry about results or consequences. Because to do so leads you into uncharted territory, which might lead you to question your principles. And with “standing on principle” being one of the greatest virtues, thinking through consequences is definitely discouraged.
Also, admitting that he made full use of government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded programs like public education and highway systems and the like would muck up his “self-made man” image.
Also, just for fun, Mr. Paul’s Frozen Fish Sticks.
Willful self-deception is an aggravating, not a mitigating, factor here.
#50
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/on-morning-joe-sam-stein-grills-ron-paul-about-why-he-collects-social-security/
The video on the bottom, about 4 minutes, he does admit he uses the highways and the post office
But he’s Free™ to do so, if he so wishes.
Yes, but at some point you get down to the nasty detail of determining when a woman’s right to bodily autonomy is trumped by the child’s right to consitutional protection. If a woman is not denied a reasonable window of opportunity to chose whether or not to continue the pregnancy (her right to bodily autonomy) at some point her responsibility not harm the child must kick-in (child’s right to constitutional protection). I think most would agree that at a minimum that responsibility has kicked-in upon delivery. A slightly smaller majority would argue that it kicks-in well before delivery. In my mind, it is not a question of denying choice, it is really a question when that opportunity to chose should end.
When her body ceases to be involved.
This is not a hard question.
Oh no! It’s a slippery slope strawman!
Speaking of abortion, there’s good eating on a fetus. Hey, it is my catch phrase, don’t steal it.
Notice how there’s no mention of the free market or invisible hand when it comes to abortion, even though there’s clearly orders of magnitude more demand than there is supply. Maybe if rich white men actually ate grilled fetus skewers as an upscale delicacy, they’d change their mind?
That made me insanely happy.
A child is a child when it’s born, not before.
Something inside a woman’s body does not have more rights to her body than she does. No one has the right to force anyone to incur physical and physiological damage without their consent. I realize that many people seem to think pregnancy happens in a vacuum and that women are just passive containers, but there’s a pretty lengthy laundry list of complications – some temporary and most permanent, like pelvic floor damage – that go along with pregnancy, labor, and childbirth.
It is all about consent. If you support the idea that a fetus can take priority over a woman refusing to allow someone else to use her body, then you are stating that women’s ability to refuse consent can be stripped away based on what other people want and women can be subjected to physical harm based on what other people want. That’s a rather dangerous precedent to set, don’t you think?
@ruteekatreya
I’ve done some more reading and I’m honestly not sure of his position on same sex marriage. He’s certainly in conflict between his religious beliefs and his libertarian philosophy and I’m honestly not sure of the current state of his beliefs.
Or it’s just applying a philosophy with different priors.
You want to be like that let me explain it in simple terms.
He has a philosophy, and believes that certain good will come from that philosophy. You have a different philosophy, and believe evil consequences will come from his philosophy.
He does not want that evil!
It may be he’s wrong and that evil is the consequence, but he does not want the evil! If you go around assuming that the evil is something he desires you’re arguing against a fictitious person, and you’ll never convince a Paul supporter to change since you’re just insulting them and attacking an evil desire that doesn’t exist.
Or it could be they absolutely detest dishonest debate, and if they see someone making a bad argument they feel obliged to fight it.
As I said I do not support Ron Paul, I think he’s naive and has some very dangerous ideas. But I think he’s different from most of the Republican party in that he’s sincere in his beliefs and has a coherent philosophy.
What is the point of your post? Do you really think you’re going to convince a Paulite by calling them racists and theocrats? Did you ever consider that some of them are sincere in their arguments, that their ultimate vision is not as distasteful as you assume? People free to do what they want, associate how they want, believe what they want? That’s their vision, I don’t believe that’s the consequence of Paul’s philosophy, but you’re not arguing the consequence of Paul’s philosophy, you’re arguing the intent of Paul’s philosophy, and you’re never going to convince someone by claiming they have a different intent than they actually do.
“Un-American”? Really? Wouldn’t have expected that particular jingoistic codeword from PZ.
(Note that I think Ron Paul is an insufferable twat. I’m just insulted that lack of Americanness is apparently a moral failing now.)
@Cipher, OM, Fighting Fucktoy
So partial birth abortions with fully viable fetuses under any circumstances?
Even if you still support it it’s not hard to see how it’s still a hard question.
And I’m insulted that the female genitalia is apparently a good thing to compare to immoral idiots now.
So straw abortions should make our bodily integrity complicated now?
@aluchko
Maybe it is a hard question for the woman trying to answer it for herself at the moment she faces the decision. It is an easy question to answer for me: whatever she decides is the right decision for her, and none of anyone else’s business.
@Josh, Official SpokesGay
I’m glad someone appreciated it, but it is still MINE!
Yes. Any and all circumstances. Or would you like us to decide in which circumstances your organs can be harvested against your will to save another person’s life?
It is so not a hard question. But for some mysterious reason, it seems harder for the people who will never have to live with other peoples’ decisions about the use of their own internal organs.
Who the fuck cares if he’s “sincere”? A lot of people are sincere about their abhorrent beliefs.
And I don’t care about the “coherence” of his POV, either. If your vaunted philosophy is more important to you than real-life consequences, you’re a bad person.
Also, there’s no such thing as a “.” That’s a right-wing canard, and a phrase that actual doctors don’t use.
Follow the link, please. The reason he’s un-American is that the article lists explicitly anti-constitutional positions that he takes.
No such thing as partial-birth abortion? Sheeyit. What I’m gonna do with all these extra partial-death burials?
Some explain to me how a libertarian can be anti-abortion? Fucking please?
Let’s play a little game called “Look Shit Up On Google.” I’m going to look up “libertarian party platform.” I’m going to click on the first link in the Google search. I am going to quote the first line of the preamble of the Libertarian Party Platform right now:
Now we see a pretty clear contradiction, don’t we? Anti-abortion asshats like Ron Paul are calling for women to surrender their individual sovereignty and/or sacrifice their values for the benefit of a proto-potential-person and/or to satisfy the “values” of Ron Paul. Clearly, this cannot stand! If giving an extra dollar of taxes to feed strangers is a violation of freedom and autonomy to a libertarian, than surrendering your entire body PLUS lots of cash for a fetus is tens of thousands of times worse!
Or… maybe libertarians are hypocritical, lying shit-weasels who are all about controlling other people and preserving their own privilege, and literally about nothing else.
Oh, and you don’t have to say that Ron Paul is un-American because that is relatively wishy-washy compared to the truth. Ron Paul is anti-American: he opposes most of what America is and the evolving vision of what America aspires to be based on its legal documents over the last 2+ centuries.
@PZ Myers
The ACA might be thrown out by the Supreme Court, agree or disagree one can hardly say it’s unambiguously constitutional.
Besides, what’s up with the use of “un-American”, as a Canadian I find American’s use of that term divisive and ridiculous. Exactly why is being un-American a bad thing? And how does someones lack of patriotism (as implied by the phrase) mean they’d be a bad leader?
#63
Does anyone ever actually use the word twat to refer to a vagina? Like I know that’s what it means but I’ve never heard anyone say it like that.
#68 people care that he’s sincere because pretty much no one else at his level in politics is. It’s a very sad state of affairs we live in where people feel the need to turn to someone like him because he’s the only one you could believe to actually be somewhat genuine, but there you have it.
Yes.
We have already answered that twice. It isn’t a nasty detail. The woman’s right to bodily autonomy trumps every consideration of the fetus, just as your right to bodily autonomy doesn’t mean we can’t kludge you out and take a kidney to save someone’s life. Even if the fetus were a person, which it isn’t, it would still not have a right to life that trumps your bodily autonomy.
No, it isn’t. It is special pleading to punish women. You can not possibly fucking make a case that permits fetuses and not fucking full grown humans, you piece of shit troll.
Look, asshole, you are ignoring the place that reality takes here. Claims that his policies increase freedom are demonstrably untrue. We know what fucking happens. Without legislation protecting the minority from the majority’s jackassery, and especially so without an educated public that fights ferociously to police itself from bigotry, bigotry roots itself into structures, public and private, and makes it incredibly difficult to impossible for that minority to actually even get by, let alone get ahead. How ‘free’ are you to work when you are categorically denied employment, for example? Stop pretending to just be taking a hands off view.
You’re defending special pleading as ‘different priors’ and you’re going to pretend you care about ‘honest debate’. Fuck yourself.
Shouldn’t you have verbally KO’d yourself by now then? Seriously now…
Do I need a flashing neon sign that says “I do not believe you” for the message to sink in? It’s not worth your time to continue this.
Why do assholes think I care what the asshole themselves thinks? There’s an actual public that isn’t horrible.
The level of willful ignorance required to maintain this wankery belies stated intention.
I don’t care about libertarian assholes’ opinions.
No, it isn’t. I still can’t knock you out and harvest your kidney to save a life, no matter how maudlin the story and how deserving the recipient. Fuck off, obvious troll.
Yo, my bad.
#71
The libertarian party platform also says “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
I think I can explain your confusion, Improbable Joe. You see, “women” are not the “individuals” to which this passage refers. Indeed, they are not individuals at all. They are the property of individuals.
A perfectly coherent and undoubtedly sincere philosophy.
ruteekatreya #76
aluchko is a libertarian* and therefore believes that reality is subordinate to ideology. Like Paul, aluchko doesn’t care about actual consequences, it’s the philosophical arguments that are important. And the arguments are subject to change without notice, so long as they support the libertarian ideal of “I’ve got mine, fuck you!”
*No, asshole, don’t deny it. You may (and that’s MAY) not be a Paulite libertarian, but your libertarianism shines through everything you say.
It’s even worse than it seems.
We can’t even harvest kidneys from a dead person who hasn’t given consent.
A dead person doesn’t need kidneys.
In this “philosophy”, the no longer existing religious feelings of a corpse are more important than a living woman’s bodily autonomy.
QFT.
irisvanderpluym:
I agree with you completely that libertarianism works out that way in practice, which is why the libertarian “principles” are so much nonsensical window dressing. It is only “coherent” and “sincere” once they define away the humanity of the “out-groups” or find ways to blame them for the predations of the privileged, or both.
@Tis himself, #80
No, you are making massive unjustified leaps here. He has never said anything supporting Ron Paul, he thinks some people are mis-characterizing him or arguing in a way that makes more sense. He didn’t say that it’s good to go through with Ron Paul’s vision because the intent is good.
Like I’ve said, Ron Paul is the hobgoblin of little minds.
(Google reveals that Leonard Pitts beat me to it. Grr. Piiiiiiitts!)
Wherein “person” != woman?
And the Libertarian Party is anti-choice, very strongly in favor of forced abortion.
Let’s take a look at some of the Libertarian Party platform’s most evil parts:
«1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.»
And when they say “government should be kept out of the matter”, they mean no public funding, and they mean removal of current funding for the generalized women’s health clinics which currently exist.
Those clinics currently can’t use public funding to perform abortions (which is a problem, a problem which libertarians refuse to help with), but the buildings can exist and their staffs can be maintained for other health services with public funding. Remove the funding, and many of them couldn’t stay in operation, and would have to close.
Libertarianism would make abortion even less available than it already is, which is pretty darn unavailable, particularly in rural areas.
@irisvanderpluym
Do you have some kind of source that could show that libertarians as a whole are bigoted against women? And not just Ron Paul (Who normally seems to run as a republican anyway).
What was said:
Stop being gullible.
Do you need a neon blinking sign too?
And since I missed htat the first time.
HE DEFENDS DOMA AND STATE SELECTION OF MARRIAGE, YOU MOTHERFUCKING ASSHOLE. Fucking libertarian pieces of shit. That makes him against gay marriage in effect, even if he pretends to want to leave it to choice (Which supporting DOMA means he doesn’t).
Ruteekatreya,
No, you just convinced me that your leap was even bigger than it looks at first. He flat out called Ron Paul’s ideology dangerous, versus not really knowing much about him as it applies to gay marriage…Yea I’m gonna say you’re digging way too deep and he’s anti- Ron Paul. No one calls someone they like dangerous.
Their policies harm women in substance. What more would you need?
@ruteekatreya
That’s more stupid than hateful if you ask me. They stupidly think it’s worth it to provide you with the legal freedom to do ridiculous things that in effect inhibit actual freedom.
kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith:
God damn. I’ve seen a lot of pro-choice arguments that use the ol’ “somebody needs a kidney” standard, but none have ever chilled me like this. You’re right and that’s horrifying.
Look, he is explicitly trying to confuse Ron Paul’s anti-gay marriage position with No TRUE Scotsman. He may not be a paul-ite, but he is definitely a libertarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll
Do you really think misogyny is the motive for pro-lifers?
Well you’re wrong. I’ve had long arguments with pro-lifers, I don’t know if I’ve ever argued with a Paul supporter but I used to frequent a wildly libertarian Christian blog and would regularly get in huge debates. In general I probably agree with your politics but I enjoy looking for those who disagree with me, learning their philosophy, and trying to sincerely engage with them. Except cases like these were I’m partially looking for a good tussle :)
But your argument basically is “Paul believes X, I believe X leads to evil thing Y, therefore Paul wants Y”. You can’t even except that someone genuinely thinks X leads to something different
@’Tis Himself
Wow, congratulations that you were able to see through my explicit denials and lengthy explanations. Afterall I care so much about your opinion that I would be absolutely devastated if you thought I had a political philosophy you didn’t approve of!
combat,
I didn’t accuse aluchko of being a Paulite, I accused him of being a libertarian. Many libertarians don’t claim Paul as being one of theirs’, perhaps aluchko is one of those.
Look, jackass, I don’t care what’s going on in their heart of hearts at the end of the day. Policies that hurt women, or hurt gay people, or trans people, or non-white people, or the poor, or the disabled, or the non-neurotypical, hurt me and mine. I’m not going to dice assholes who are hurting me and mine based on our status into little groups based on whether they really mean to hurt me or mine based on our status as disadvantaged people. They are hurting me and mine based on our status. Hurting people based on their status in a disadvantaged class is bigotry; period.
I’d have a bit more respect for Paul if he stopped talking about the Constitution, and proposed repealing it and reinstating the Articles of Confederation. That would get him the neutered federal government he wants, and would suggest that he’s actually studied the issue.
He seems to forget that the Constitution was adopted to expand federal power. Not without bounds, and there are reasonable arguments to make that we’ve centralized more than we should since it was written. But it was an expansion of federal power, and a deliberate one. He doesn’t seem to get this, he only sees the limitations and has no clue whatsoever of the historical context that lead to our current Constitution. This was like second or third grade social studies for me.
I wouldn’t be any more likely to vote for him, but I’d respect his intelligence and integrity a bit more if he started a push to reinstate the Articles of Confederation.
@Ruteekatreya
Well it’s too bad that’s how you see it , because bigotry is defined by what’s going on in their heart of hearts. It’s not bigotry unless you actually have prejudices or issues with those people, or actually desire harm to them. Stupid, probably not evil,definitely not bigoted (the policies, not the people).
@ruteekatreya
I’ve also heard him talk about not wanting the government in the marriage business.
From what I can tell he personally doesn’t want gay marriage, but I’ve also heard him say he doesn’t want government in the marriage business. I don’t actually know what his ideal scenario for marriage is, he might be of the opinion that all governments just do civil unions as some sort of contract law, and if they’re gay or even polygamous that doesn’t matter. Or he might want no gay marriage anywhere. His DOMA position could be consistent with either ultimate goal but I’m honestly not motivated to tease out his true position.
Oh, and since everyone is convinced that I’m libertarian here’s a few positions. I am definitely for gay marriage, but against polygamy since I don’t believe it can be implemented in a way that isn’t discriminatory against women. I am an atheist. I’m pro-choice but could waver on some limited restrictions around late-term abortions, and I don’t know how to deal with the sex-selection issue. I believe strongly in civil liberties. I’m uneasy with the idea that the government runs the schools, but think it works surprisingly well (as long as you’re not in Texas). I love Canada’s public health care system, though I suspect a system with public funding but some form of private delivery might work better (at least for the states). And I think Krugman is probably right about fixing the economy.
Oh yeah, I also hate political labels like liberal, conservative, and libertarian. I feel they encourage ad-hominens, force people into defending positions they wouldn’t otherwise, and lead to confusion since they never explain a significant portion of a person’s political philosophy.
Welcome to the motherfucking conversation. I have never once met a forced abortion advocate who applied their views to anything but uteruses. Find me one of these unicorns, and I’ll consider that maybe that specific one is only as misogynist as average for society.
Does it elude you that people don’t think you’re honest?
Look, even if I were in a mood to give people credit, you’re aware of the racist-ass shit that dude has stated on the inferiority of black people? But no, he knows damn well what is going to happen, and doesn’t fucking care, and still wants to cause it.
It’s defined by hurting people for their status, you asshole. I notice you have all the fucking time in the world to defend assholes, but not enough to actually berate them. Fuck off and die.
@’Tis Himself
Yes, perhaps he is. I see no evidence to that effect but yea I guess it’s possible.
@ruteekatreya
Yes, in a way a single source would very easily refute it and tries to get the arguement away from it since he admittedly doesn’t know much about. If he’s trying to gather some amount of support for libertarianism he’s doing a pretty shitty job of it.
Wrong.
If you’re going to attempt an argument-by-definition, you’d better get the definition right.
Yet they will refuse to put in place mechanisms by which women can obtain abortions regardless of ability to pay, which makes the right to have an abortion meaningless for many, and thus not a right at all.
How to Be a Bigot.
Whether or not someone purposefully means to be a bigot doesn’t absolve them from acting like one.
@ruteekatreya
I have the time to berate him, it’s just that berating him would be redundant. I berate him when around people who actually support him, otherwise I”m just preaching to the choir. He’s so easy to hate while being fair that there’s no reason to accept people being unfair about it. I refuse to let stupid arguments slide because the general message (we don’t like ron paul) is one that I agree with.
Also, by what definition is bigotry defined by that? Could you like show me a dictionary that says it?
Bullshit. Bigotry is what people do, not what people think.
Are you always this stupid ?
Yes.
This is the second time in this thread you’ve made it obvious how incredibly ignorant you are.
Lol, second.
Way more than that.
I’m not paying attention.
combat:
When someone takes a stance that causes harm to LGBTQ people, people of color, and women, it no longer matters if that stance was taken based on a noble ideology. They are placing their ideology and their own desires over the well-being of others, acting on the belief that their ideology is more important than those people.
They can profess that in their heart of hearts they believe all people are equal, but we’re not telepaths and people aren’t always aware of their own motivations. We must judge based on actions and outcomes. Most likely, there’s some sort of latent bigotry allowing them to dehumanize minorities and justify a system that would disproportionately benefit wealthy, straight, white cis-males.
If they’re unaware of their own biases, that in no way makes placing ideology above the welfare of genuine living human beings anything other than the dehumanizing bigotry it is.
Only when the possibility is raised that gay people can get married, You motherfucking hetero asshole.
HE. VOTED. FOR. DOMA. YOU. PIECE. OF. HETERO. SHIT..
Your fucking guesses mean nothing in the face of the fucking facts.
Voting aye on a piece of legislation that forces a specific definition of marriage is not fucking consistent with ‘government should have nothing to do with marriage’, you fucking asshole. And that’s fucking leaving for two seconds that that kind of stance is direct support of the status quo.
Did you folks hear that they’ve recently studied the psychology of 10566 libertarians? It turns out libertarians experience less love; they even love their own families less than non-libertarians love theirs.
http://keenetrial.com/blog/2010/11/17/whosthelibertarian/
The part I’ve bolded is of interest because libertarians often claim that they are just as loving, just as caring, full of just as much empathy as anyone else.
It turns out that this is demonstrably, empirically false.
+++++
Full text free at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1665934
@104
That’s the exact definition I’m using. Intolerance of others (as the dictionary says) is an idea. You could hurt others in a lower status without actively being intolerant of them.
Or to make it easier to understand for you, if someone thinks bigoted things but never acts on them and never articulates them, then we would never know they were a bigot. Thus it is only through what people say and do that we can know they are bigots, and then all we do is apply the duck test(*)
* In this context, if someone expresses views and commits actions overwhelming, if not exclusivity, associated with bigots then we are justified in concluding they are bigots and to treat them as such.
Intent is not magical. Taking an ideological position which will result in harm or a pragmatic position which will result in harm both result in harm being done. The only difference is the justification used to excuse the harm.
