Bardan is a morans

I dislike the number of apples that we ate on Saturday night.

Blank

I must say I was tempted to ask him if he watched Glenn Beck, I LOOOOVE that show. But because I like conspiracy theories. I know some extremely intelligent libertarians, it is a well rationed point of view, some people however fail to grasp how it is intended to work.

Apples?

Diaz wrote:

Waireka wrote:Any discussion is improved by an opposing view. Whether you consider it moronic or not.

I find this place fails on some points because often we all agree with eachother <--- which is boring.

I'm all for free speech, but consider what you could possibly be alienating here.

My definition of a "morans" fits someone like markslovenz more than it does Bardan.

Conflicting opinions are fun.

Not necessarily, although I agree with your point re the people it might fit better.

Discussion can be improved when parties to the discussion hold differing views and can provide some justification for those, which can lead to some stimulating discussion. You can also have a good discussion when agreeing, it just takes some people taking the effort to make an evaluation of the topic under discussion.

Discussion is not improved when one person is is advancing an extreme ideology which is impervious to opposing views. There isn't the intention of examining those views, and in many cases the person may only be doing this to get a rise off people and cause dissension. I find discussions of this type worthless, you can't move it beyond the initial statements of the topic poster because they aren't interested in any more than pushing their ideological viewpoint.

Lol, did you just describe your discussions with Dream_Builder?

Wow this topic feels like I'm in SC. Direct attack without substance, check. Failiure to recognize ideas and correctly refute them, check. Ignorance, check.

I, for one, welcome our new Libertarian member. He is a well rationed human being who at least merits decent discussion.

____ wrote:Apples?

Exactly. There were none. Should have been more.

superarmy wrote:Wow this topic feels like I'm in SC. Direct attack without substance, check. Failiure to recognize ideas and correctly refute them, check. Ignorance, check.

I, for one, welcome our new Libertarian member. He is a well rationed human being who at least merits decent discussion.

Yeah. I was under the mistaken impression that the members of Tartarus held a higher standard.

I"m disillusioned as hell. God forbid we have to think a little bit. I can't be fucked any more.

Blank

I'd beg to disagree there.

I'd think the word superarmy is wanting is "reasoned" but I'm still waiting to see some reasoning. Do you really think You Tube videos constitute reasoning or that simple promotion of a single minded ideology is reasoning? That's especially when what follows is more of the same argument by assertion. I'm still waiting for a sign that this person is going to demonstrate those things you mention like recognising other ideas and correctly refuting them, let alone providing some justification for them.

In fact I'd see that person as being the epitome of what we see in SC, a person just there to promote one ideological stance and not to discuss and as above it may not be being done as an honest thing but as a way to stir. I wouldn't confuse that with having an discussion. It would depend if the definition of discussion here is just putting anything up or whether what people want is to explore the pro's and con's of various topics. I'm just not interested in more of the same games being played, there's enough of it elsewhere.

I think you'd have to ask what is the standard here, is it anything goes which means the lunatic fringe has Carte Blanche in saying what they want or intelligent discussion? I thought it was the latter but if that's the case, I'd be the one to go because then there isn't a standard and it's just another re-run of what you see in SC and elsewhere.

Using youtube videos as a starter for a debate is fine. It is a quick simple way of getting a point across that can at least me mildly more stimulating than reading a huge wall of text. Justifications between radically different ideologies is where things will always become difficult. We are talking about fundamental belief that we hold dear. Bardan in the current context, clearly believes Education is a Privledge, contrary to you and I who believe it is a fundamental Right. This results in different way to approach the problem. I am happy to point out why me system works better for society as a whole and engage discussion, and it's fun debating with Libertarians as they are a rare breed in a centre-left country like New Zealand. I have not had sufficient time to scope out his full ideology and beliefs and debating style, therefore, for now at least, I am happy to engage in debate to further my knowledge of of his beliefs.

Blank.

Making threads for the sake of thread making.

superarmy wrote:Wow this topic feels like I'm in SC. Direct attack without substance, check. Failiure to recognize ideas and correctly refute them, check. Ignorance, check.

I, for one, welcome our new Libertarian member. He is a well rationed human being who at least merits decent discussion.

For a while I kind of saw where you were coming with this, but as I see him post more I don't think you're right at all.

He doesn't argue, debate or educate, he makes claims and refuses to back them up, picks apart sentences in order to attack fragments of an argument while leaving the rest unscathed, and is apparently incapable of picking up intent in posts, then accuses people of "moving the goalposts" when they get sick of his responding to irrelevant points and say "Can you please answer the question now?"

Who the fuck are you people talking about?

superarmy wrote:I, for one, welcome our new Libertarian member.

Ditto.

I haven't been around much lately, but hope he is still participating here when I have more time.

Summoner wrote:Who the fuck are you people talking about?

Thanks for making me laugh, Summoner ~ I really needed that! Your comment was just so unexpected, and I say this in a complimentary way, not as an insult.

I stand by my original post.

I stand by, but not on, your original post.