Could you like show me a dictionary that says “bigotry is defined by what’s going on in their heart of hearts”?
@ Aluchko:
Every argument I’ve ever seen from an anti-choice individual boils down to this: “The woman had sex so she consented to getting pregnant and thus she has no right to an abortion.”
If every argument they put forth stopped falling back on the idiotic notion that having sex establishes a permanent state of consent, I’d stop believing they were misogynist fuckwits.
It does not really matter. They are misogynistic, and quite honestly their motivation is not as important as their actions.
I not only think it, I am certain of it. As certain as I am of anything. Do keep in mind that bigotry (of any kind, not just misogyny) can and frequently does operate beyond the level of conscious awareness, even in the most enlightened and liberal individuals. You know: in the “heart of hearts.”
In other words: bigotry is as bigotry does.
(thx ruteekatreya for responding so well to the question posed to me.)
*Bonks self*
Forced birth advocate, not forced abortion advocate.
@ruteekatreya
I recall some of his stated reason for supporting DOMA was it meant a state would need to recognize a form of marriage it really didn’t want to, and that would be a violation of state’s rights. It could be that was an excuse and his own personal prejudice and/or political expediency played the biggest factor. Some of those quotes also come from a few years ago and a lot of people’s views have changed since then (including possibly Obama’s), his more recent quotes seem to be based more on states rights and government not being involved. As I said I don’t know what his current position is, I suspect that given another 4-8 years he would support some form of gay marriage, but I really don’t know enough about him to make that judgment.
@christinereece
I had a huge debate with a pair of pro-lifers about a month ago and that argument was never presented. It was all based on a definition of life that I couldn’t disabuse them of.
@Matt Penfold
It does if you’re trying to convince them. It could be they’ve never sufficiently considered the issue from the woman’s perspective, or didn’t give it sufficient weight. If there is a disconnect between their motives and the consequences, and you can demonstrate to them that this disconnect exists, there’s an opportunity to change their minds.
Then you’re not understanding it very well. See also #106.
Tolerance and intolerance are also actions. If some guy convinces himself that he loves gay people but “hates the sin”, and then he goes and beats up a gay person, he is acting intolerantly.
When the people being hurt are already subject to widespread stereotyping and othering — to the extent that even members of the oppressed groups have internalized their oppression — it stretches credulity to suggest that someone just happens to be enacting further oppression along the same culturally-accepted lines entirely coincidentally.
@Caerie
Thank you for a reasonable arguement that isn’t ridiculously abrasive and accusatory.
I agree completely that the problem is Ron Paul putting his ideology above actual people. I only feel the distinction between bigot and idealist with ideals that have the same result is important when actively arguing that they’re evil instead of stupid.
When I look at it your way, I do see why you could see some latent bigotry in there. It just seems to me that his position is more against any remotely reasonably sized government than anti minorities, and that’s just a side effect that he feels is justified. I think this partly because of what he says and mostly because he always seems to be bagging on about our militarism as well as his other ideals, which doesn’t seem like a particularly pro-rich white straight cis male idea.
christinereece #118
To back this accusation up, most forced birth advocates will allow abortions in cases of rape or incest. So they’re fine with abortion as long as the woman didn’t enjoy the sex.
Well to hold the views they do they have already rejected the views of the woman. Ignorance is not an excuse anymore. If there are people who have not properly consider the position of the woman is through choice; such ignorance can only be considered wilful.
So in fact he is being bigoted when espousing such polices.
@life 117
No, I stole that from the guy I’m responding to. dictionary.com’s definition is very obviously one that’s about peoples’ emotions and ideas though, not action.
@matt 108
On what planet? So if I never do anything about it but can not stand being around black people, and refuse to trust them, and believe all the stupid stereotypes, I am not a bigot?
@ Aluchko:
If the argument revolves around defining a fetus’s rights at the expense of a woman’s rights, that’s misogyny as well. There is no possible way to proclaim that a fetus has an overriding right to life without implicitly stating that women have a lesser right to life and no right to refuse consent.
This one.
Try not to be quite so fucking idiotic.
By not trusting them you are doing something about it. If a someone holds racists views but never acts on them we will not know they are racists.
This is not hard so please explain why you refuse to understand.
It doesn’t matter, because if they were decent people then the fact that their viewpoint forces them to adopt misogynistic positions, they would change their positions rather than embrace misogyny.
@124
Yes you could delude yourself to think you’re intolerant when you’re not, and I would consider that intolerant even if he doesn’t beat up a gay person.
And if I beat up a gay person for a reason that I would beat up a straight person I’m not necessarily intolerant of gays, even if my reasoning is bad, though I’m hurting gay people more than straights.
Sorry, but you are.
I can seen how you might like to kid yourself you are not, but then bigots have always done that. Look up institutional racism, and explain why you are unaware of the concept.
@131 matt penfold
Trust is a thought, all in the head, that’s what determines racism. Yea I guess that’s an action when you’re anal enough about it, but in a way that’s practical to this discussion it’s not.
Yes, if someone holds racist views and never acts on them, we won’t know they’re racists but they’re still racists, and that’s why they’re racists. And if they don’t hold racist views they’re not racist, even if they look racist to us and we are logical to assume they are racist
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ #113:
Libertarians are sort of sociopaths? WHAT A FUCKING SHOCK, MY WHOLE WORLDVIEW IS ABLAZE!!!!
Oh… wait. No. That’s exactly what any rational person would expect. Silly me.
No, trust is not all in the head. Trust is about how you treat others.
Now I have already asked you stop being so fuck stupid. What part of that request did you not understand ?
And how do we know what people thing when they never act on their beliefs ? You keep failing to explain that, despite being asked to several times.
You need to buck your ideas up. STOP BEING SO FUCKING STUPID!
aluchko #101
If you don’t like being called a libertarian then it’s up to you to show how you fail to qualify as one. When you say things like Paul isn’t a homophobic bigot, he’s just supporting states rights then it appears you have sympathy for this position.
In the 1950s and 1960s, “states rights” was one of the political justifications used to support racial segregation. Paul is old enough to know this. Combined with his demonstrated racism, his support for states rights can easily be read as bigotry.
@Matt Penfold
What, no. you’re seriously arguing that if I beat up a gay person, for any reason, any reason at all, I am a bigot? What if I don’t even know they’re gay? How the hell does your ideology work?
I’m well aware of institutional racism, I’m well aware that Ron Paul’s ideology allows for it, I just don’t think Ron Paul himself is a bigot . I think he’d let me get run over for his ideology just like he’d run over a poor transexual black woman
I’m neither old enough to remember, and nor am I American, but even I know this.
@Matt Penfold:
I seem to recall agreeing with you on a whole lot of other issues, and I think you’re way off base here. I’m entirely unwilling to call you a bigot or a racist or anything else, and I honestly think you might really be trying to make a valid point.
Would it be too rude or condescending to suggest that you take a little break, and take a fresh look at this thread tomorrow?
Such majestic equality, that the straights as well as the gays shall be beaten up for holding hands with a same-sex partner, going to gay bars, wearing rainbow bracelets, or looking at me funny.
No I am not saying since that is not what you said. Let me remind you what you said:
What you are saying here is that policy on beating people up disproportionately effects gays.
You need to explain your lack of honesty here. And again, you need to stop being so fucking stupid.
Allowing institutional racism would be a form of bigotry. How fucking hard is it for you to understand someone who supports bigoted policies is a bigot, and someone who allows bigoted policies is a bigot. It is so fucking simple you cannot be genuine if your refusal to understand.
Which leads me to conclude you want to use Paul as a cover for your own bigotry.
Yes it would, so take you concern and fuck off.
combat @ 129;
Matt Penfold has already addressed this @ 131, but it bears repeating that there is no such thing as a ‘thought crime’ – if a person actively distrusts black people/homosexuals/women/*insert social group*, then by the action of distrusting a person purely because of an attribute about themselves that they cannot control, then they are behaving in a bigoted fashion, but if they secretly hold a negative opinion of a certain group based solely on such characteristics, but never act upon it or express it in any way, then there is no practical way to know that they hold such an opinion. While one may choose to idly speculate on something along the lines of “if someone is racist/misogynist/homophobic in a forest, and there is no one there to hear, are they a bigot?” to all practical intents and purposes, bigotry is only detectable, and thus problematic, when it is expressed.
Is bigotry toxic in and of itself? I would say that yes, it is, but I see nothing that we can do about it unless it is expressed. We have neither the means to enact an Orwellian response to unexpressed bigotry, nor would attempting to do so do anything to improve society.
OK, Matt… I was just trying to be a friend. I guess you have enough of those.
@137
Situation-ally yea, but in normal everyday interactions no it doesn’t really matter. I can think of one person not in my family who I have acted out of trust to in the last year, maybe two, there are more that I do trust but they have no way of knowing it.
Who said we know? Who said we can always know? We don’t, that doesn’t change the truth. With Ron Paul I believe he’s misguided idealist and not a bigot because his positions seem to fit the weird “States rights and every man for himself!” ideology even more perfectly than the actively hating people that are different one.
Also, fucking ask your questions straight forward and stop pretending “STOP BEING STUPID” is a request someone can be expected to respond to, as if being stupid is an objective action and
Well, no.
The difference in love is statistically significant, and may even account for some policy differences, but if you click through and look at the results, it’s not huge (and it’s not as though liberals are the love ceiling).
I seriously doubt it’s pathological.
Bullshit you were. Why fucking lie about it ? How the fuck did you think I was going to believe you ?
From the Addicting Info website, 10 Quotes That Make Ron Paul Sound Racist (I’m only giving three):
Exactly. I would add I think it very unlikely that someone holding bigoted opinions would be able to refrain from acting on them at some time, although of course we know that bigots are quite capable of hiding their bigotry in certain situations.
You can stop being stupid anytime you like. Either by ceasing to comment, or by educating yourself. It is telling you have rejected either option.
There was some douchecanoe named Bill on RT with Bill Maher last night (no, not Bill Maher, Bill Gillespie of the ridiculously named reason.com) making the “argument” that even if companies didn’t have to label their genetically modified foods as the case is now, consumers would still have a choice on what they consume. Absurd. When there are no regulations in place to provide access in order to make a choice, that is anti-choice. Intended or not doesn’t fucking matter.
In the case of abortion, a lack of governmental mandates effectively limit abortion providers to areas where there is higher demand. When those services are only offered in major metro areas, rural women of lower incomes do not have the same effective choice as a woman of the same means living in proximity to such a clinic. That’s anti-choice. That is, the only option for many women is: botched DIY, carrying to term, or suicide. Tragically – sometimes all three. That’s misogyny.
Libertarians, whether they like it or not, are anti-choice misogynistic forced-birthers via their policy of uninvolvement.
He is a bigot because of the consequences of his positions.
He is also a bigot because he espouses directly racist views, which you seem to be ignorant about for some reason.
And in the EU it is also unlawful. Ireland passed a law allowing abortions to be performed in situations where the mother’s life is at risk but no means for actually providing such abortions was put in place. Two women took the Irish Government to court over their inability to access their right to an abortion. It ended up being appealed to Europe, and the judges their ruled that if such a provision is allowed for by law then there is a also a duty to take practical measures to allow access to that provision.
aluchko #101:
Huh. That’s interesting (not really). Because I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that words have meanings, such that if someone self-identifies with a particular political label, it does in fact explain a significant portion of one’s political philosophy.
Man, I forgot the downside of poking libertarian jerks: the libertarian jerks then fill the thread with libertarian jerkiness.
But only free-market jerkiness, which competition would soon get rid of if no one liked it!
@142
Obviously if it’s for doing something that indicates homosexuality that invalidates the “for something I’d beat up a straight person for” part. I’m just saying in the situation I beat up a man who happens to be gay am I a bigot, not targeting him for being gay, but I’ve hurt a gay person and don’t equally hurt straight ones by happenstance.
@143
….yes I guess if you twist it like that. In a real world scenario, undistorted by your bullshit rhetoric the policy got one gay person beaten up, not because they’re gay, and thus the beating hurt more gay people than straight people, and the policy of beating does too because I haven’t beaten anyone else. You must be a politician or on some really fucking good drugs to read what I said and think to twist it like that.
I am not dishonest nor am I stupid nor am I a bigot.
I understand, for the second part I understand in the same way I understand the batman universe. Although if you could link me to a directly bigoted policy that Ron Paul supports, that would change my mind. But by that I don’t mean him getting rid of special protections (allowing business owners to be bigots with their hiring) in the name of “freedom” (which isn’t actually freedom in practice) or just general shrinking the federal government (taking away government funding from health services that help women for instance, unless you could show that he supports government funding for health services for other reasons).
I’m sorry you feel that way. I can’t make you feel anything but what you’re going to feel. I wasn’t lying a bit, I felt like you were chasing a trail where you might be technically correct while being wrong in the big picture, and that’s a path I’ve taken enough times to recognize it when I see other people doing it.
I’m not mad at you, I don’t think you’re a bad person, I think you are wrong on one point and correct on others, and if you think someone saying that to you can’t be friendly then I don’t know what else to say.
@154
Perfect! Show me that. That’s actual bigotry.
Why ? You have already read a long list of them.
Read the original post by PZ, and then read the article he linked to. And then explain why you did not bother.
Now what were you saying about your honesty ?
Seriously, you need to riff on that, Don King style:
“Man, I forgot the downside of pokinating libertarianistic jerkarians: the libertanistical jerkitudes then fill the thread with libertinarialisticaltudinalarian jerkilism.”
Read the fucking thread yourself.
How fucking lazy are you ?
@christinereece
That only holds true if they deny medically necessary abortions as well. They could be saying the fetuses right to life trumps the woman’s right to not be pregnant.
@’Tis Himself
Well I did list off a bunch of political positions that are incompatible with libertarianism. Do you think libertarians support public health care or Keynesian stimulus?
Oh, I also voted NDP in the last Canadian Federal elections.
@PZ Myers
I haven’t been following all the threads but I’m not sure there actually any libertarians here. There’s myself and combat (I don’t know his politics) criticizing the form of the criticism of Ron Paul, but I haven’t seen people advocating libertarianism directly.
Yet I am the only person you are saying it to, yet I am not the only person saying it.
And to be honest, even if you did think I was a bad person for thinking that people who act like bigots are bigots, then I would not give a fuck.
Ron Paul is an ass.
oh, and, being a WoW player, he’s also clearly a Goblin.
Obsessed with money, doing sneaky deals to ‘steal’ primaries. . .
Yup… Goblin. An unholy spec Death Knight at that.
@162 &164
I FUCKING READ EVERYTHING DICKWEED.
Stop being so presumptuous. I did read that post prior. There is one thing in there that’s possibly bigoted, the sanctity of life act thing, and no I don’t see it as a bigoted bill at all. I see it as a stupid harmful bill but from the standpoints of the stupid people who see an embryo as a deserving human life it makes sense. The rest is just stupid shit that’s consistent with his position of limiting the fuck out of the federal government despite all logic.
Something that’s not mentioned nearly enough is the fact that Paul’s not just a doctor – he’s an OB-GYN. And given his age it seems like a fair bet he was practicing before Roe v. Wade, even taking into account his years in the service.
He would have done his training at an institution that had entire wards filled with women who were septic because of non-sterile abortions. He would have had patients who died because abortion was illegal. It’s one thing for some shit-kicking preacher to casually brush off the deaths of women who are only theoretical to them. But for a physician to do so after having watched patients die of shock is chilling.
Anyone who claims that Paul’s position on abortion isn’t based in a contempt for women is a liar.
Someone suggested that they trusted RP as far as they could throw him.
I would, if granted immunity from prosecution or lawsuit, be willing to experiment whether I myself would trust him even so far. I’m not huge, but strong and in reasonably good shape, and know some martial arts tricks that might send the not-small Big-L Libertarian a reasonable distance.
It couldn’t hurt (me) to try.
When someone says they are “Libertarian,” I check to see if I’m being put on, then snort in amused disbelief and leave, lest I deal with them as Matt Groening suggests dealing with mimes you wish to annoy.
First, it is rank hypocrisy for a supposed pro-constitution person throwing out Article IV, Section 1 of the constitution (the full faith and credit clause).
But even if we ignore that, it doesn’t change the fact that DOMA:
1. singles out a specific form of marriage for special (mis)treatment. If this was really about states rights, rights the constitution flat-out says that don’t have to begin with, then he would not singling out one particular sort of marriage, he would be applying it consistently.
2. defines marriage at the federal level. If he really cared about states rights, then he would have the federal government follow the state laws of whatever state the office is in. Instead, the law flat-out denies benefits to federal employees that the states would give.
So despite the fact that he is flat-out rejecting the constitution, and the fact that the bill only applies to a small subset of marriage that he happens to personally despise, in many ways it actually restricts states’ rights.
Clearly you missed the part about his wanting to repeal the Civil Rights Act. repealing that act would increase discrimination against non-white Americans. States cannot be trusted to protect the rights of non-white Americans since it was the abject failure of a number of them to do so that lead to the act being introduced in the first place.
So the repealing the act would lead to increased racial discrimination. Yet wanting to repeal it, in your eyes, is not bigoted ? Yeah right. I don’t believe you are being honest with us.
Except, apparently, for post 150.
@172
No I didn’t. I was thinking about that the whole time, it was just obvious to me. He thinks you have the right to be as bigoted as you want as far as your property and hiring his concerned.
Yes, it’s not bigoted. It’s just really stupid if you’re not bigoted, and Ron Paul seems really stupid.
I think I’ve made my position clear enough, that without actual hatred and issue with a group you can not be bigoted towards them.
And I’ve never denied that if he had his way it would increase racial discrimination. I’m asking for something directly bigoted. Key word: Directly, not supporting something that gives you more power to be a bigot, actual direct bigotry.
“Happenstance” tends to happen certain ways.
So we get robberies of gay people which occur because police were expected not to respond quickly to a call from a gay bar. This can occur without burning hatred, but it’s still a form of bigotry.
Again: when the people being hurt are already subject to widespread stereotyping and othering — to the extent that even members of the oppressed groups have internalized their oppression — it stretches credulity to suggest that someone just happens to be enacting further oppression along the same culturally-accepted lines entirely coincidentally.
You are evidently trying to apply Ockham’s razor, which is fine in itself, but you’re doing it wrong. Group oppression, against women, LGBT people, and/or people of color, is so widespread that a hypothetical person-without-prejudice is the rare entity which should not be presumed without necessity.
If someone adopts a political worldview which would further systematically disadvantage multiple groups already subject to prejudice, it is parsimonious to conclude that bigotry is a major reason why this political worldview exists in the first place. Libertarianism, like Goldwater-style conservatism, is what it is in large part because of reaction against the 1960s civil rights movement.
That might make sense, if he were applying it consistently. But as I pointed out with DOMA, he tends to apply his rules much more rigorously when they affect people who belong to groups he doesn’t belong to.
And to those invoking “states’ rights”, let us not forget that the only right most “states’ rights ” types ever seem to support is the right of a state to treat some people as NOT HUMAN! Blacks, other folk of color, women , and LGBT folk–it’s all about saying “THEMZ AIN’T PEEPUL”, and treating them like dirt. In the cases where some states are moving forward, it’s got to be repressed or quarantined–see the Fugitive Slave Act, DOMA, or the repeated attempts to stop women form going to another state for an abortion (which haven’t passed yet, but they won’t stop trying…).
We had a war about this. They lost. And yet, they’re back.
And that would make him a bigot as well of course.
No, it is bigoted. It would discriminate against non-White Americans, which is a textbook definition of bigotry.
Well you keep saying it, but since you have been unable to justify holding that view no one quite knows why. Simply repeating something does not make it true.
If you support discrimination, directly or indirectly, then you are a bigot. Allowing others to do the discriminating for you does not remove the charge of bigotry.
You have come very close when you say it would be bigoted.
And again, this has been provided.
Now for the last time, you are a bigot if you seek to allow other to be bigots.
If all of this is still to hard for you to understand, ask an adult to explain it you.
–Leonard Pitts/lilapwl
I think the “gnome, elf or goblin?” question has been definitively settled.
It’s in the list along with self righteousness, ignorance, callousness and idiocy.
When someone doesn’t care enough about the result of their actions or beliefs I have to conclude they, defacto support those results. If they cared enough about the issue they wouldn’t do that. If a Nazi claimed to just like the discipline of Nazism and not hate anyone, yet continued to support the nazi party refusing to acknowledge he was supporting the attempted extermination of people I would conclude that his apathy towards the situation makes him a defacto racist shit.
This is why driving drunk and killing someone is still vehicular homicide. Your impairment is your own fucking fault because you should know better if you paid attention. Ron Paul’s positions are Political Homicide
To Godwin it, can you show me where Hitler actually gave a literal direct order to do any racial cleansing?
I would add to my reply at #178, that you should also read TheBlackCat’s comment at #176.
It seems that Paul is selective in what he wants to repeal, and that there is evidence of discrimination in that selection.
The evidence that Paul is a bigot, both directly and in wanting to assist other in their bigotry is overwhelming.
Besides his racism, his homophobia, and his general hatred of anyone who isn’t a 1%er, I have another problem with Paul. He’s an economic know-nothing who would destroy the American (and the world’s) economy.
Here’s some bits from an article he wrote a year ago:
The US and the rest of the First and Second Worlds went off the gold standard during the Great Depression for good reasons. Those reasons have not gone away. Also the total amount of gold that has ever been mined IS estimated at around 142,000 metric tons, worth about $6 trillion dollars at current prices. There are about $4 trillion in circulation or on deposit in the US. There isn’t have enough gold in the US to convert every dollar in circulation or on deposit. So a shift to the gold standard would be deflationary. Shifting to a gold standard would depreciate the currency, the very thing Paul complains about with fiat currency.
But, you say, Paul would accept some other commodity “respected by the market.” What would that be? Oil? Agricultural products? Manufactured goods? Some market basket of all of these? The logistics would be horrendous and subject to foreign veto.
There are other objections to the gold (or other commodity) standard. For example, it is difficult to manipulate a gold standard to tailor an economy’s demand for money, providing practical constraints against the measures that central banks might otherwise use to respond to economic crises. The demand for money always equals the supply of money. Creation of new money reduces interest rates and thereby increases demand for new lower cost debt, raising the demand for money.
Paul doesn’t explain what he’d replace the income tax with. From what other libertarians have said, the replacement would likely be some form of national sales tax or valued added tax. Both of these taxes are regressive, hitting the poor hardest and the rich the least. Just another case of how libertarians want freedom only for those who can afford it.
At least if those 10 quotes are accurate, Ron Paul thinks the war in question was a mistake.
Also, I don’t think they ever actually went away to begin with.
#173
My bad, I was busy penning out the really big post #159 when #150 came around. Those are very incriminating and if they’re true Ron Paul is indeed a racist. I mis-spoke, I read the article, PZ’s post, and most of the thread up until that point. I’ve probably said some stupid things in response to the abrasive asshole I’m going to respond to in this very post in a second.
#178
No it wouldn’t. It would allow for it, which is not.
My citation is the dictionary. I have no idea how anyone could read the same dictionary I did (dictionary.com) and think bigotry isn’t entirely about the ideas of the bigot. I truly do not get it.
Oh so you’re admitting you can’t speak at the level of an adult and perhaps I should find someone smarter to explain it?
The law currently does not allow it…reversing that is bigotry.
Or to restate, if I revoke the law against punching assholes like you in the face I am allowing violence against you even if I never throw a punch.
Again: Hitler never actually killed anyone in a prison camp, he just made it so that others could. Not bigotry right?
There’s a little something adults call “responsibility” some of us even have this wild idea that it should be in proportion to power and influence.
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
Extreme Tunnel Vision.
Or maybe people are just getting tired of spelling everything out for you.
So you admit to arguing from a position of ignorance ?
And do you still wonder why we have no time for you ?
Not preventing racism is a form of racism. Not doing anything when racism is taking place is a form of racism. Repealing laws that have been effective in reducing racism and not replacing them with anything as, or more, effective, is racism.
Defending those who want to repeal such laws in also racist.
No. I am telling you that given your apparent intellectual impairment it might be a good idea to get an adult to explain these things to you.
@TheBlackCat
if Libertarians could think beyond their nose or cared about consequences they wouldn’t be Libertarians
So much hatred for a different interpretation of the word “bigot” when in the real world we want the same things. Yes that is true, but if you revoke the law against assault and people like me get assaulted more often than others I wouldn’t consider that bigoted towards people like me.
Analogy doesn’t work, for one I’m pretty sure he ordered the killing. and if he just legalized murder in germany in it’s entirety than yes it would be possible for him to not be a bigot even if jews were disproportionately killed, he’s said many things that would’ve let the cat out of the bag anyway though.
I don’t think Ron Paul should bear no responsibility in the event that he becomes president and revokes the civil rights acts, I just don’t think he’d be a bigot.
Then find the example. He didn’t order anyone officially specifically be killed.
Then you’re an idiot. Fine he’s an asshole there’s your bone. He’s a fucking monster. But he’s not a bigot! That word is sacred and saved for special occasions like our good china!
Having read all of aluchko’s posts, I see I’ve done hir an injustice. Xe is not a libertarian and I apologize for saying xe was.
You still don’t think he’s a bigot after reading those quotes?
This from a subadult? Only subadults are liberturds. Adults don’t have unevidenced theology, they have evidence based conclusions…
So even know you know he personally hold racist views, that he is selective in what Federal laws he want to repeal and would only repeal those that would disproportionately affect non-white, non-male Americans, and despite the fact you have all this repeatedly explained to you, you still cannot see why Paul would be a bigot ?
Well one thing has become very clear. You have a problem with your sense of morality.
We clearly do not want the same thing. For example right now I wish you’d take your head out of your ass and stand up right like a real person, rather than being a sniveling little toady ass snorkeler.
You’re really dedicated to being as stupid as all fuck aren’t you?
Again this is the sort of mental self lobotomy that is required to find Paul palatable. p[
Definition. How is expressing a desire to remove protection of minorities against YOUR group not an example of that?
It’s either malicious or callous…and such callousness is fucking bigotry due to not giving a shit (IE the problems of minorities don’t matter to me)
Also praise for Paul for having a ‘straight forward’ and ‘consistent’ philosophy is pathetic even if true.
Consistency and stubbornness towards a bad idea is not praiseworthy. Being married to a stupid evil ideology makes you stupid and evil.
What if a somewhat more specific law is repealed, though?
Let’s say the United States declared that plain ol’ murder would still be illegal but lynching is now legalized.
Just to throw my 2 cents in.
Bigot is a nasty word because of the mental image it conjures, someone who explicitly wants negative outcomes for a specific group.
Even if this isn’t the definition you like it’s the definition that I think is most common, so by calling someone a bigot when that harm is an unintended consequence you’re misrepresenting them.
Now is Paul a bigot? I have no idea. But I don’t see the point in calling him a bigot without incontrovertible proof. All you’re doing is weakening your own argument and giving him and his supporters an easy victory. There are plenty of ways to criticize Paul without trying to discern his private beliefs on race or homosexuality.
@Life is like a pit/SG
Well it’s not like that wasn’t the example I gave.
@188
That’s sort of how a discussion supposed to work, you’re supposed to cite your sources and make your case, not your opposition’s. And it’s a little hard to respond to so many people and then read everything even towards people not talking to me.
@189
I read everything everyone’s said to me and I read the original post and I was furious when you implied I didn’t read the original article.
Is there anything that’s not racist if it takes issues with anything you’ve said about race? No, racism is taking issue with those of another race, or having prejudices about them, Ron Paul’s newsletter that he was at least complacent in for years, if not the writer, for example would be evidence of that.
How fucking dense are you idiots?
After all this jackass says and the policies he advocates you care more about HIM than the fact that he’s a fucking bigot and asshole?
OH THANK GOODNESS WE HAVE SOMEONE TO PROTECT THE WHITE ASSHOLE.
Let me say this to you asshole so concerned about POOR RON PAUL. YOU ARE BIGOTED. You care so much about his issues and HIS benefit to the exclusion of entire demographics (as evident by your fucking blindness to his quotes, policies, and statements) that you are showing absurd preference to him and people like him. THIS IS BIGOTRY. White people are more important than anyone else to you. That is what you are saying.
FFS HEY ALL THESE PROTECTIONS OF MINORITIES ARE UNFAIR TO WHITE PEOPLE LETS REMOVE THEM IS FUCKING RACISM.
And frankly you bending over backwards to defend this does show fucking racism. Even if you don’t intend it the importance of defending a white asshole are more important than anything else. Think about it. You are objectively horrible horrible people.
@’Tis Himself #193
Thank you,
As for my previous #201, reading your #150, it sounds like Paul is a lot closer to bigotry than I’d realized or at least trying to appeal to the bigot crowd.
I’m fucking amazed how people defend removing the civil rights law, but are upset that calling said action is bigotry. Cause the worst thing ever is to smear the name of a single rich white man!
“Much closer”? Are you fucking kidding me? How could he say those things and be anything other than a dyed-in-the-wool bigot? You still are trying to pass this off as just “close” or acting?
Anyway, if he wants to be seen as a bigot, who are you to deny him that right?
@196
No, he’s a bigot for his newsletters where he personally, as his own choice, allowed bigoted comments in his name (and that’s assuming he did not write them, and I see no real difference in that regard). Also, the only evidence that I see that he would ONLY repeal laws that help minorities is that article which is a list of stupid positions of his.
@197
But I don’t find Ron Paul palatable. I think a Ron Paul presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for the country if congress let him do as he wished. Also, how can I stand up like a real person when I’ve been insulted constantly since post 104? How can I not get mad and argue like a normal person? You yourself let out this incomprehensible mess of insults
@”We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”
I don’t give a crap about Paul’s feelings.
What I am saying is that if you use bigot to refer to someone who doesn’t actually have malice towards minorities you’re lying about them. When people realize that you’ve lied to them they no longer trust you, and they rally around the person you accused.
Remember back to ’04 with the memo’s about Bush’s military service. Pointing out that Bush did coke and used family connections to avoid Vietnam and Bush looks bad. But use what turns out to be fake (or at least unverifiable) memo’s to show the same thing, Bush looks good.
I find the most effective criticism comes when you’re giving someone the benefit of the doubt and they’ve still done something wrong.
@207
If there was a single person here who thought that was a good idea I’d be arguing against them instead.
Combat:
Intent: It’s Fucking Magic!
Nobody owes you a polite argument when you’re defending oppressive bullshit, asshole.
We do? You haven’t made that case at all.
Aluchko:
Yes. Scroll down on that page and read the graph.
What does one have to do with the other, outside of right-wing scaremongering?
Very few people hold truly original political views that defy classification. I’m not going to refer to each person’s politics by whatever special-snowflake string of adjectives and nouns they prefer. If it walks like a lolbertarian douchebag, etc. etc.
“Calling someone a bigot is worse than actually being a bigot!”
Yes, “bigot” is a nasty word, and for good reason. Those who don’t want to be tarred with that brush can, you know, stop being bigots, regardless of their intent (see the first link in my comment).
Throwaway, you mean Nick Gillespie.
Stardrake:
Don’t forget people with disabilities. Penn Jillette, for one, has been openly contemptuous of and alarmist about the Americans with Disabilities Act.
‘Tis, I don’t remember if it’s been discussed here before or not, but the obsession with returning to the gold standard strikes me as the sort of extremely literalist thinking that characterizes many on the political right. Confusion of symbol with referent.
Oh holy fucking SHIT. Please, someone turn on the mind-reading machine so we can figure out once and for all whether this never-was presidential candidate who is on his last rodeo really means his bigoted actions or not. Far be it that we let even the faintest glimmer of poor tone through as we follow this wretch into obscurity.
And I find the most effective criticism gets to the fucking point with a minimum of pointless equivocation and sniveling sniveling sniveling.
@Ms. Daisy Cutter, Gynofascist in a Spiffy Hugo Boss Uniform
I never claimed none were misogynist, but many aren’t.
Not much, I was just trying to give some examples of my political philosophy. Also I was pointing out that I wasn’t libertarian, and I suspect there’s a lot of libertarians that believe polygamy should be legal.
A very poor summation of my argument. I never made any comparison, I just said that bigot was a very loaded word to be throwing around, particularly if you’re accusing a non-bigot.
As for that article. If someone uses an slur without realizing it’s a slur I’ll point it out and hold them blameless. If someone uses an slur when they know it’s full meaning then it is bigotry, and they did have intent. (I’ve never encountered a situation where someone used a slur and truly meant no harm).
But I’m only defending it from the accusations I think are untrue. I still don’t think it’s actually a good policy and I think it’d be horrible.
and I haven’t said I condone his position. I still think it’s stupid. Haven’t I denounced it multiple times, thus showing that in reality we want the same thing ?
Regarding Mr. Paul’s equivalence as a D&D monster race, I propose kender.
Nobody with any sense LIKES kender, so nobody will be offended.
Short answer: No
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
aluchko:
1) do you believe that employers have a right to avoid hiring black people because they’re black?
2) do you believe that employers ought to have a right to avoid hiring black people because they’re black?
Nope. You don’t just condemn, and then shut the fuck up. You then apologize for RP. Make up your mind…
“Confederate Garden Gnome Ron Paul?”
RTFLMAO!!!
That sounds like something Stephanie Miller would say! :-D
@219
One of my first posts in this thread was saying how sad it was that people felt the need to turn to ron paul? I just felt that some arguements against RP were bad, not that he’s something good.
On subject, as for Ron Paul and his somehow magical ability to spread trolls wherever his name is mentioned, it is the objectivist thing. Good ol’ Atlas Shrugging. Libertarianism is simply the political face of their “the only thing pure is my greed” philosophy. And they are trolls for the same reason they are libertarians, objectivists, and Paultards. Because they are very smart, but lacking wisdom. Purposefully; “wisdom” is a con-job, they say. Socrates had wisdom: look where it got him.
They have been taught the rules of logic, and they know damned well that there can only be one correct outcome to their proper application. It doesn’t matter how full of crap all of Ron Pauls goldbug proclamations are, what matters is whether they can find a logical inconsistency in every argument against them.
But…but…I love kender. They’re so much fun to wreak havoc with!
How about a gully dwarf? Or better yet: an UNDEAD gully dwarf!
Miss Daisy Cutter #212
There’s a lot of that in the right wing’s gold standard fantasies. Many of them have a nostalgic vision of 19th Century America, when there was a real frontier, laissez faire markets, and a much reduced federal government. The reality was quite different.
Life on the frontier was not like as shown in movie westerns. Most farmers and ranchers were heavily in debt and lived a hand-to-mouth existence. Two bad years could wipe many of them out financially. Over 10,000 midwestern and western farms were foreclosed during the Panic of 1893.
A laissez faire economy is great for those at the top and pretty horrible for the majority at the bottom. The 1892 Homestead Steel strike was caused by an attempt by the plant’s manager, Henry Clay Fisk, to break the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers union. Fisk offered a 22% wage decrease to the union. There was a long and bitter strike with violence from both sides. In the end, the union was broken and the plant remained non-union for the next 40 years.
The federal government was smaller and less powerful during the 19th Century. However state and local governments were much more powerful…and corrupt. This was the age of Tammany Hall and the ward heeler.
One of my complaints about libertarians is most of them are economic and historical illiterates. They yearn to return to an older, “better” time which never existed.
To the folks arguing what type of D&D creature Ron Paul is:
Knock it off already. He’s not an elf, a dwarf, a gnome, a kender, or even a goblin.
He’s clearly a troglodyte: ugly policies, reptilian visage, exposes positions that require a person to be living in a cave in order to believe, and he nauseates anyone who’s not the same type he is.
To combat, who seems to be struggling with a (political) attraction to Ron Paul:
” It just seems to me that his position is more against any remotely reasonably sized government than anti minorities, and that’s just a side effect that he feels is justified.”
Yeah, that’s the way it seems, yes. Because you are white and American and typical. The fact (and, yes, I know it sounds like I’m mind-reading here, but bear with me) is the inverse. His position is anti-minority, and “reducing the size of government” is justified by that. Whenever you ever hear anyone talk about “big government”, they’re talking about a government large enough to guarantee civil rights to all citizens. When they say government has “gotten too large”, that is what they are talking about, not the amount of money spent or the number of employees, but protecting minorities from discrimination. According to libertarians, that is when the government actually overstepped its bounds: when it started helping black people instead of helping to oppress black people. The government is supposed to be about helping all people, right, so helping black people is oppressing white people, right? On such (il)logical conundrums is libertarianism built.
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ
1. No
2. No
But I don’t think that someone who disagrees with me is necessarily a racist or bigot.
@maxdevlin
Is it that hard to conceive that someone can try to explain the positions of an opponent in sympathetic terms without actually agreeing with them?
Well so is Ron Paul! Isn’t it possible that Paul’s ultimate motivations are based on his libertarianism and not bigotry? Is it more likely that his entire small government platform is an excuse for him to oppose the civil rights act? Or that unfortunate consequences for minorities are an unintended side effect?
Why?
If it’s an unintended side effect he’s a fucking idiot. HE DOESN’T CARE. He has said bigoted things. I don’t care what his fucking excuse is.
Fucking white people. People who disagree with that are supporting structures that create and support systematic disadvantages for people based on the color of their skin; by definition, they are fucking racist. Being a racist is worse than being called racist, stop fucking protecting these assholes.
No. That possibility is destroyed by his attitudes on abortion and on same sex marriage, along with the racist shit the fucker has said on black people. He is ‘small government’ except when he can use government to smack particular people around. Go the fuck away you short-sighted jackass.
Or is his liberturdism based on his bigotry, and makes his bigotry sound plausibly unbigoted to gullible fools?
@Rutee
Right they’re either actively malicious, or don’t care about the issues…and by definition only care about the issues of THEIR race/sex/blah blah blah
TheBlackCat @184:
Oh, yeah–a lot of liberturds have a serious jones for the good old days of the 1840’s. And I know they never went away–but they’re louder now, and making Supreme Court decisions.
Ms. Daisy Cutter, Gynofascist In A Spiffy Hugo Boss Uniform @212:
Of course, you’re right–there’s that ol’ privilege showing up again. I remember reading similar comments from Jerry Pournelle when the ADA was passed–helped to start me realizing he wasn’t all I’d thought he was.
@”We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”
There is a cost to anti-discrimination laws, people who should be fired might not be for fear of lawsuits, people who are good workers might have their ability doubted because people think they’re the token minority.
Plus there’s a moral issue, people shouldn’t be forced to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with. No matter how bad a person they are, can you really force a bigot to hire and work with a black man? A black man who might be better off working in a different environment?
Plus there’s the question of how effective they are, ie how easy it is to prove a hiring decision was motivated by race and how many secondary problems the laws cause. For instance I’ve heard of cases in software where people weren’t hired because they had zero chemistry with the existing developers, they were told this and then sued for discrimination. Thus the new policy turned into never telling people why they weren’t hired.
Every action has unintended side effects. And it could be he doesn’t think the problem is large enough to require that solution.
As for the quotes I just did some research and it looks most come from his newsletters from the mid 90’s. There’s a lot of questions did he write the columns himself, if he didn’t author them did he approve them, did he believe in those views or was he just preaching to racists who had started giving him money, if he was a racist 20 years ago is he still a racist today?
My own suspicion is he didn’t write them but he was aware of them, and even if he was a racist then he isn’t anymore. But even if that is the case I feel his credibility has still taken a major hit for avoiding the issue and he very well could be a racist.
That being said the original blog didn’t cite the quotes, didn’t mention their age or source, or the possible question of their authorship. The newsletters are already a damning criticism of Paul, why jeopardize your argument by misleading the reader to make them sound worse?
Like I said. White concerns are more important than black. Fuck you
Nothing was jeopardized you moron. Unless he comes states his apology and takes back that bullshit of being a bigot, or pandering to bigots (which is just as bad and still makes him a bigot) and STOPS acting as a bigot , then he’s still a motherfucking bigot.
Yo, is it racist to support racial discrimination? You motherfucking bet.
You are a dense, hair-splitting point-missing accommodating asshole who needs to STFU And GTFO.
@”We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”
You ask me why, I explain the motives for those people, and you say “Fuck you”??
And half the passage you quoted was about minority concerns!!
“people who are good workers might have their ability doubted because people think they’re the token minority.”
Why do you think some minorities don’t check the appropriate box on admission forms?
Wrong. The reasoning is:
Paul wants X.
X has been shown by weight of experience and/or peer-reviewed studies to cause Y.
Paul is clearly not stupid or uneducated enough to be honestly unaware of the fact that X causes Y.
THEREFORE: Paul arguing for X implies at least one of the following:
1) he wants Y
2) he considers Y acceptable “collateral damage” for getting X and doesn’t give a shit about whether the people who will be much more hurt by Y than he will agree
3) he has chosen to willfully lie to himself about X causing Y
None of those three possibilities is defensible.
DIE. Abstract and unlikely hypotheticals are fucking meaningless. Black people already have to work substantially harder than white people, with these protections. A white convict has an easier time getting a job than an equally qualified black person.
People shouldn’t fucking act to keep a race down.
Fuck you, you air-headed, ignorant cracker. Look at the fucking work statistics before and since then for non-whites you magnificent ass.
Are you illiterate? It quite clearly said ‘if it is unintended he’s an idiot’. Because it is so obvious that to not know is to be foolish. To not care is evil. Either is racist.
You unbelievable asswipe; how is this a relevant question? The asshat is saying racist shit to dyed-in-the-wool racists.
This is not for fucking debate. He wants to remove the civil rights act. People who want to remove the civil rights act are supporting structures that create and sustain systematic disadvantages for people based on the color of their skin; by definition, they are fucking racist. Fuck off and die, you whitesplaining honkey.
Bullshit. If there’s reason to fire them, there’s documentation of what they did wrong.
Prove this is an actual fucking problem or shut the fuck up.
Those people are being fucking racist!
They already have their personhood and abilities doubted by bigots. It’s better to have a job, then to be unemployed due to assuming assholes like you who think they know how to make better choices then those who deal with the discrimination.
This is a problem, but the solution is not to allow racists to discriminate. It’s definitely not okay to use this as a fault of anti-discrimination laws. It’s not caused by anti-discrimination laws, it’s caused by motherfucking racists.
You’re assuming the black man is able to get hired elsewhere. That’s a bullshit privileged assumption.
I’ve had to work with sexist harassing assholes that were never punished and got shit for reporting them because it’s work there or die.
You don’t get it. (That’s a gross understatement!)
At this point, I’m thinking you are a fucking racist.
Ok, I didn’t see ruteekatreya latest post. I was doing bits and chunks to post quicker but that didn’t help.
You totally said everything better than I did.
Yeah, we know he is a fucking racist*. He is covering for racism, trying to tell marginalized people that they don’t understand their own oppressions, and has made it a fucking point to try to pretend the only racism is kkk cross burnings and jim crow. And he has the intestinal fortitude to do so while trying to pretend he isn’t presenting his own positions.
*You know, strictly speaking, I already knew that before he opened his fool mouth, because there are no unicorns and everyone grew up in this racist-ass culture. But I know that we mean “obviously so” here.
aluchko:
The only cost is to those who would otherwise get preferential treatment, not to those who should be fired.
(I can only imagine you misapprehend to what anti-discrimination refers)
Ya think?
This is do disingenuous as to be criminal. This is an excuse white people have come up with to dismiss minorities AND to dismiss the idea of breaking down barriers to entry.
SMall correction, ‘everyone grew up in a racist-ass culture’, because there’s only about a few hundred of them.
To repeat: unintended is impossible. It’s blatantly obvious either Paul is malicious, callous, or BOTH stupid and too foolish to listen to those wiser (ie anyone).
Ing,
I think you may be giving it too much credit; I reckon it’s just clueless and conflates affirmative action with anti-discrimination legislation.
(It’s all a big conceptual jumble, this stuff)
@John
Even with affirmative action it’s exactly what I said it was. An excuse white people use to shit on people and say they have to be bigger assholes ‘for their own good’
From my own perspective, this seems like it’s extending the term considerably beyond its conventional understanding, into territory that’s traditionally covered by terms like “oppression” and “victimization.” The conventional understanding of “bigotry” has always seemed to me to specifically reference prejudicial intent, even if not necessarily overt.
I’m not at all resistant to believing that extending the term in that fashion is desirable and useful, but would it be worth acknowledging that yes, we are arguing for an extension of the term’s applicability beyond the traditional understanding? Or is there something else I’m missing here?
Why do right-wingers always get to declare all of our evidence an assumption?
Yeah I understated that a lot.
My bad. I did not mean it to come off as if he wasn’t being racist or whitesplaining.
I’m just going to shut up since I’m clearly fucking this up and out of my league here.
Woot for Ing and ruteekatreya saying it way better than I’m able to.
@JAL
I’m sorry, I was snarking. It was meant to be read as faux shock.
Ah, well. I still should of worded that better/differently since it gives the impression he may not be racist or that it’s questionable that he’s racist. I fucked that up in any rate.
derpocalypse
New favorite word
@ruteekatreya
I haven’t the foggiest idea what you intend to accomplish with that torrent of vitriol directed towards me. I admit to being slightly curious if you’ve decided I’m now racist in addition to being a libertarian (I wasn’t sure if the ‘he’ referred to myself or Paul) but I’m through trying to have a reasonable conversation. Thanks to the handful who actually engaged and I’ll try to remember not to feed the trolls in the future.
Show your asinine opinions for what they are to others, and also make me and others feel better after reading the ignorant shit you scrape onto the internet.
You are covering and excusing racism, thus in a small way helping to entrench it. I don’t care what you think you’re doing, you are a fucking racist. That’s putting aside that everyone is racist, so again, it’s more accurate to say “You are being obviously racist right now”.
Tone trolls calling others trolls is motherfuckin’ rich. Die.
I would imagine that hir reasoning is on the order of “making myself be polite to this jackass isn’t doing any good, and saying what I really think is a lot more satisfying.”
Do I win anything?
I sincerely hope you can read one last link
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/06/23/an-open-letter-to-the-tone-troll/
Really now, dude, the most you got left at this point was some ignorant whinge about how you aren’t racist, and complaining about tone. You can claim I ‘didn’t actually engage’, but me and everyone else who reads it is going to see I did actually engage substantively. You ran. You have run from every claim. You can’t defend this shit because you know it doesn’t fly, and isn’t okay. You just refused to actually make that final concession. It’s cool. The dozen or more unanswered attacks on your premises, your arguments, your ‘support’ (such as it is) speak loud and clear; much more than the ‘politeness’ you seem to think you’re owed when engaged.
And/or you’ve never personally encountered something that’s worth being up in arms about and refuse to believe that anyone else has.
This is why I shouldn’t have put ‘thinking’ in that last sentence of mine.
{SIGH}
Look, Al L. Clucko, you are the fucking troll here. Your claims of playing Devil’s advocate ring false and it doesn’t matter at any rate. Decent people don’t defend racist or sexist bullshit. You are not a decent person.
Concern Trolling? Cluck!
Whitesplaining? Cluck!
Claiming to be “Acedemic” and “Reasonable” about Discrimination? Cluck!
My sentence was lost!
“You are not a decent person. You’re fucking racist asshole whitesplaing and defending Ron Paul of all people”.
I’m having serious issues here. Every time it’s making me re-load the page and losing stuff.
{grumble, stupid internet, grumble}
How dare you call Rutee a troll. It is so obvious that her replies were substantive AND full of vitriol. Equally obvious is your cowardly attempt to distract from the substance by whining about vitriol.
Oh don’t be too harsh on him. It’s right from Paul’s play book. If people start complaining; whine about the media/big gov/smart people keeping you down.
@”We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”
@ruteekatreya
What’s to say I’m not passionate as well? Here’s my essence, how do I know if I’m right? How can I justify to myself that my opinions are any more correct than those of the Catholic church or Glenn Beck and I’m not just caught in some big epistemic closure? Even if they are right how do I know it’s because I’m good at reasoning and not just lucky.
How can I be sure I’m any better than the nutjobs who think Obama is a muslim, the earth is 6000 years old, or AGW is a hoax? I don’t feel “it’s obvious” is good enough as I can’t personally read all the relevant literature, or check that every psychic or miracle report is BS. I look critically at every source I find, and when I see evidence of bias, particularly in those I agree with, I attack it viciously, and when I see an opposing opinion I embrace it as much as I can.
What does bias look like to me? Strongly inflamed emotions and namecalling, attributing possibly false motives to your opponents, then using those motives as evidence of guilt. Choosing sources that are misleading and not addressing the fact. I see this and it looks like people are just going through the motions of debate and not seriously considering anything.
Now I don’t mind the occasional preaching to the choir or rallying the troops, that’s why I come here. But this post was rallying the troops while claiming to be a discussion of the issue. It purported to be an incontrovertible claim of Paul’s hypocrisy when the referenced positions were not necessarily hypocritical.
Now I haven’t gone through this with my mind unchanged, I was aware of Paul’s racist newsletters before but I’d been unaware of the full level of vitriol and how he had responded to them in the 90’s. And his marriage position and religious views are a lot worse than I realized. As well I’m no longer sure if his positions are properly consistent with the 14th amendment or if he’s got some other view on the constitution I’m not aware of.
I’ll also say it’s damn tough to concede even a partial point to someone who’s constantly swearing at you and calling you a racist.
Oh, and when I say you never engaged I mean it. You responded to my points but never gave them serious consideration. Hell I don’t think you even conceded the point that I wasn’t actually a libertarian even after I supplied a list of political positions that were obviously not libertarian. That’s why I said you were trolling, because I believe you were simply interested in abusing me rather than discussing.
You’re a fucking idiot.
BECAUSE WE KNOW MORE ABOUT THE TOPIC THAN YOU, YOU ARROGANT SHIT HEAD! That’s obvious from talking to you.
FFS sorry we didn’t all blow your mighty white penis!
aluchko #264:
How does that make the arguments unsound or invalid?
Where was this done? And how does this make the arguments presented against your position unsound or invalid?
Guilt with regards to what? And how does this make the arguments presented against your position unsound or invalid?
Which sources were these and how are they misleading?
That’s pretty rich coming from someone who has yet to provide a single example of the behaviour they think is so bad, much less an explanation of what makes it so bad.
combat:
Well, you go on, then and worry about people think bigoted thoughts but never – even subconsciously – act on them.
In the meantime, the adults in the room will call people who create and perpetuate policies harming minorities ‘bigots’, and operate against them, and really not give two wet farts about what’s going on in their minds.
Or to put it another way: if someone honestly thought blacks were sub-human and should therefore be put in zoos for their own good, according to you, they wouldn’t be racist, because they wouldn’t mean any harm… right?
– – –
aluchko:
Wha tha buh?
Please explain why your desire not to hang around people of a specific race trumps that person’s right to equitable hiring practice. Really, go ahead – “I think that I should be able to say ‘No Jobs For Jews’ because…” (please finish that statement)
Yep.
That’s what anti-discrimination laws say. That you can’t, yanno, discriminate. In exactly the same way we can force a fundamentalist to hire an atheist, or a misogynist to hire a woman.
What did you think those laws are there for? To force people who aren’t bigots to stop being bigoted?
“Oh, thank ya, thank ya, massah, fo to be takin’ such good care o’ me. I can’t really be a-tellin’ wassa good job fo me, on accounta me bein’ black n’ all.”
You want a good example of why people might come to the conclusion that you’re a bigot? How about assuming that the black man in your question is too dumb to figure out the work situation he’s getting himself into – while you, of course, see it clearly. And then assuming that nobody will notice that you said that – ’cause that’s just common sense, that we’re all smarter than black people.
aluchko:
Citation Needed.
Perhaps the people who might think that they are the “token minority” are racist fuckwads who should be ignored anyway?
OK, this is so full of stupid, I wouldn’t give two mill (that is, 1/1000 of $1) for it. Firstly, if I use the word bigot, I do mean to imply that the person either desires, or does not seek to prevent negative outcomes for the discriminated-against group. And fuck yes Ron Paul is a racist, misogynist, classist bigot who does not deserve the attention he gets.
And, how, exactly does being fine with “I won’t hire you because you’re black” not count as racism?
—
So, in summary, you are an idiotic bigot (yep, I used that word) who cannot argue or use logic to save your own life. You probably can’t read for comprehension either.
Combat: the fundamental problem is that you have dragged out a semantic quibble (specifically, over whether the term “bigot” necessarily conveys a particular conscious intent or whether the production of consequences consistent with that intent is sufficient to render it application) to the point where it is difficult to understand why you’re still arguing about it if all you’re disputing is the scope of that one term.
Don’t do that.
@Setár, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the Pharyngula Star Chamber
A lot of the arguments are subtle, the morality of A vs B, or deriving the motives of someone from a quote that could be taken multiple ways. Strong emotions cloud judgment as simple as that, look how long it took to convince people I wasn’t a libertarian despite trying to explain my position carefully. And how many people are calling me racist for trying to explain how someone could oppose a set of laws without being racist?
The entire thread is about Ron Paul using his libertarianism and limited cover stange as a cover to justify racisism, homophobia, and a right wing agenda. And myself and combat were repeatedly accused of being Ron Paul shills, libertarians, racists, etc.
And if you assume someone comes in with a certain agenda than you rightfully view their arguments through that lense and often come to a very different conclusion about what they’re saying.
The article 10 racist Ron Paul quotes mostly came from 20 year old newsletters that may not have been authored by Ron Paul directly, and this wasn’t mentioned in the article. Is doesn’t absolve him but it significantly changes the context than if they were direct quotes said last week.
Fucking “skeptics” Seriously along witht his and WANTING to get rid of minority protections what more proof do you need? Why the fuck do you give so much doubt to him?
Yikes, the Paraguayan senate voted out the Paraguayan president.
Damn it, wrong thread!
ALUCHKO: I agree with Ing, you are giving Paul far too much benefit from far too little doubt. Why, if, as you claim, you detest his politics, would you do this? Please, don’t give us any palaver about “defending the undefended” we have heard that before.
—
Perhaps the troll will respond to my comment this time. Anyone want to take bets?
It’s also clear you’re basically married to your original idea as you just dismiss all other evidence (Ok so he says some racist stuff, but that doesn’t mean his decision to do racist acts is racist right!?”
@A. R
I’m talking about University admission forms where you can indicate you’re a minority and increase your chances of admission. I’m sure I’ve heard of multiple instances of people not doing that because they didn’t want to be admitted because of affirmative action though I’m not going to hunt for a specific anecdote. There’s also things like people claiming Obama was a result of affirmative action that wouldn’t exist if there was no affirmative action. I know this is a different law than workspace discrimination (and I also support affirmative action) but I think the example is relevant.
Well I think there’s a non-trivial number of people who believe less skilled minorities are hired for legal reasons. In this case the diversity laws could be reinforcing their racisism.
Well then I think we agree on the general definition of the word… Though I’m not sure about “or does not seek to prevent negative outcomes for the discriminated-against group”, if you mean deliberate harm through inaction I agree, but if you mean that not pro-actively working against discrimination I disagree as then there’s really no limit to what you have to do till the world has no inequality.
Or it could be that I simply misphrased it :)
I meant that in a lot of cases the black man might not even want the job when he realized the employer was racist. Basically I was noting that in modern times the number of racist employers could be small enough that a black person needing a job from that level of racist was small enough that a law wasn’t required. ie it was a solution to a problem that didn’t really exist. (and please don’t claim I said it didn’t exist, this is what some opponents of the law believe)
A.R. asked a similar thing
What about the 1st amendment? Legislating morality? What gives you the right to force a bigot to be non-bigoted? Moreover consider if you’re a small business? Hell, a two man operation. Are you forced to hire a black assistant if you’re a bigot? What about a bigoted assistant if you’re black? Or a homophobe assistant if you’re gay? What if you’re subletting your house instead? Now I don’t know in which of these scenarios anti-discrimination laws apply, but I hope you’re agree that with some of them you should be allowed to not hire.
Now to reiterate I think anti-discrimination laws are good, and they’re probably responsible for a lot of the drop in racisism, but they have their own side-effects and moral grey areas. And because of those moral grey areas I don’t think people opposing those laws are necessarily racist.
Oh yes that’s the fault of affirmative action.
You fucking idiot.
Isn’t that a great meme? You can dismiss the accomplishments of any of those colored folk AND argue to remove it because of your dismissal! You get to hurt someone by justifying it with “I am a total and complete asshole”
As I said “white concerns >>>>> black concerns”
Anecdotes ≠ Evidence. Try again.
And why should I, or any other reasonable person care about what a relatively small number (I have the study around my hard drive somewhere) of rather nasty (read racist) people think about diversity laws?
OK, so this has a few logical fallacies in it, notably strawman arguments, but I wpon’t go after low-hanging fruit. Firstly, how does the First Amendment apply here? Next, I hardly think that ensuring that people are treated equally counts as legislating morality, but if it does in your mind, please explain further. To continue, let us look at “.” Where did I suggest this? (Attacking an argument that your opponent didn’t actually make is called the strawman fallacy you know). That last bit makes absolutely no sense in the context of current legislation.
—
Finally:
What’s with all of this devil’s advocate absurdity? You give a slew of bad arguments in support of Paul and his positions, then at then end you tell us that you really don’t believe it? I call male bovine excrement.
This implies a disparity that does not exist. Fundamentally, I think that’s the whole problem you’re having in this thread. In the US, libertarianism is no longer easily distinguishable from other forms of right-wing bigotry, without finely parsing.
@A.R.
I just spent 30 min typing a response to you and Anri :) (took so long since I kept mixing up the responses).
It feels to me like the level of response is stronger than justified. Like everyone here believes Ron Paul is a wild homophobe and bigot, and his entire libertarian belief system is just a big cover for him to push racist policies.
I think that belief is wildly overstated. I think he’s very likely some level of homophobe, and if he isn’t currently a racist he was 20 years ago, or at least so cynical that he was willing to humour racists for political support. But I don’t think that’s his core, and I don’t think it explains most of his politics. If he’s such a theocrat racist then why did he support the ground zero mosque? If he’s so racist why does he support legalized marijuana which would lead to a lot fewer black people being arrested?
Ron Paul has some major flaws, but he’s not this wild racist that he’s being portrayed as. Extreme libertarianism is a much better explanation of his actions and policies.
FFS he’s being portrayed as that because of what he does
No one fucking said that.
Well thank you Tinkerbell for using your magic power to look into his heart of hearts.
also FFS like LIbertarian bullshit isn’t racist enough on its own?
Perhaps because quite a percentage of his internet fan-base use Cannibis? Oh, and I must have missed the comment where someone called Paul a theocrat. Or else you just committed the strawman fallacy again.
@”We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”
I seriously can’t point out that people use a policy as political ammunition without you claiming I’m doing it myself? Do I have to post a 20 page disclaimer to everything I post so you’ll stop assuming the worst for everything I type?
Here let me state it clearly. I don’t think Obama got anything due to affirmative action. But some people are looking for reasons to doubt Obama’s abilities, affirmative action makes it easier for them to do that. Some of these people are wild racists, some are very mild racists, some aren’t racist at all, but they’re ignorant and have been deceived by a convincing story. This is an unintended consequence of affirmative action, it doesn’t mean that affirmative action is a bad thing, but it does have some consequences that are bad.
@”We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”
On the contrary I seem to be the only one here not claiming to have that magic power. Everyone else seems to think he’s clearly a racist even in the modern day.
Troll @ 287: Since you clearly aren’t reading my comments for comprehension, I’ll just paste the same answer I gave earlier: “And why should I, or any other reasonable person care about what a relatively small number (I have the study around my hard drive somewhere) of rather nasty (read racist) people think about diversity laws?”
NO it’s a racist reaction to affirmative action. You’re defending that as an unintended consequence that justifies being against affirmative action. You’re an idiot
because of what he says and what he does. You insist he ISN’T which is equally a positive claim. Except your only citation is “NONE OF THOSE THINGS COUNT WAH WAH WAH”
FFS you might as well say “lynching is a unintended side effect of emancipation; therefore someone can be against emancipation and not be racist”
Because he is.
Ron Paul will do anything for a vote. He’ll make blatant racism a part of his “core” if it gets him thirty extra votes. In any case, as Ing said, Libertarianism is, at its core, racist (or perhaps more correctly, bigoted (oops, there’s that word again!)).
Also sorry, but if you’re willing to pander to racists for a vote: GUESS WHAT YOU ARE!
“Oh black people? I don’t hate them (because I don’t want to be called a racist) but I’ll gladly throw those n*ggers under a bus for a few votes because my issues are much more important!”
Yeah that’s not racism. Try again.
A.R.
He was arguing against the war on drugs back in 2001. I’d say that disproves the internet fan-base theory.
As for theocrat he motivation for his homophobia is from his religion. Therefore arguing that his policies are homophibic essentially means he’s deriving his policy from his religion making him a theocrat. I’m hoping people are alright with that derivation.
@A.R
Ummmm…. I’m not saying you should.
I’m questioning whether the government has the right to legislate morality, and force association.
You ignored my counter examples. Lets say you’re gay or black, does the government have the right to force you to rent to or hire a qualified applicant if they’re a bigot? Under what circumstances is this appropriate or not? If it’s not symmetric (ie the bigot has to hire you just as much as you have to hire him) how do you justify the government taking this position on morality?
Troll: Ever heard of Usenet? Besides, drug legalisation or decriminalisation has been a part of the Libertarian platform for a while.
The fact that bigoted *behavior* has consequences beyond simply being an academic exercise regarding people’s moods.
Also, why the fuck do you assume members of marginalized groups aren’t smart enough to figure out for themselves whether the people they’re working alongside are people they’d be better off without?
Troll @ 296:
I addressed the “legislating morality” bit in one of my earlier comments; and no, I didn’t ignore your “examples”, I dismissed them as specious in the context of the current legislation. Try again after actually reading something about these laws.
Ing
This troll is getting boring, I think I’m finally going to go to sleep.
@”We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”
Well there’s the degree of racisim that’s unclear. There’s also the fact that people’s views evolve, people also do stupid things. Ron Paul doesn’t have a big filter. It could be that there were some racists in his inner circle, they had him convinced using all these black crime facts, and he said “I’ll go proclaim the truth!”. Then a while later he realized he was wrong and tried to put that part of his history behind him, and doesn’t address it because he’s ashamed/cowardly/doesn’t think it’s politically expedient. I don’t know if this is the case, but it’s a possible scenario, people do dumb things and people change their minds.
aluchko: Again, too much benefit, too little doubt. I think you used that argument earlier anyway. And with that, goodnight!
@A.R
Sorry, as I said I had trouble keeping yours and Anri’s comment’s straight and thought you said the following
“What did you think those laws are there for? To force people who aren’t bigots to stop being bigoted?”
Which would be where I got “What gives you the right to force a bigot to be non-bigoted?”. I also missed you addressing that in #280 given all the responses I was reading.
This does not explain how the arguments in opposition to your position are unsound or invalid. In fact, it is nothing more than a modified Courtier’s Reply.
This is attacking the emotions of the person making the argument, not the argument itself. As such, it is an ad hominem.
Has it not crossed your mind that your explanations may not be sufficient, and indeed may have been responded to?
Again, you are not attacking the substance of the argument presented. This time you’re attacking that you’ve been called a racist — but that’s an ad hominem regardless.
If this were baseball you’d be out right now, but I’m going to keep on chugging.
Which…he does, as has been pointed out not just in the post above but also by Ashley Miller.
You were defending Paul and his policies. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
You have just dismissed observations that contradict the position you hold. This is a dishonest act. As such, I can no longer trust that you are approaching this discussion honestly with a willingness to admit your position is untenable when it is shown to be.
This discussion is over.
Setár: Can we at least wait until it Godwins? /snark
@AR
Night!
As for my examples, assume they come from a wildly homophobic or racist religion, then I think they may be covered under the current legislation.
@Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
Lots of behaviours have unfortunate consequences.
And I never said nor meant to imply that they weren’t smart enough to figure out if they wanted the job. I said that they might not want it regardless, and as such the law wouldn’t change much.
And note I don’t believe it is the case, but I believe it is a non-racist argument to be made against non-discrimination laws that some people probably hold.
aluchko #305:
Then you shouldn’t mind paying me $500 a month as an unfortunate consequence of your continued disingenuity.
@Setár, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the Pharyngula Star Chamber
Courtier’s Reply applies when a proposition is manifestly ridiculous so you distract with details about something that doesn’t exist. Here I’m arguing that certain arguments for a proposition do exist, Courtier’s Reply is irrelevant.
You’re seriously claiming that inflamed emotions don’t detract from a healthy debate?
Frankly I been attacking the substance as directly as I can.
To be clear, are you claiming that I was committing the ad hominen here, or they were?
The Miller article contains some new material that I don’t really have the motivation to parse at this hour.
I was also being as clear as I could be about what I was doing, is the concept of a devil’s advocate that hard to believe?
I never dismissed any observations, I was saying that people were misinterpreting my statements as a result of their beliefs about me. And that context does help determine meaning.
PZ Meyers comes in and says, “evolutionary theory has some flaws”, it means one thing.
Michael Behe comes in and says, “evolutionary theory has some flaws”, it means something completely different.
If John Doe comes in and says, “evolutionary theory has some flaws”, I don’t know what the hell it means without a lot more writing.
Words without context lose a lot of meaning, that’s the essence of quote mining, that’s why this discussion is taking so long, because people are creating contexts for me that don’t actually apply, and thus taking a different meaning from my words.
As well I believe people are applying an incorrect, or at least unjustified, context to Ron Paul’s words, and coming to inaccurate conclusions, and that is the essence of the discussion.
A.R
Opposition to the civil rights act is also common among libertarians and not necessarily racist.
Opposition to the civil rights act contributes to a climate wherein white supremacy is normalized. Sacrificing better outcomes for people of color in order to maintain some abstract values or economic arrangements of white people is a racist act. Advocating for such a system is a racist act. Telling anti-racists to tone it down with their unhappiness about racism is a racist act.
Goddamn, I wish motherfuckers would stop advocating for the motherfucking devil! The devil is doing ALL RIGHT. He does not need your help.
@SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant
Correction, you believe “Opposition to the civil rights act contributes to a climate wherein white supremacy is normalized”. You may be right, but they do not believe this is true in the current climate.
I’m cutting down a tree, I check for people but somehow don’t notice you, the tree falls on you and kills you. Is that murder, reckless endangerment, or just an accident?
It’s a racist act if you think that’s the outcome, but if you have reasonable grounds to believe otherwise, even if you’re wrong, you’re not racist. Assigning someone a motivation they do not have is the major thing I’m arguing about here.
I’d recommend you read this article by Richard Epstein and tell me if you still think he’s a racist.
So wanting racists to be allowed to be even more racist is not actually racist ?
Tell me, have you always have this problem when it comes to thinking ?
WRONG, SIR. WRONG.
The Courtier’s Reply is an appeal to the ‘subtlety’, ‘complexity’, ‘sophistication’, et cetera of an argument in response to being told that the argument is irrelevant or based on faulty assumptions.
You have failed to explain how “strong emotions” cause the associated arguments to become unsound or invalid. Argument dismissed.
As the quoted text above this will show, no, I did not make any such claim, or indeed any claim at all. This is a strawman, and it is thus dismissed.
This is false, as demonstrated by your strawman, ad hominem, and Courtier’s Reply above. Dismissed.
I do not believe that you did not read the sentence where I told you that you were again attacking the messenger rather than the message, since it was your second ad hominem in a row.
I hereby revise my conclusion about your statement regarding attacking the substance as directly as you can. That statement is not merely false, it is a lie.
Then you should retract your arguments until you do, on the basis of insufficient information. That is after all what an honest person would do, and I would not be frequenting this place if the regulars responded to honesty the same way they respond to ignorance.
Of course, at this point I don’t have any reason to think that you’re being honest.
A devil’s advocate will readily retract any arguments that are shown to be faulty, and will not engage in shooting the messenger or misrepresenting the ‘opposing’ position via strawmen. In fact, a devil’s advocate will do this more readily than a true believer, because the devil’s advocate is arguing for the side that they normally oppose and thus has no ideological/emotional ties to the argument they are forwarding.
Repeatedly doubling down on an untenable position and misrepresenting the opposition is not playing the devil’s advocate. This, combined with your insistence on not being identified with libertarians or Ron Paul, is extremely telling about your ideological attachments.
And in doing so, you dismissed the observation everyone in this thread but you and your pal has been making — that you are staunchly defending libertarianism and Ron Paul and, to the point of misrepresenting your opposition and shooting the messenger in the same manner that a true believer would, refuse to relent when shown your position is untenable — as an assumption.
Fixed.
Matt #311:
Uh, well, he seems to think that a devil’s advocate is unable to recognize when the position they’re arguing that they don’t themselves hold has become untenable.
Because it’s totally possible for the emotional blockade to kick in when you’re arguing for a position you’re not even remotely invested in.
What a load of bullshit. You are a trolling troll. You aren’t engaging, you are preaching bigotted fuckwittery. I don’t see one bit of evidence you present. You know, something from here. Nothing but OPINION, wrong OPINION.
Not with bigots. All they have is questions. No answers. You are defending bigotry and a bigotted person, making you also bigot. You have no point to defend that is cogent or reasonable except to a bigot. The bigot code words are there. Learn why we recognize them…
Many libertarians are against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly Titles VI and VII, because these titles supposedly violate part of Amendment 1 of the Constitution:
Libertarians, who to a man* claim to be strict Constitutional constructionists, find a “right of association” in the quoted part of the amendment.** This right supersedes anyone else’s right not to be discriminated against.
*The vast majority of libertarians are straight, relatively young, financially comfortable, white men.
**Strict constructionists can always find something in the Constitution when that something will support their agenda. They only insist the Constitution is being stretched when the result is something of which they do not approve. Likewise “judges legislating from the bench” means “some judge made a ruling we don’t like.”
aluchko isn’t a full on libertarian, but he has some of their leanings.
His regurgitation of “force” repeatedly makes this clear. His finding the idea of “forcing” a racist, bigoted asshole not to discriminate in hiring practices and whatnot to be morally questionable is evidence, even in a vacuum, discounting all of his other apologetics.
One of the most annoying apologetics he is engaging in is his whole “degree” of racism and bigotry nonsense. Listen, a bigot is a bigot and a racist is a racist. Your whitesplainin’ “durrr I just don’t think he’s the full on racist bigot… durr it was 20 years ago he said that stuff aboutnigg- err, black people… Durrr I mean he isn’t hanging black babies from trees so CLEARLY he isn’t a full on racist bigot durrrr lol” isn’t as nuanced as you think it is.
I know, I know, you aren’t a racist or a bigot for whitesplainin’ ad nauseam concerning “degrees” of racism and bigotry and promoting your particular mind-reading skill at determining in his “heart of hearts” – you’re “just asking questions”.
Ron Paul has stated that he believes that segregation is wrong, but having the government do anything about segregation is worse. Which says, at least to me, that he believes that segregation is not so bad.
He allowed racist remarks to be published repeatedly in his newsletter. He says he did not write them himself — which I am prepared to accept — but he also says that he was unaware of these remarks when they were published. That I am not prepared to accept, since he is saying that he could not be bothered to read his own newsletter.
Fucking research, you fucking ignorant-ass racist.
I don’t really care about being ‘better’, only correct. Again, fucking research, you fucking ignorant racist cracker.
You suck at bias. You’ve been biased towards white people’s concerns the whole fucking time, you fucking ignorant-ass racist. You’ve made it clear that their piddling problems trump massive problems suffered by black people, hence this bullshit about lawsuits.
Look, you fucking racist, I fucking referred you to the employment statistics. There is no more direct measure than that and fucking poverty comparisons.
I had to think you could be right? You think you’re the first fool-ass racist to raise this shit?
Because that’s sufficient to remove useful measures, that some people are racist morons.
Fucking honkies. That’s it? I thought you were going to have the decency to at least mention EEOO forms and the like. You do realize that non-whites, with the possible exception of asians, are disproportionately kept from universities, right? I can think of reasons besides “O NOES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” to put down nothing, and those reasons are actually major problems (Though some non-white people are conservative morons as well and think affirmative action is really that bad).
You can, but nobody gives a shit that racists say racist shit in response to anti-racism. You know what else racists said racist shit about? Ending anti-miscegenation laws. Fucking racist lackwit.
Fucking honkies. The root of the problem is not that weed is criminalized; more white people than black people, both in raw numbers and in percentages, do weed (and most other, if not all other, drugs). The problem is that the fucking police disproportionately target non-whites and the poor. You are not going to change that black people are disproportionately arrested, you are just going to change the charges. Fuck, this isn’t even a major concern of black people afaik.
Because we don’t care what’s in his heart, you fucking racist honkey.
The devil’s advocate stops well before this point, because you have been fucking beaten. Repeatedly. By multiple people. You would stop and say “Yeah okay, I guess even I can’t defend it, he is a racist” if you were a devil’s advocate.
As much as I enjoy seeing Libertarians booger up the GOP nominating process, I fear their impact on legislation as much as I fear the Tea Party.
@ruteekatreya You made my day. I plan to memorize much of you reply.
aluchko:
Ok, I’ll bite: what about it?
In hiring practices?
Most legal scholars believe that avoiding the evils of systemic bigotry is worth the occasional bigot’s uncomfortable wriggling.
You seem to both agree and disagree with this.
I’ve worked at a number of small businesses, so, ok.
If it can be shown that you’re specifically denying qualified candidates the opportunity –
a) because they are black, and
b) to a percentage well beyond the frequency with which they are applying.
In other words, if you’re passing over 30 black people equally or better qualified for the job you’re offering in favor of the single white person that applied, than yes, you’re probably breaking the law.
I still don’t know if you think this is good or bad.
In the specific instance where one considers a religious person bigoted against other religions (that is, they believe other religious people are following a false god and therefore deserve hell), yes.
However, being a racist does not make one a protected minority group.
And, perhaps I’m going out on a limb here, but I think you actually already know that.
As above, being homophobic does not make one a protected minority group.
And, again, I think you actually already know that.
Think carefully about why you might think that’s different from what’s being discussed above, and you might begin to understand why some people here are willing to believe you’re a bigot.
Well, frankly, if you don’t know what anti-discrimination laws say, you really should go read up before coming here and arguing about your agreement or lack thereof.
To put it another way: are you arguing from a position of ignorance, or are you arguing that even laws that are good in overall effect have some negative – even ludicrous – effects at the individual level?
If it’s the former, educate yourself.
If it’s the latter, welcome to adult life.
#268
So, how about klan rallies, should those be illegal? Allowing those people to have rallies probably does hurt minorities, even if only by scaring them, but you probably support their right to say their racist bullshit. Would you call someone supporting free speech a racist? To Ron Paul they’re the same thing, except for freedom to hire however you like
No, what the fuck? Also, that’s actual directly effecting them. The act of removing the civil rights act and making hiring discrimination illegal is indirect.
#270
Because I care what’s correct and I honestly don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who talks about a bigotry as actions that could exist without intent or an actual issue with certain people in their mind. It’s such a weird thought to me, and I have no idea how any argument about bigotry could progress with that definition as the cornerstone.
#296
you justify the government taking that stance because of the harm if they don’t take that stance. If we lived in a world where we could trust society to make it so a business that refuses to hire blacks will have so little customers they wouldn’t be able to operate and thus businesses like that will quickly die, than it’d be a different question. That may be the world libertarians and RP think they live in, where the free market will solve everything but it’s not the world any of us actually live in.
#317
He also wants to remove medicaid , as someone who would be a lot poorer (as in slice my income in 2/3rds, as medicaid allowed the freedom to change jobs without worrying about health insurance) if not dead without medicaid I think he just doesn’t care how bad the results of his ideology are, he still wants it to happen. His policies make me think he will run everyone over with a tractor and if the tractor hurts certain people a lot more than others, well fine.
Yea, not being aware of something being posted in his newsletter for years is a load of bullshit, even if he doesn’t read it there’s no way no one brought it to his attention in so long.
combat,
Klan rallies aren’t “policy”, which was what you quoted was speaking of, you stupid, straw-manning piece of shit.
I’d parse the rest of your silly equivocations, but I have food to eat.
On a side note, is it a law that tone trolls must be intellectually dishonest, willfully ignorant, straw-manning morons? Are there any examples of someone who isn’t stubbornly stupid, who argues in good faith, that also worry about how “mean” and “emotional” their detractors may be?
Oh, of fucking course, I’m dealing with some honky child, either in late high school or college. Not that it adds a whole lot of expected stupidity.
Frankly, people who do so by leaping to the defense of the Klan as their hypothetical probably are a bit moreso than normal. You know who is barred from free speech in practice? Native Americans, and those who speak for them, latin@s, and others. Yet your concern is thew hite racists who are still given a platform in our society?
That’s the other thing; you didn’t seem to notice that freedom of speech is not just a white person thing…
I see the bigoted troll doesn’t understand how institutional bigotry is still a problem and why. Libeturd theological blinders and all. And that is what the anti-discrimination laws work at, institutional discrimination. Any person can still be a bigot in private life, and talk about it. But then, we can dogpile on their spewing of bullshit…
I’m still catching up, but is aluchko claiming not to be a libertarian, while at the same time linking to Reason?
LOLwut?
@322
But allowing them is.
Look at the fucking responses I’ve been getting in this thread. There’s tone trolling and there’s just responding to flaming.
@323
My concern is everyone, but I can’t argue everywhere at once so I argue against what I see as wrong where I am anyway. I would also defend Hitler if I thought the accusation against him is false if I am in hearing range of it, even though in Nazi Germany he’d definitely have me killed. And yes that defense does indeed extend to non-whites and people who aren’t murderers, morons, lunatics, and racists. I wasn’t defending the KKK, I flat out wasn’t. I only picked them as the go to assholes that are still around in the country. You’re just manipulating my words until they have no association with what I actually said because you’re determined to make everyone who disagrees with you look like a racist. I was just trying to make a point out of the way one can see it that wouldn’t be racist by relating it to something that most people do agree with (that the KKK does have the right to free speech, which they do, and that one might think that the right to hiring works).
Bring someone here to argue against free speech against native Americans and I’ll argue against them. I don’t see any here so no I won’t argue against the people that aren’t here, that would be insane.
Because, its not like there is no place on earth where women had more than one husband, how ever rare, there are no people, generally unmarried, or to only one of the people in the relationship, that practice it, on what ever level, except among one tiny group of religious misogynists, who have been a convenient whipping boy for other religious people, who think its only acceptable to own and abuse individual adult women, not teen girls, and more than one of them at a time. Oh, and of course, everyone else, who appose abuse in general, and are willing to go along with the idea that its only polygamist that ever used arranged marriages, to underage teens, denied them education, or choices, or rights, etc.
Go back about a few hundred years or so, and most of the modern world would have a hard time seeing how ***any*** form of marriage would be believably implemented in a way that wasn’t discriminatory to women. Which makes the argument that the one we keep illegal, because the only people that practice it *visibly* are assholes, is the only sort possible, and we can’t even think about setting rules to prevent the abuses, like we do for spousal abuse, and the like, in other marriages, a bit… questionable, at best.
And your inane point is? I don’t see one. The Klan can assemble. So fucking what? So can the NAACP. All I see is misdirection…
No, your concern is not everyone. Just those who agree with you. Society isn’t color blind, sex, and gender blind, and won’t be for a few more generations. Until you can show society is truly color blind, protections need to remain in place. Where is your statistical EVIDENCE as compare to your drivel OPINION (theology of liberturdism)???
@328
My point is that you could be against legislation that would hurt minorities and not be a racist. Legislation preventing the Klan from assembling would possibly help minorities in some way but a lot of people wouldn’t like it for the purposes of free speech.
Perhaps you’re confusing me with the other guy? We do need those protections. Ofcourse, removing them would be fucking insane. Society isn’t color blind and it’s not close enough where we could pretend it is. I have never said that removing them is a good idea.
combaat:
It doesn’t matter if you’re a racist or not, at that point your fucking actions are racist, since your actions would hurt racial minorities.
I don’t give two fucks to rub together whether or not someone is really truly a bigot if their actions are bigoted. Why the hell is this so hard to grasp? You’re defined by your actions– if you don’t like it, stop acting like a fucking racist.
No, not a valid point, and never will be here. Not all racists are blatant. De facto discrimination can yield the same harmful results as blatant institutionalized discrimination, which is the result of your “policies”. Show otherwise with solid evidence, not your theological blather…
Why are liberturds so averse to evidence? Oh, that’s right, they haven’t any…
@tkreacher 322
I used to be, but I got over the tone-trolling once I realized how big of an asshole it made me look.
No it isn’t. My policies are nothing like Ron Paul’s , at all. I think the civil rights act needs to be there. I am in favor of government health care, and social security. I think Ron Paul is backwards as all hell and the country needs to get away from founding father and constitution worship as the default assumption. I am not a libertarian.
I am not endorsing ron paul’s position on the civil rights act. It would be stupid and horrifyingly harmless to minorities.
Harmful, not harmless, mis-type
@Anri
The Epstein article references Freedom of Assembly which is in the first amendment. And even if it isn’t in the constitution isn’t forcing someone to take an action they don’t want to, even if they are a racist, morally questionable?
Correct, though ignoring my beliefs and just addressing the libertarian argument I think Epstein supported the laws in ’65 but believes the level of systemic bigotry is now low enough that the harm outweighs the good.
The racist is obviously bad, and I personally would apply the law, but I think a libertarian would say it’s their right not to hire a black person.
I was trying to do three things. First I was trying to avoid having the government decide who was the good person and who was the bad person (ie the racist is dealt with the same as the black person), just like it’s easier for a white person to dismiss the concerns of a black person it’s easier for a non-bigot to dismiss the concerns of a bigot. And NO, I’m not trying to suggest they’re in any way equivalent, I’m saying that the bigot, in being forced to take a non-bigoted action, is on some level having their rights violated. Even though they’re a horrible person doing bad things you still can’t violate their rights without enacting a cost. And if you don’t address the cost then your actions have no drawbacks so you could keep arguing the good and eventually end up justifying legislating that bigots have to make black friends. The scenarios are obviously quite different but if there’s no drawbacks what’s stopping you?
Well some of those details were irrelevant to my initial argument so I had to find them as I went along. And yes, my entire position is “that even laws that are good in overall effect have some negative – even ludicrous – effects at the individual level”, and as a result is possible to oppose those laws without actually opposing that good overall effect, ie it’s possible to oppose the Civil Rights Act without being a racist.
@Audley Z Darkheart, reducing all men to their pee-pees since 1981
People trivializing and ignoring an opposing argument pisses me off which is why I’m arguing the libertarian perspective. Sorry if I don’t want to make the thread any more convoluted while simultaneous posting my own counter-argument to every argument I post.
Dalillama,
Ha!
Then you are a rare bird, and sighting you at the time would have been a thrilling experience. :D
@330
Then we have nothing to talk about. When I call someone a racist I’m talking about their mind though and I do somewhat care if my insults are accurate. We agree that the civil rights act is a good thing and removing it would be harmful to minorities. If you don’t care beyond that then what are we disagreeing on?
@Kagehi
Oh I certainly think you can have polygamist relationships that aren’t bad or discriminatory. However, I think that currently in North America the majority of people who want such marriages are from misogynist religions where the women are being oppressed, and it’s too difficult to go around saying “this marriage is oppressive! But that one is fine” so we have to ban them for everyone. In total I believe the good polygamists are currently so outnumbered by the bad that it’s the lesser evil to ban it entirely.
@335
In a vacuum it is morally questionable, probably, when you actually look at the effects it’s no question at all. The ends outweigh the means by so much that to not do so you have to be just flat out ignoring the scale to think it’s not worth it.
aluchko,
And you’re wondering why people are calling you a libertarian.
This whole “force” thing – the “forcing people to ” is an affront to FREEDOMZ™t thing – is the hallmark of libertarian assholes.
In fact, it’s the only place I see this strange concept of “freedom” and the term “force” used in this way.
It always, of course, utterly disregards the lack of choices, the difficulties, and the horrible conditions people who are less privileged than others would suffer if their particular brand of FREEDOMZ™ were implemented.
Because other peoples freedom doesn’t matter to these people.
No it doesn’t. You’ve been doing it this entire time to me, you just choose to pretend it’s okay because I also insulted your racist ass.
combat,
Jesus Christ you obtuse fuck, get this through your skull: you are not a fucking mind reader.
@tkreacher
Yeah I have some libertarian leanings, I have some socialist leaning, I have a lot of different leanings, I think everyone does. And yes, I think there is a moral cost in forcing a bad person to act moral.
The question is about the intent of Paul’s policies and the motivation for his libertarianism. The consensus here is that they’re all just a cover for his racism, which is a very strong claim that I don’t believe is backed by the evidence.
So the “degree” of racism absolutely central to the discussion as you’d have to be a pretty extreme racist to build a political philosophy just so you could allow some discrimination as a side effect.
No, I’m not. Your point? I look at the policies and don’t see a racist, I don’t see racial motivations as a major factor. I didn’t mean that you don’t look at evidence to determine what they’re thinking, I’m just saying you look for what they’re thinking.
Yea Ron Paul’s almost definitely a racist for letting that shit in his newsletters slide for so long though.
Then what the fuck are you doing, playing bigot’s advocate? That is all you are doing, excusing bigotry.
Then you aren’t looking hard enough. The words are there, just coded. Code words like “property rights”, “states rights”, and host of other words that mean I am free to discriminate without repercussions, just like back in the ’50s. We know that. Why don’t you?
I don’t think that bigotry is excusable and I don’t think getting rid of the civil rights act is excusable. I don’t even think Ron Paul would have any real following if any of the other presidential were remotely genuinely.
Yes, I know that’s what it means. I am well aware that removing the civil rights act would largely kill off the repercussions. I just think it’s possible to be the kind of weird, insane idealist who thinks your rights to be an asshole and destroy peoples’ livelihoods by not hiring them (for no good reason) is more important than said livelihoods. There are plenty of white people on medicare and benefiting from social security which he wants to eventually get rid of and he bags on about militarism all the time and seems to be against the war on drugs, which makes me buy that he could very well be doing that out of an ideology (other than “I am the superior race”)
Why can’t I type today? Second sentence, If any of the other presidential CANDIDATES were remotely GENUINE.
Fine, you don’t see racism and racial motivations. The end result of those policies is discrimination against minorities, including racial minorities. Paul and his Merrie Men may have the purest of intentions, but when they’re promoting policies which support and protect racism, it’s not unreasonable to think Paul and his sycophants are racists.
Paul’s newsletters were full of racist and homophobic articles. Don Black, the leader of the neo-nazi, white supremacist organization Störmfrönt, says Paul’s “stand on the issues, which we believe are heartfelt, coincide with ours.”* Paul is actively supporting policies which are racist in their effect. So there is evidence Paul is a racist bigot.
*Black does not think that Paul is a racist and says the racist articles in his newsletter were “hyperbole, cutesy little things that somebody came up with, whoever it was, trying to appeal to Ron Paul’s paleo-conservative base.” However Black recognizes that support from a white supremacist would just fuel charges of Paul’s racism. Personally I think Black is backing away from Paul’s racism in an effort not to torpedo Paul’s election chances.
In otherwords, you are a liberturd of the bigoted “I’ve got mine, FUCK YOU” variety. We know that from your first preaching post. And you are WRONG. Liberturdism can’t work. It took me five minutes of thinking to reach that conclusion. What is your excuse, other than selfishness?
I agree whole heatedly, which would be a reason I do not want him in power.
I am sorry if I said anything to make you believe that I think it’s actually unreasonable to think Paul is a racist.
His newsletters are the best evidence of his racism though, as they were there for so long and he’d have to be absolutely insane to not quickly do whatever he can to rectify the situation as soon as those articles started popping up (I’m assuming he didn’t write them). Which does show complacency in racism.
combat:
No.
Yes, I do, because the cost of curtailing free speech is not worth the cost of suppressing racist speech.
It would depend on what they were saying.
Or if they were supporting law that although supposedly fair, when actually implemented had a deeply racist effect.
For examples, see Poll Tax (yes, that’s a voting rights issue, not a free speech issue, but the situations can be parallel).
Except for the fact that we have determined that allowing total free roam in hiring practices tends to result in a permanent racially-divided class system.
Trying to abolish that is worth having a few bigots squirm. In fact, it’s worth having all of the bigots squirm. In a free, equitable society, bigots should squirm.
People who don’t get that are either too deeply ignorant about the real world to be serious candidates for public office…
or they are aware of the effects of this type of thing, and are just fine with it. And that’s bigotry.
Which is Paul?
@349
Are you even reading my posts? I said it’s possible to think that way if you’re an insane idealist. I never said libertarianism can work.
combat,
Please stop with the crazy-blaming. The conflation of evil with mental illness is unfairly stigmatizing, and it misrepresents Paul’s moral agency.
@351
I would say both.
Definitely not a serious candidate for public office. Probably deeply deluded about the real world. I think he’s definitely at least partly aware of the effect of that kind of thing and is fine with it though, I just think he’s fine with hurting everyone for his obsession with false freedom which is only freedom legally and is in practice extremely limiting to people.
Then why are you arguing from that position? There are no free speech problems here. You can say what you want, but repercussions thereof for both you and RP is what you want to avoid. I judge RP on what he says, and the the consequences of what he says. I know code words. I know RP is a racist because of the way he uses those code words without clearly repudiating them. People who engage in or actions result in bigotry for any reason are bigots. So, what is your point?
@353
I apologize , the word zealot probably fits better.
combat,
Much appreciated, thank you.
Because I feel that RP is being viewed incorrectly here, and that RP sees free speech and freedom to hire how you like as rights equal in precedence. That Paul fundamentally misunderstands why we have things like freedom of speech, and doesn’t understand that it’s because of how little effect speech has except in the court of public opinion while your work environment (or lack thereof) is indeed very important to the way you live. Yes it’s probably smarter to just not care about the distinction so much but you can’t control what matters to you.
No.
The purpose of law is to make people either do or avoid things regardless of their personal feelings in the matter. That’s what laws do. It’s what laws are.
Then there’s a serious disconnect with reality there.
And that would indicate they are both wrong and either dumb or racist.
And you are wrong in thinking this. You have the right to be a bigot, you do not have the right to apply bigotry to hiring practices. If you are prevented from doing so, your rights are not being violated, because you don’t have that right.
Oddly enough, the government, and intelligent people can tell the difference between making friends and hiring people to do a job.
Can you tell the difference?
If you can, do I actually have to explain why a law for one might be appropriate and the other not so?
(my emphasis)
In the real world, I am not sure at all this is true, sorry.
I could imagine such a situation, possibly, in a theoretical sense.
Now, please let us know if you actually think that anything like the actual, real-world opposition to the Civil Rights act was not racist in motivation. If you think it wasn’t, I suspect you need to learn a bit more about that time period, and what was being said (and is still being said) about the issue.
If you think it generally was, what the heck are you arguing?
That is the liberturd position, where personal rights take precedence over societal rights. That doesn’t work. You can be as personal as you want. But society can and will say something if you effect other people. You don’t really understand free speech. All I keep hearing from you and RP is me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.me.
Your conclusions are spurious thinking.
combat,
And this is why I call you obtuse.
You say,
I tell you you aren’t a fucking mind reader, and you wonder what my point is?
You are either purposefully being thick, or you’re a dumbass. Either way, fuck off.
I am well aware. Which is why to preface it I said “RP sees”.
You’re confusing me trying to explain what RP thinks with what I think, that is the problem here.
read the rest of my post. You know you could sometimes make guesses at what people are thinking , besides from the effects of their actions? That there could be more than meets the eye? I’m saying that the “if their actions hurt minorities they’re racist” position is oversimplified and doesn’t look hard enough to determine if they actually are?
@Anri
Which means that before creating a law you need to make sure the benefit outweighs the harm.
Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean Epstein isn’t sincere.
But not necessarily racist?
That reminds me of the quote “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose”, a right isn’t necessarily absolute. People have the right to hire who they want, but in some cases like race that right is violated to avoid a greater harm.
But there’s a similarity in that in both cases the racist is being told to pro-actively be non-racist. Even that is a matter of interpretation, if a racist is told they can’t discriminate and hire the black guy, are you preventing a racist act, or forcing a non-racist act? That changes the moral calculus a bit.
Well Epstein who I referenced said the Civil Rights act was good at the time. I think Ron Paul said he would vote against it in 1965, maybe he’s just that racist, maybe he’s a libertarian extremist, or maybe he wasn’t legislating in ’65, and didn’t realize the harm at the time, so it’s easier to remain ignorant and keep strict ideological consistency.
Besides, people can be ignorant, and people can hold very strong views on a particular issue. Many of the people here are very strongly engaged on race equality, can’t someone have a different set of priorities without being racist?
combat,
Ah.
So when you said when talking about someone’s bigotry or racism you mean what’s “in their mind” is what you care about, what you meant to say is what you care about what your “guesses are at what people are thinking”. That’s the important thing. That’s what you want to be accurate about before “insulting” them.
I mean, sure, the whole running for president on an ideology that demonstrably facilitates and increases racism and bigotry in the real world, for real people “might” not be racist in his heart of hearts. In the mind you want to make guess at. Maybe he is just the stupidest doctor in the world and doesn’t realize what the ideology he is running for president under blatantly facilitates racism and bigotry.
Sure his words and the words of newsletters he put out were overtly racist. But he “might” not be racist in his heart of hearts. In the mind you want to make guesses at. Maybe he is just an incredibly ignorant moron who doesn’t know what words mean.
The important thing is to give him the benefit of the doubt. The important thing is to be really careful about assigning racism or bigotry to his heart of hearts and to his mind when combat hasn’t yet found enough behavioral data to make a solid guess as to what is going on in his fucking mind.
That’s the important thing. Everyone slow down.
Stop screaming and yelling emotionally about the society crushing bullshit that would ensue under the libertarian ideology. Stop harping on about the racist and bigoted nature of it all, that hurts real people in the real world – even today, under our current system – and let’s focus on Ron Paul’s fucking heart of hearts.
Because, you know, his mind. Combat doesn’t want to unfairly insult what might be in his mind.
He needs to defend Ron Paul’s possibly just-staggeringly-ingorant-but-maybe-not-racist mind.
Just shut the fuck up. Who GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HIS INTENT.
Fuck. I need to stop posting, anywhere, until I get a new screen. Missing words and sloppy incoherent shit all throughout my post.
Meh.
yes, I always want to be accurate.
No, he’s a zealot and probably realizes it but doesn’t care because he thinks his ideology is more important than people.
Yes, that probably makes him racist. But that’s not what the focus is on.
I didn’t say there’s a problem with that. Feel free to take issue with his ideology, I know I do. I know his ideology is terrible and he should never have been allowed in office.
If you’re calling him racist you should. If you don’t give a fuck about what’s going on in a person’s mind when it comes to a certain issue, don’t insult them based on that. His policies are horrible, although as I’ve said he’s probably racist because of his newsletters ,I guess it’s possible he isn’t…if he’s just that stupid or doesn’t care about human beings at all, which given his ideology I find very believable.
I have caught aluchko lying.
aluchko regards making it illegal for employers to avoid hiring black people because they’re black to mean forcing people to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with.
Okay. That is one way of looking at it. A person could look at it that way and say “yes, and business owners can sometimes justly be required to associate with people they don’t like.” That would be fine.
aluchko says “no” to the question “do you believe that employers ought to have a right to avoid hiring black people because they’re black?” So far so good.
But then aluchko also says “people shouldn’t be forced to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with. No matter how bad a person they are, can you really force a bigot to hire and work with a black man?”
Well, which is it then?
aluchko was either:
1) lying when saying that employers ought not have a right to avoid hiring black people because they’re black, or
2) lying when saying that people shouldn’t be forced to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with, or
3) lying when saying that not allowing employers a right to avoid hiring black people because they’re black amounts to forcing employers to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with.
@Setár, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the Pharyngula Star Chamber
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
The stronger the emotion, the more passionately you’re trying to convince yourself, the more you emotionally you invest in an idea, the more likely you are to deceive yourself.
We can’t even interpret a simple medical experiment without a double blind, how are we supposed to handle something as complicated and subtle as politics?
The entire thread is based around the supposition that Ron Paul is a racist, and his philosophy is just a disguise for racism, and people are also calling myself and combat a racist for claiming that’s not necessarily the case. And you claim I’m the one committing the ad hominem? This original post is an ad hominem!
combat,
God dammit. This is the last time I’m going to engage you on this.
You are not a mind reader. I am not a mind reader.
You are not a mind reader. I am not a mind reader.
You are not a mind reader. I am not a mind reader.
You are not a mind reader. I am not a mind reader.
You stupid asshole.
You are not a mind reader. You do not know – you will never know – what’s going on in a person’s mind. Ever.
Running for the highest office in the country under an ideology that demonstrably protects, emboldens and ensures the proliferation of racist and bigoted goings-on is enough evidence of racism and bigotry. Full stop. Period.
The newsletter shit isn’t even necessary.
You god damn obtuse asshole, shut the fuck up about your stupid ass “mind guesses”. Your mind guesses are fucking irrelevant.
It is not an ad hominem if substantiation is given, which is was. Evidence presented indicate you and RP are racists. You have presented OPINION, but no evidence to the contrary. Your OPINION is not evidence. It is that of a proven liar, bullshitter, and bigot. Try here for evidence.
Know? Yea you could never know 100%, but attempts at it are the only justification for calling another person a racist, and sometimes you know beyond a reasonable doubt.
So you agree, that it is merely evidence of racism and bigotry that exists from his mindset? Good. Thanks for agreeing with me.
It’s evidence, fairly good evidence, but it could situation-ally not be enough to determine someone is racist.
And what a judge and jury decides is fucking irrelevant to whether a crime actually happened. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have those things.
Well if the evidence indicated I was a racist than it was pretty crappy evidence :)
And the substantiation in the original post was arguing that RP’s policies were bad because of the intent. Ie, that the motivation was racist/homophobe and not small government, and that’s why they were bad.
ie, ad hominem.
No, I don’t care about Paul’s intent. I care about the outcomes of his policies, what would happen if he become Maximum Leader.
Pol Pot wanted to establish a Communist agrarian utopia in Kampuchea. His intent was to replace the old, corrupt Cambodian society with a new socialist culture which would literally be a paradise. As a result, an estimated 1.7 to 2.5 million people (out of a population of slightly over 8 million) died during a three year period. Intent doesn’t mean shit if 20% of the population dies as a result of “noble” actions.
I have caught aluchko lying.
@374
I care about both. The latter is why I’d never vote for him. If his intentions (obviously in this context it’s easily replacable with what I think his intentions are) were stupid but the actions and policies he liked would do things I’d like than yea I’d be all over his dumb ass, and I’d argue against people saying he’s a genius and hero.
Just because I think his intents are being seen in the wrong light doesn’t mean I don’t think it’d be horrible to let him into office. It doesn’t even mean I like his intentions.
Mind reading is irrelevant for calling somebody a racist. If their proposed policies and philosophies result in the degradation and/or second class citizenship of women, minorities, etc, it is bigotry. Why can’t you understand the obvious?
Situationally is irrelevant. Does it or does it not promote racism/second class citizenship for a group of people? You won’t get us to agree with your inane theories. Why bother pretending you are doing anything other than defending de facto racism?
Only racists defend racists like you have.
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ
I have caught lilapwl (acronym?) showing bad reading comprehension.
Which is quite understandable considering the number of conversations going on.
I meant a legal right. I was trying to be concise in showing my personal support for the Civil Rights act.
Here I’m talking about a moral right. A right not to be forced to do something you don’t want to. A right which is not absolute and can be trumped to avoid a greater wrong. That is consistent with my previous statement.
Though the consistency is irrelevant, since in the first quote I was talking about my personal views, and in the second I was trying to explain the libertarian argument. The difference is that the libertarian believes the right to associate wins out, while I believe the right not to be discriminated against wins out. The libertarian conclusion does actually contradict my personal view.
combat,
If someone acts in a racist way they are a racist. It really is a simple as that. This has been explained to you many times over the last 24 hours but still you are unable to understand. Given that a good number of people have tried explaining it to you in a number of ways the problem is not going to be the lack of a good explanation but rather a refusal on your part to understand.
You are being wilfully ignorant. That is something you have in common with your fellow bigots of course.
Combat,
Paul’s intentions DON’T MEAN SHIT!!1!ELEVENTY!
Why do you give the least bit of a fuck about his intentions? As noted, Pol Pot’s intentions were good. But the actions killed millions of people.
Fuck but you’re an incredibly STUPID DUMBWIT!
Look, asshole, dream all you want about Paul’s intentions. Just keep your fuckwittery to yourself. Nobody but you has the slightest interest in Paul’s intentions. Is this concept too difficult for a shit for brains like you to understand?
Thinking that the rights of minorities not to be discriminated against are unimportant is clear evidence of racist intent. Paul clearly does not regard non-white, non-male Americans as being that important.
How the fuck can that attitude not be racist and not be misogynistic ?
Because racism is how you see people, and I think he sees all people as below his ideology. I think if you’re going to use words like bigot, that misanthrope is much closer .
Because I don’t support de facto racism? Because I don’t support RP? Because I think they’re both terrible? Because I do agree that RP’s policies will promote racism (or acts based on racism, but regardless, unjustifiable harm on all minority or less advantaged groups)?
No you don’t, otherwise you would regar such polices as racist as you don’t. Ergo, you cannot think those polcies would increase racism.
Given your lack of honesty about this, I am not going to accept your protestations that you are not racist yourself. You come across as a racist scumbag who lack even the courage to own up to being a racist.
Please , explain this to me, why do you think increasing racism is only something that could be achieved by racism?
It’s pretty sad that you think someone who wants the exact same things in the real world (and don’t fucking put a smart ass “I WANT YOU TO SHUT UP” comment) is a racist because they don’t think something else is racist, but they still think it’s horrible because it increases racism.
Wrong. Racism is what you do to people. That is what we have been telling you. How you see people doesn’t always correlate to what you do to people.
Wrong. You don’t think. If you did, you would have acknowledged our points a day ago. We don’t care what you think, since you have shown great stoopidity by ignoring and not getting basic points about racism. You can’t unilaterally redefine the whole concept.
By supporting and defending policies and the people who would implement those policies that lead to de facto racism, even under the guise of “perfect equality”, you do support de facto racism. Period, end of story. Otherwise, you wouldn’t defend or support those policies and the people promoting them.
tkreacher:
You are not a mind reader. You do not know – you will never know – what’s going on in a person’s mind. Ever.
Wait, hold on.
So what you’re saying here is that since neither you, combat nor I (and everyone else on the planet) are not mind readers, we can’t know someone’s intent? That whatever is going on in their head is something we will never know? That we have to judge people based upon their words and actions? That attempting to guess his intent is moronic?
Combat, dude, we need to take a seat and digest this. This is a fundamental shift in our perception of the world. We have to rethink how to approach everyone.
[I wish there was an emoticon for ‘dripping with sarcasm’…]
So is there a word which you believe means deliberate racism? If so can we start using that word and stop arguing over a dictionary?
Because people who are not racist would not support racist policies. Racist people support racist policies, people opposed to racism do not. The fact that someone supports racist policies means they are racist.
Any more idiotic questions ?
If you do not share the idea that supporting racist policies is racist then we do not want the same things since your concept of racism is not one I share.
Racism. De facto racism is where you think you aren’t being racist, but the results of your actions are racist. Most racists these days hide behind de facto racism with code words. Do keep up…
I am aware what you’ve been telling me. The dictionary doesn’t seem to agree with you though, not at all.
Good, neither can you , but yet you are.
Than I’m for literally everything, because there is nothing I wouldn’t defend if the accusation against it was wrong. Such a belief or concept does not exist. It’s a little hard to be that big of a hypocrite where there is literally nothing you don’t support but somehow I manage, since if I’d defend it I support it.
I’m a nazi supporter who supports judhaisim while I support communism and anarchy and capitalism all at the same time, and while I’m at it I support atheism and christianity and satanism, I am also a creationist supporter who agrees that creationism is moronic. Because you could say wrong things about all those positions.
Oh wait, no, this is reality, still a normal person who doesn’t support nazis or anarchy or christianity. Where you actually need to want something to support it. I don’t support Ron Paul, or his policies, they’re godawful.
Yeah, the word is racism. Racism is racism. If an action result in racism it is racist.
This has been explained repeatedly. Please do at least pretend to keep up, if only to stop yourself looking even more of a fool.
Then you are obviously trolling, classic definition.
You either support his policies, or you shut the fuck up about both him and them. Welcome to reality, which you are divorced from. And trolls like yourself have absolutely no credibility, as you argue for the sake of arguing. Everything you say is considered lies and bullshit without third party citations….which are lacking.
Yet you defend him. Please stop lying you lying scumbag. You have spent the entire fucking thread defending him, so quite who the fuck you think you are kidding escapes me.
Paul is a racist and advocates racist policies. For normal people this is not hard to understand. Only for those intent on not understanding, because their world-view depends on not regarding Paul or his policies as racist does it become difficult. You are intent on not understanding, and that makes us ask why. The simplest answer is that you are a racist scumbag. Nothing you have said or done suggests otherwise.
No, I argue for the sake of truth, and what’s correct. And how the fuck am I supposed to cite what I’m saying? The dictionary has already been cited and we’re not disputing what actually happened in a scenario.
I have never defended the meat of what he wants to do. I have said that your arguments against it are bad. I understand why you have problems understanding this, I mean you did ignore the main point of what you’re responding to ( You know, the “I WILL DEFEND EVERYONE IF WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS WRONG” part).
I am no troll, and I am not a liar. You are all over analyzing way too much.
Also, Matt, do try to learn that you could explain something, real good so everybody understands it, and it could still be incorrect.
Oh well. Time for bed. Keep up the good work Horde, and don’t let the racists and their apologists get away with anything!
Tony… therefore God @386,
I know, it’s a pretty radical revelation, amirite?!
Heh.
_________________
To the assholes:
If you raise a gun at an innocent human being who is in no way threatening another person or yourself, knowingly pull the trigger, and shoot them in the face and kill them dead – you are… a killer.
It doesn’t matter whether in your heart of hearts and your mind of minds you wanted them dead – or whether you thought the bullet was secretly a magical unicorn that would take their brain on a ride to a rainbow in the sky, where they will frolic with children and gumdrops and roses on dazzling rays of light into eternity… leaving their filthy, stupid corpse behind.
You are a killer either way.
The fucking. Intent. Does not. Matter.
If someone promotes and desire to implement policies that demonstrably protects, facilitate and increases the instances and effects of racism and bigotry they are a GOD DAMNED RACIST AND BIGOT.
It is very, very, very simple. Your mind guess powers are not just stupid but IRRELEVANT.
Yes, god forbid there’s any dispute about any small thing when race is involved, lest you be called an apologist.
@397
The word “killer” describes someone who has done an action. Bigot does not. Bigot describes someone who thinks a certain way. You know
“a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. ”
Pretty hard to be intolerant of a certain type of person and not think think differently about them.
And yes, I understand, it doesn’t truly matter. RP’s policies would unjustifiably hurt minorities and are thus bad and promote racism. I am aware this is an argument over semantics and not much more, I don’t know how you guys can’t be aware but you manage.
aluchko,
That’s fine. That’s what I was asking about, too.
Inconsistent.
If you believe that there should not be a legal right to avoid hiring black people because they’re black, then your belief is a moral stance — it is a normative statement about how the world should be.
So if you believe that there should not be a legal right to avoid hiring black people because they’re black, then you actually believe “people should be forced to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with, in certain circumstances”.
One potentially consistent statement would be that “people should be forced to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with, in hiring and employment, and otherwise people shouldn’t be forced to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with”.
My reading comprehension is fine, see. Your writing is a problem, insofar that it does not express what you’d prefer to express.
This part is not true. You were not explaining the libertarian argument. You were answering a question from Ing about your own point of view:
[aluchko:] There is a cost to anti-discrimination laws, people who should be fired might not be for fear of lawsuits, people who are good workers might have their ability doubted because people think they’re the token minority.
Plus there’s a moral issue, people shouldn’t be forced to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with. No matter how bad a person they are, can you really force a bigot to hire and work with a black man?
Those are your views. You are the one claiming this is a moral issue of someone’s moral rights being violated. You confirm this in another comment:
So those are your views. You were not simply explaining the libertarian argument. All the evidence indicates you were reporting your own views.
That’s fine, but your personal conclusion is still remarkably confused (probably due to a faulty ontology of moral rights).
If it’s a “right which is not absolute and can be trumped to avoid a greater wrong” then trumping it to avoid a greater wrong does not mean “violating” it.
A right can only be violated where it applies. If I have a general right to free speech, but I’m still not allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theater which is not in fact ablaze, this is not a violation of my right, but a limitation.
combat,
Again, those are not just ways of thinking. There are intolerant actions too.
Again, see #106. Here’s a helpful excerpt:
“one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
Ron Paul is a bigot.
@402
I guess my definition was wrong. Sorry
I see a distinction between treating members of a group with hatred and allowing for (but endorsing is different) others to do that more though.
And I”d like to clarify ,again, since I’m bad at this, this is just semantic. You have to be a very bad person to think that distinction is a very important moral one.
Oh, and still probably a bigot because of his newsletters, forgot to say that.
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ
Yes my belief is a moral stance that I believe should be implemented in law, as I said in that same post there are two conflicting rights
“The difference is that the libertarian believes the right to associate wins out, while I believe the right not to be discriminated against wins out”
The fact I believe non-discrimination is the more important right doesn’t mean the association right doesn’t exist.
There are multiple non-bigoted arguments, like the one given above, that I think are valid. The difference between myself and the libertarian is the conclusions we draw from those arguments. And I’m trying to embrace the arguments so I can make the case sincerely.
Unfortunately people are obsessed with calling anyone who disagrees a racist so the discussion keeps getting muddled and derailed.
Keep it up with the strawman. I’m sure that’s very productive and not at all derailing.
combat,
Fucking mind-guessing moron doesn’t just think he can mind-guess reliably, certainly more reliably than anyone else in the thread, but this mind guessing turd can mind-guess without any words or actions whatsoever necessary.
He can mind-guess bigotry. He thinks the word bigot is independent of action.
It is a self-contained abstraction that only exists in a bigots mind (one must suppose, since we can only mind-guess and not mind read).
One might think that someone attempting to implement policy that supports and ensures increased bigotry would make them a bigot, but no. Not only does it not necessarily follow, but it isn’t even evidence, not really anyway.
combat is here to let us know that, despite Ron Paul attempting to implement policy that supports and ensures increased bigotry, he doesn’t believe that it is the case that Ron Paul is a bigot. Not in a court of law kind of way, not beyond a reasonable doubt kind of way.
Why? Because he doesn’t think so. His mind-guessing powers have entered Ron Paul’s mind (which is the only way to know if someone is a bigot or not) and discerned nuance that we are incapable of gleaning.
We’re being insulting to Ron Paul unfairly by calling him a bigot… becausehismind.
Becausehismind.
Well, I’m convinced.
(I know I said I was done engaging you on this, but you are invigoratingly thick, I’m bored, and I don’t have any beer.)
Yes and I think you are a racist for accepting those arguments.
Your passion to help racism is noted
No 407, it’s evidence. It’s not unreasonable to think Ron Paul’s a bigot. which I said in post 350 already btw.
Also, shut the fuck up about your mind reading nonsense. I just don’t think his motives are racial, that’s the only non-semantic thing we’re looking at, are you really not supposed to think about what someone else thinks when determining motive?
Again it’s more horrible to be called racism than you know defend racism.
This isn’t semantics. It is reality. Reality is what is left when your delusions, like semantics, goes away. You were playing semantics, we were dealing reality back to you. You and reality are divorced.
Why are you still arguing this non-point? Only a racist would attempt such slight-of-hand bullshit.
If it results in de facto racism isn’t a neutral argument. It is an argument that results in bigotry, and is therefore a racist argument. Any argument you have given falls into that category. You lost before you started. And still no evidence, just theological OPINION.
If you are a racist admit it. If you aren’t show evidence, not your claims. Take it to third parties like the peer reviewed literature.
Because that’s what I cared about here. We all agree Ron Paul is bad, so why would I even argue that case? Why preach to the choir? Why must I have big disclaimers everywhere about how bad RP is when we all don’t like him? Why is that not enough? Because I’m defending him? Even when I’m saying he’s harmful and dangerous? Well all right if you say so.
I have no divorce from reality however, I am well aware of the reality.
Remember what I said about not caring enough about the issue? Yeah that.
What does it contribute to a discussion to repeatedly insult your opponent?
And where the hell do you get off assuming anyone who disagrees with you has the worst possible motives? It must be nice to live in your world fighting a noble war against racists, nazis, theocrats, and whatever other abhorrent philosophy happens to be tangentially connected to the opposing side. Did it ever occur to you that most people are sincerely trying to understand the world and do good in it? That most harmful philosophies are the result of ignorance and not malice? That you are almost certainly wrong about some important topic, and may one day find yourself advocating a position that you formerly described as belonging to the scum of the earth?
If you shut the fuck up after that, there would be no argument. But you can’t shut the fuck up. You defend racism. Using RP as your model. Otherwise, your argument wouldn’t mention RP at all. Why are you so dense as to not see that?
Nope, you are in lah-lah land. No reality in Combat-Land.
A discussion means you can be wrong. Can you be wrong? It also has something like “this is what I believe, and this is the evidence (link to evidence) to back it up”. You are preaching, not discussing, as you can’t be wrong.
And why the hell is no one else taking PZ to task for using “un-American” as an insult? If you want bigotry than wouldn’t the implicit assumption that anyone who isn’t an American is somehow inferior be a good place to start?
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
Study these. These are the methods people use when they have already lost or are stupid
Note: Extreme Tunnel Vision.
But please do what I have predicted with arguing that one point ad infinitum
combat,
Jesus christ dude. Did you really just write these two things one right after the other?
Really?
For fucks sake.
Read this aloud to yourself a few dozen times and give it your level best to understand why it is blisteringly stupid.
Here’s a hint: “Shut up about your mind reading nonsense – now observe my opinion of what is in Ron Paul’s mind.”
And then:
I’m literally chuckling out loud.
“Oh yeah, before I forget: are we really not supposed to try to mind read?”
————-
I’ve got one good thing to say about you though, chuckles. You really got over the tone troll thing well, even adding your own “shut the fuck ups” and whatnot.
Isn’t it liberating not needing to wear pearls to clutch and not having to stay within fainting distance of the nearest couch?
@413
It’s not that I don’t care about that issue, it’s that I care about what’s right (as in correct) so much even when it doesn’t matter.
@415
I do not defend racism. My argument mentions RP because he was the topic of discussion here (you know , this whole blog thing, discussions tend to come from posts) and he’s a pretty good example (although his newsletters make it different because the newsletters show that he is indeed a racist). Like do I really need to make every statement say “One could hypothetically just be a zealot and support the removal of special protections because you put your ideology over people as a whole, and not just those who need special protections” to distance everything I say from RP?
Even if something IS racism, saying it’s not racism but still saying that thing is bad is not supporting racism.
Did it ever occur to you that sincerity and ignorance aren’t mutually exclusive with racism, Naziism, and numerous other abhorrent philosophies?
No it’s racist and stupid.
Frankly someone who can’t recognize racism I sincerely doubt isn’t racist.
@420
Yes, motives exist, people determine those. If I kill the man who fucked my wife people are going to assume I killed him because he fucked my wife, and not think “WE CAN’T KNOW, THAT WOULD BE MIND READING”. Yea, I could have killed him because I was going to kill anyone and he’s the first person I saw, maybe I killed him because he ate a ham sandwich I was going to eat.
There’s a difference between “I magically know what’s in paul’s mind” and “I interpret the evidence differently think his reasoning is different than what you think his reasoning is”
You do realize that in this analogy you’re the ham sandwich theory?
aluchko,
No. That never occurred to me. Because it’s bullshit.
Are you sure you’re not more libertarian that you are admitting?
Rational actors?
Really?
Cute. The problem with those things is both sides think it applies to the opponent. And yeah, I read PZ’s thing about the anti-constitutional positions, and as a result I’d be fine with anti-American, but the implication of “un-American” is that “their values are not American, therefore they are inferior to that of Americans”, or at least “their values are not American, and therefore not like us”. Now I don’t think PZ holds that view, but if nothing else it was an appeal to xenophobia and I think he should have been called out on it.
The blinding ignorance of thinking removing the civil rights act is doing good is criminally ignorant. There is a point that where malicious is a more flattering presumption than ignorance
Except that it reflects clear demonstrable behavior.
And now I sit back and laugh as you continue to do that despite it being pointed out that we are aware of the derailing and know it is bankrupt.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha
You think the supposition that most people are basically good is exclusively libertarian?
@423
But I do recognize racism, the definition I used works well in life. Yea, some kid who refuses to sit by a black kid in the lunch table is obviously racist, because they obviously think differently of black kids otherwise why wouldn’t he sit by them? He either irrationally hates them or irrationally thinks they have some undesirable trait that he doesn’t want to associate with. And an employer who refuses to hire black people is obviously racist, because if you refuse to hire blacks you obviously think that they are inferior workers or just hate them and cant’ stand to be around them
@425
Heh, maybe, but I”m not advocating killing the man for boning your wife.
Not what he said. But it is stupid.
ATTENTION WHITE PEOPLE: YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS RACIST.
No but you are excusing him by proposing bizarre and stupid explanations rather than the obvious ones. This happens all the time in rape apology.
ing, I think it’s worse than that.
His analogous position would be “maybe he didn’t intend to kill the guy, because mind-guess”.
The supposition that most people are basically free of bigotry and don’t hold destructive political positions because of bigotry is exclusively ignorant :)
Ah yes he’s not the Ham sanwich guy, he’s the “he was trying to massage the man’s face with a knife” guy.
Um, yes. Therefore…?
I’ll ask you the question I asked combat above, then: if someone sincerely believed, despite all evidence to the contrary, that locking black people in zoos was the best thing for them, according to you that would not be racist, since they had the black people’s interests at heart… right?
It is possible to imagine someone who is totally and truly colorblind, with no racist views whatsoever, who opposed the Civil Rights Act because they were completely and utterly ignorant of the history of race relations… well, pretty much forever everywhere. This person would, of course, be totally incapable of contrasting race relations at one point in history to race relations in another point in history, because they wouldn’t know either.
Does that answer your question?
Unless you believe people have a right to discriminate racially in hiring practices, a law stating that you cannot discriminate racially in hiring practices violates no rights.
Do you believe people have the right to practice racial discrimination in hiring practices? This is a very simple question – just one that might make you say something that leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
The law does not force anyone to hire anyone. It merely sets parameters for the action of hiring. No action is forced. A bigoted business owner is perfectly free to not hire anyone – possibly going shorthanded, even shutting down – to avoid having to hire black workers.
And, of course, that kind of thing was threatened (I have no idea if it was acted on) during the time of the Civil Rights Act.
We might not be able to determine from a single incident if someone is a racist or not. However, if we were to examine their voting record, and the ramifications of the legislation they support, and the ramifications of the legislation they opposed, and examine some of their public writings (such as campaign literature), we might be able to draw some conclusions.
So,yes, it’s possible that Ron Paul is ignorant of racial imbalances in the US today, and was equally ignorant of them then, and has proved to be completely incapable of learning anything about the subject in the meantime.
Or, like most well-to-do white men of his age, he’s a bigot.
Which do you think fits the situation better?
It depends – do these priorities systematically and unfairly disadvantage people of a given racial makeup, and does the person supporting them know this?
If someone wanted to make the case that they were prioritizing things above racial equality and not be thought a racist, they should say so: “Yes, I know this policy propagates racial inequality, and I’m sorry about that, but there’s a more important issue here, which is: (issue).”
It’s the fact that we see people squirming and twisting to insist Oh My Goodness No, I Just Cherish Black People, Why Some Of My Best Friends…
that tells me that they know they’re being bigots, and are desperately trying not to appear bigoted. Or, more tellingly, that they appear no more bigoted than is acceptable to their electorate.
No, you are the one calling out xenophobia. PZ merely called RP an extremist, who doesn’t represent mainstream America. And RP doesn’t. He represents fuckwitted idjits like yourself, who can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag with a book of clues, a map and a GPS.
Overt only, not de facto, the insidious kind. End of story. You are blind.
That combination is malicious.
Seriously if I have a strong view on something I am ignorant of, I am acting selfishly.
I think more relevant and topical is the James Watson hypothesis, whether black people are genetically less intelligent, as there are people who do hold that view and some of those people really dislike it.
Honestly I don’t know. I’ve pondered that question a lot and don’t have a good answer, I believe there are people who would be non-racist by any other definition, but have been taken in by the bad science and believe a conclusion they really dislike.
In that case they hold a very racist belief, but at the same time really hate the belief, and may not act on it. I don’t know whether to call that racism or not.
If you’re obsessed with race relations you’re going to see everything through that lense, if you’re obsessed with small government you’ll see everything through that lense, even when you’re talking about another topic. I don’t think it’s hard to believe that someone could be ignorant or have that different of priorities without being a bigot, and that includes RP since he has shown that obsession with small government. That doesn’t just mean that you’ll say those other concerns are irrelevant, it means you’ll back up your argument by saying it actually helps with the other problem.
Ie, if you really care about small government you don’t say discrimination is an acceptable price to pay for smaller government, it’s more likely you’ll actually believe that smaller government reduces discrimination.
I believe people have a right to do whatever they want, including practice racial discrimination in hiring practices. But those rights get curtailed when they violate other peoples rights. So rights like the right to not hiring black people should be violated.
And the atheist kid sitting in class during the school prayer can just ignore it.
Whether you consider it “forcing” or not, the owner has to do something they really don’t want to.
@433
You know, sometimes you need to make a judgment call whether someone’s being a racist and I don’t feel like being a dickweed and wasting someone’s time every time I feel the need to call something racist.
The other explanations fit his positions overall more. Getting rid of medicaid and social security hurts whites as well as blacks. Getting rid of the war on pot helps everyone (except private prison owners, rich white males ). Wanting to cut back on the military helps everyone except private military contractors. I find it entirely consistent that he thinks all humans beneath his ideology of founding father and constitution worship.
@439
No, de facto racism is still racism. Of course it is. And RP’s proposed policies directly lead to more de facto racism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
It’s every man’s right to murder people, but those rights get curtailed when they violate other peoples rights.
@442
What, the ever loving fuck man? Locking them in cages. It’s not even asking “is it racist are they less intelligent”, it’s asking “would it be racist to lock them in cages”.
…Yes, that’s the answer
OK, so I think I can summarize our dear Troll with a paraphrase:
“I’m not a Libertarian, but here is a really bad argument as to why Libertarianism isn’t racist.”
Dear god is a citation needed for that. That’s all you’ve done here. Waste eeeeeeeeeeeeveryone’s time.
WHAT SMALL GOVERNMENT. He has never fucking voted for that. NEVER. He has voted to expand the government into more and more public issues. He WANTS a stronger STATE government. FFS.
Ok look on the bigger issue, the fact that you lack any ethical or moral fortitude or courage isn’t our problem. You don’t get to look down on us for being as dispassionate and knownothing as you.
@Combat
445
In all fairness I did like that response.
Also the science is bad. People latching onto the bad science despite it’s badness are racist.
FFS. I don’t believe that blacks aren’t inferior due to political ideology, I believe that due to fucking empiricism.
aluchko@430
No. But absurd claims like most people are basically good, rational, and/or concerned with discerning reality as it is are commonly made by libertarians in defense of their ideology.
Just add one bag of ignoring historical reality, a dash of FREEDOM, run through a strainer to remove empathy, stir thoroughly with an invisible hand of the market, bake at full asshole for 30 minutes, let stand until fuck you temperature and serve.
@447
It’s called an opinion, you can’t cite it.
I apologize for wasting everyone’s time with a discussion they obviously don’t care about. I know I have weird motivations on some things, I hope next time I care to post in a topic like this I could change your minds about me.
Cool, thanks.
But for people not scientifically educated telling good science from bad is hard, I’m operating on the belief these people are really trying and sincere.
@”We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”
The Civil Rights act is federal
@combat
I was trying to make the question more relevant.
Not to you you dumbass. To combat.
FFS how stupid are you.
You’re operating on balony
FFS non sequitor much?
HIS STATED BELIEFS DO NOT MATCH HIS ACTIONS
Nor has really anyone who calls for small government.
On a bigger level: JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP! Ron Paul and these idiots do not need fucking defending as if they are sincere, even if sincere they need to be educated and shamed into seeing why these beliefs are batshit. YOU ARE NOT HELPING.
@448
Thank you.
Isn’t the argument most people make in that regard “Black people are on average X (X isn’t that big) IQ points behind”? Which wouldn’t be a very convincing argument to treat them differently even if it were true because…well that’s how statistics work and most people are not perfectly average. Like even though Americans are statistically Christians I don’t treat everyone I run into as a Christian.
Or am I behind and they’re talking about some other bad science?
@447
It seems to me when people say they want a smaller government, they don’t actually mean they want less power in government hands, they mean they want more power in the hands of the governments with less landmass.
@451
If you’re genuine and you were trying to make the question more relevant than you did a fucking horrible job at making it clear.
That’s it. It’s ignoring the problems with IQ in general and the study’s specifics
For one. Northern blacks do better than southern whites. Despite this they STILL go to the racist conclusion. They did not properly control for income or social class, the biggest markers of school performance or IQ. They did not account for sterotype priming or internalized racism (black people did better in IQ in one study if they were told it wasn’t an IQ test)
@combat
Those statistics are actually true, the kicker comes down to what IQ is actually measuring, the fact there’s some massive differences in socioeconomic circumstances, and the IQ difference tracks much better with socioeconomic factors than race.
@”We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”
It’s not a non-sequitor since you said Paul was for law moving towards State governments, so it is consistent that he’s against a federal law.
@tkreacher
So if people aren’t rational and/or concerned with discerning reality as it is than isn’t it possible that someone could be wrong about the effects of eliminating the Civil Rights act without having bigotry as a motive?
HE VOTED FOR DOMA
In what lobe are you deficient in?
No. It’s really fucking not.
The statistics are true, the conclusions are not.
Stephen J. Gould Mismeasure of Man. That is racist shit you are trying to use.
Only bigotry, either overt or de facto, would be a reason for eliminating the Civil Rights Act. There is no other reason. What is your excuse bigot?
Man, I really hate “threaded” pages, since they never allow nesting past like 3 posts, or something, and they often drop you to page bottom to post anyway, it being, for some sites, too ‘hard’ to open a new box under the message you are posting to, but… I really miss them on threads that end up 50 pages long. lol
Ok.. Two things – 1. You don’t know if the good ones are outnumbered, because, pretty much by definition, the good ones can’t even give/hide behind religious justifications for it, never mind do so without being immediately arrested.
2. This is the *exact* identical argument made about prostitution, by people that defend laws banning that. They argue that all, existing, prostitution is bad, or so much of it, that it must remain legal, and that this won’t/can’t change, by making it legal, and therefor institute laws and regulation that make it easier to actually deal with the wrong kind. As things stand, the “bad” polygamists get by with it due to a) local power, b) religion, and c) no definition as to what is, and isn’t, “good” in such a marriage, other than that its “all bad”, which doesn’t get you any place, if its completely unenforceable, because the only “legal” standing you have by which to attack it is via incidental abuses, which can be proven, and not the overall abuses, which are “protected” as religious belief.
Basically, the non-Mormon polygamist could be arrested on dozens of charges, including the polygamy itself, starting with some form of bigamy, which those ‘bad’ religious practitioners never will be. So, its not just that all kinds have been made illegal, to protect against the bad ones. Its that **only** the good sort ends up illegal, because the bad ones have ways to protect themselves from actually being arrested for it.
I am, I admit, confused how that either helps change things so that bad sort disappears, or helps those **in** the bad kind, regardless of whether or not the bad ones outnumber the good ones.
must remain illegal
Sigh, can’t type today, and I am sure that isn’t the only error. lol
@Kagehi
Do you have the right thread?
@461 Yes he does. Post 338
@Combat
Ah.
Kagehi #459
Now that was a massive derail.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Ummm, you do realize I was using the Watson thing as an example of something that was wrong?
@aluchko
Oh why not defend him for a while. Play devil’s advocate.
@”We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective”
I covered the DOMA thing earlier, it’s partially states rights, partially his homophobia, and he does seem to be moving towards a less bigoted position here. I didn’t say he was perfectly consistent, just mostly.
I assume you’re talking about the hypothetical people’s conclusions, and not my conclusions. Since as far as I can tell we are in complete agreement on that topic.
HE DOES NO SUCH THING. You are just lying now. LIAR
DOMA is a federal law that bends over the intention of the interstate clause of the constitution. It denies both his desire for small government AND his originalist position.
He is not getting less bigoted. His stance is the government helping is bad because the states should do that…the government harming is good though!
How many drinks do I have to have before I am not a tea tottler?
Seriously how many times does he have to betray what he claims are core fucking values for the selfishness or bigotry before he’s inconsistent?
Good to know that according to you I can commit SOME war crimes and still be a consistent humanitarian but not a perfectly consistent humanitarian.
You appear to be the only one so confused about this.
Ah, gotcha, RP is simply naive/ignorant of the racial ramifications his espoused policies would have.
Ah, gotcha, RP is highly aware and carefully considering the racial ramifications his espoused policies would have.
Thank you for answering directly.
Do I have to explain the difference between these situations?
I will, but it might make you look kinda foolish.
Again, purpose of laws.
Desires are not rights.
Preferences are not rights.
Wanting to do something does not give you the right to do it – especially if it interferes with someone else’s actual rights.
In my idealism I flatly REFUSE to believe a grown ass man could be that stupid
Why wasn’t that cited. You have trouble with citations to anything. Must not be a scholar. More like Joe the Plumber. Dumb be thy name…
Your conclusions mean anything to us??? Bwahahahahahahaha. Your conclusions are bullshit. You are the village idjit who’s opinion we ask so we know the opposite is what should be done. Been that way from post 1….
Sorry, I assumed that people would remember the James Watson controversy, or would at least get the essence from my summary, and didn’t feel like spending yet more time finding a link, and vetting it for content so the conversation didn’t get derailed. Maybe I was mistaken there.
And in the first post I don’t believe I implied that I agreed with Watson, if anything I thought I implied I disagreed. My only intention was to take an example that was loaded and would never occur in the real world, and replace it with an example that actually exists and is relevant.
If you came away from that with the impression that I believed Watson you have only your own bias to blame. As for ad hominems, you simply ignored the discussion and called me a racist. It wouldn’t have been relevant even if it was true!
Pretty rich coming from the guy who reads “Those statistics are actually true, the kicker comes down to what IQ is actually measuring, the fact there’s some massive differences in socioeconomic circumstances, and the IQ difference tracks much better with socioeconomic factors than race.” and decides that means the poster thinks IQ is determined by race.
Comment by aluchko blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Too boring too tedious too obtuse too dumb didn’t read
alchuko: If you don’t watch out you might get quarantined to TZT. And if you think the bashing is bad here, it’s even worse there. best to leave while you can still crawl out of your hole.
Eh, remember when I posted that Epstein article detailing a non-racist case against the civil rights act and you all read it and specifically responded to it?
No? Oh yeah, because it never happened!! I mentioned it multiple times but the only it was ever directly addressed was when someone used the evidence that it was posted at reason.com to claim I was libertarian! (oh yeah, those ad hominens!)
The Epstein article directly addressed the central argument here, the fact you could oppose the CRA without being a racist, and was one of the only links I posted, and you just ignored it. Did you ignore it because you didn’t read it? Because you couldn’t rebut it? Something else? I don’t know, all I know is you don’t really give a shit about whether you’re right or not, all you want to do is sit back and throw around unjustified accusations of racism. I was here because I was trying to have a conversation and change minds. What the hell were you doing?
Oh my God go eat a whole tube of Krazy Glue.
Josh: I think Gorilla Glue may be more suited in this case…
:)))
I’m looking for a fast setting time, not durability.
Oh, then you need Dermabond (the stuff is made to bond tissue) and a can of compressed air. Set time less than two seconds, cure time, about a minute.
Alright, combat and aluchko, let’s play your game. Lets look at what the evidence really says. In many situations bigotry and his “constitution+freedom+state’s rights” talk seem to go hand-in-hand, but not all.
Now if RP’s really was more interested in state’s rights, the constituation, and freedom than in helping his group, then in situations where constitution+freedom+state’s rights come into conflict then he would advocate constitution+freedom+state’s rights even at the expense of his own group. On the other hand, if he was more in favor of his own group and using freedom+state’s rights, then he would ignore constitution, freedom, and/or state’s rights when it was inconvenient to his group.
So we have seen one case, DOMA, where he flat-out rejected both the constitution AND state’s rights in order to hurt gays.
We have seen another case, legislating when life begins at a federal level, where he once again rejects state’s rights.
Others I have seen claimed that he has done, but others will have to verify:
We know he has more earmarks than pretty much anyone else in his state, which goes against his “small government” thing. How many of those earmarks went to helping minorities more than his own group?
He advocating building a fence along the mexicon border, which overrules states’ decisions on the matter and would be a practically unprecedented government project for someone who supposedly wants to shrink the government. This is a pretty blatant example of bigotry, though.
He is in favor of a constitutional amendment favoring school prayer, which is about as far from state’s rights and personal freedom as you can imagine, but supports his religious group.
He voted for preventing insurance companies that recieve federal funding from paying for abortions. So much for freedom, state’s rights, or even free market, but supports bigotry against women.
He voted against uninions several times. So much for free market or freedom, but supports the rich.
He voted to prevent shareholders from affecting executive pay. Again, throwing the free market under the bus to help rich people.
So we have a bunch of examples of him either promoting bigotry or promoting his group at the expense of his supposed primary goals, freedom, the constitution, state’s right, even the free market.
So now it is your turn. Show us examples where he has supported things that help state’s rights, freedom, or the constituion but hurts his own group. If you can’t, then I think it is safe to conclude that he is, in fact, a bigot.
For DOMA I think saying one state doesn’t have to respect a marriage declared by another state is consistent with state rights, though I’d classify RP’s later condemnation of Obama’s refusal to defend section 3 of DOMA as anti-gay bigotry (I don’t see how section 3 affects state’s rights).
For the pro-life stuff I don’t think it’s completely inconsistent if he truly believes life begins at insemination. The pro-lifers actually think they’re preventing murder, they’re idiots for thinking so but if you are trying to prevent murder I can understand why you’d compromise other positions.
His requesting of earmarks seems to me hypocritical.
For the border fence immigration control and foreign relations are some of the only legitimate federal functions in libertarianism, so it’s not a contradiction. As to whether it’s bigotry I think it’s possible to argue for a border fence on the grounds that the illegal migrants are breaking the law and potentially making things worse for the legal migrants who are respecting the law. Either way the idea that you face stiff consequences if you break the law is common with Libertarians, so I don’t think that’s bigotry.
For prayer he likes power to be shifted away from the federal government lower down the chain. So I can see him favouring the ability of states or local governments to enact a non-mandatory school prayer. This strikes as a bit hypocritical on his part but I don’t think it directly contradicts his philosophy.
For the abortions again if he thinks he’s preventing murder he’ll compromise other principals.
For unions I don’t know enough about his positions and the current legal landscape. If he wants legislation that doesn’t want unions to be able to force the employer to only hire union members than he’s a hypocrite. If he wants to remove laws that assist unions in forcing the employer to only hire union members than he’s consistent.
For shareholders if this is the bill you were talking about, and the summary is partially accurate, than it gives the government the ability to determine executive compensation and RP would be very consistent in voting against it.
Sorry man, that was actually one of the most reasonable posts I’ve seen here and I wish I could engage further, but I’ve been in this thread way too damn long and sunk in way too much time.
You fucking moron.
They don’t actually believe life begins at conception.
If they did, they wouldn’t make exceptions for rape or incest.
If they did, they would take measure to stop miscarriages and bemoan all the little children God kills before they can implant.
If they did, they would want women to be punished as murders, but they don’t.
{Trigger Warning for that Link}
Hypocritical weasel. Run away and hide or logic might permeate that tombstone you call a head.
Good fucking riddance you worthless TinFoil Knight for the Rich Straight White Man.
The world would be a better place without people like you.
You also haven’t changed one mind with your preaching of the fuckwittery of liberturdism, and haven’t convinced one person RP isn’t a racist bigot and all around fool.
Failure be they name…
Why won’t anyone address me seriously? Why won’t anyone address me-oh shit gotta go!
Anyone want to mop up that trail of urine he left in his wake?
aluchko,
Since you didn’t address these points, I’ll repeat them:
So if you believe that there should not be a legal right to avoid hiring black people because they’re black, then you actually believe “people should be forced to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with, in certain circumstances”.
One potentially consistent statement would be that “people should be forced to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with, in hiring and employment, and otherwise people shouldn’t be forced to associate with someone they don’t want to associate with”.
If it’s a “right which is not absolute and can be trumped to avoid a greater wrong” then trumping it to avoid a greater wrong does not mean “violating” it.
A right can only be violated where it applies. If I have a general right to free speech, but I’m still not allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theater which is not in fact ablaze, this is not a violation of my right, but a limitation.
Moreover, those are your views. You are the one claiming this is a moral issue of someone’s moral rights being violated. You confirm this in another comment:
So those are your views. You were not simply explaining the libertarian argument. All the evidence indicates you were reporting your own views.
That’s fine. It wasn’t like I was actually expecting an answer, it was clear from the beginning you were never interested in evidence or having an honest debate and instead are just trying to throw up smokescreens in an obvious attempt to protect your idol. Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ
Or it could be I don’t share your precise definition of “right” and “violation or a right” thus invalidating your entire post.
@TheBlackCat
This is actually quite reassuring from my perspective, because I know at least one central conclusion you’ve reached is empirically and unambiguously wrong. I don’t care if you think I’m a Paulite or not, but the fact you’re that wrong on one of the topics here re-assures me that I’m not just a deluded nut.
Then you could argue for why your definitions are better.
Your solipsism does not invalidate anyone else’s anything.
Ooh, lookie. Arrogant, ignorant, and egotistical turd is back to bully us into submission with more fuckwittery. It couldn’t stick the announced flounce, telling us all we need to know about its honesty and integrity…or lack thereof.
I believe that TZT incarceration is appropriate for this troll.
“Then you could argue for why your definitions are better.”
It’s irrelevant since your argument was based on the assumption I was using your definitions.
Let me put it this way. Your post was arguing against a non-existent position, a position you created by changing the meaning of my position by interpreting my words to have a definition I clearly didn’t intend.
Ah, the old if you accept my presuppostions, I am right. But we don’t accept your presuppositions without third party evidence….
You are a fucking egomaniac, aren’t you?
“I’m not a racist, but…” is invariably followed by a choice piece of racism, and similarly, “I’m not a sexist, but…” by a succulent dollop of sexism. In this thread we have two fine specimens of the less common I’m-not-a-libertarian-but-er.
I’m very sceptical of this. I don’t think Paul’s stance on immigration actually fits with his claimed libertarian principles at all. Rather, I think his views on immigration are motivated purely by racism. (Whether Paul is racist personally, or just pandering to racists, I don’t know; but intent isn’t magic, and it doesn’t make any difference. He’s supporting racism in practice.)
An actual honest libertarian ought to be supportive of open immigration. After all, from a libertarian point of view, immigration controls are just another form of protectionism; and libertarians, more-or-less by definition, prefer free trade to protectionism. If they support free movement of goods and services across borders, they ought, if they are to be honest and consistent, also to support free movement of people across borders. So libertarians ought, if they are to be honest and consistent, to ally with liberals in supporting open immigration. (And some do; Ayn Rand, for all her many faults in other areas, actually did oppose immigration controls.)
This is one area, therefore, in which Paul isn’t applying libertarian principles consistently. And I think the reason is pretty obvious; he draws support from angry right-wing white voters who are hostile to Latino/a immigrants and don’t want more of them in the country. He’s pandering to racism.
Wanting a border fence doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t favour more immigration, it also doesn’t mean he isn’t consistent with other libertarians in that regard.
The essence of my position is this. Ron Paul is a nut, he doesn’t understand economics, human nature, history, or a load of other things that are critical for governance. As a result he’s created an ideology that looks good at a cursory glance, and has a few really good applications (ie civil liberties, less military, and drug legalization), but is completely ridiculous and impractical on other counts and would be a disaster to implement.
Why is it necessary to also claim he’s a bigot? Why aren’t the actual flaws in his position insufficient to mock him?
This reminds me of Bill Maher getting skewered for calling the 9/11 hijackers brave. The fact that someone is a deluded psychopath doesn’t mean they can’t also be brave, it just means that someone could be bad, or wrong, without also having every other bad quality in the book.
@ aluchko: Yes, you are “just a deluded nut”, and a liar as well. The fact that you are still here and still haven’t answered my question proves that.
Are you just hoping people would forgot my previous question? They haven’t. Every word you write without answering it just further convinces everyone here that you are nothing but a liar.
I’ve been through this with you already. Either put up some counter-evidence or stop claiming this you liar.