Freedomain Radio

Hi. Apologies if this is in the wrong section -  I was looking for something like the "first encounters" section but for later encounters :D

So as the title suggests I i'm currently feeling like I'm swimming in a sea of full-on retards. This causes me to get into arguments that I'm pretty sure I should know better than to be dragged in to. I guess i'm looking for some validation that i'm not just being a loon. I don't mind being criticised - If i am all wrong then I ned to know!

So the thread will contain some bits that I wouldn't be particularly proud of. The thread started with someone posting a youtube video of an alternative view of the monarchy (having just had the jubilee celebrations in the UK) where it suggests it's bad because the nepotistic nature in which the head of state is selected, etc, etc. The video got alot of negative feedback, and amongst it I stated that for my two pennies, I think the monarchy is a disgusting institution (most of the guys are familiar with my anarchistic views). One guy - a serving officer that wears the bearskin hats and does all the royal guard & parades, etc - kicked off big time with all the usual personal inults. He pointed to my avatar which states that "taxation is theft" with a little icon of a police man, dollar sign in his speech bubble, pointing a gun to a man on his knees. "Everyone can see through your 'taxation is theft' nonsense" etc, etc... and so the thread turns into a general free for all where everyone slams me for being insane in suggesting that taxation is theft, and how ungrateful I am for the service the queen provides me, etc.

Here's an extract involving one particular poster (there are others but they are less persistent) who I think seems to keep saying not much at all and blaming me for not having an answer to his non-questions:

(Note that the comments regardign the Rothbard clip were posted by me, in response to another poster who was quite civil, and their inclusion here is because this poster referenced my Rothbard post.)

    statist:

        Me wrote:

            statist wrote:
            I think we have all listened to your rhetoric and on many occassions engaged in reasoned discussions with you but its time to point out a few obvious truths.

            First, if it wasnt for all that you despise and mock, you would most certainly be incarcerated or dead for publicising your opinions.

            Secondly you appear to be educated and consider yourself pretty smart, unfortunately you are also demonstrating your naivety.

            You make lazy, ill informed intellectual judgements of historical events from a purely modern perspective.

            Take a good look at the real geo-politics of the situation at that time, the attitudes and aspirations of the competing superpowers and also find out what the life was really like for the ordinary people at the time.

            You might be surprised how many ordinary people welcomed our brutal and murderous empire, along with its justice system, public order, infrastructure and the security it offered those subjects at the time.

            Nothings perfect and I dont have rose tinted glasses either but it was progress for many millions of people.

            To be honest you wouldn't last 5 minutes in most countries of the world with your public rhetoric so why not consider a little more gratitude to the people who keep you safe.

            If you cannot, then the alternative is to find your own utopia, if, as you so obviously believe, it can exist somewhere in the world.

            I am sure they would welcome you with open arms, if only to man the baricades and fight to keep the evil empires out.

            Meanwhile, thanks Queenie for putting on a really good show and letting us have an extra days holiday. :)

            With the Olympic fiasco on its way, this could be the last chance to put something on that goes right. Thank god the government didn't organise it. :o



        The thing is, statist, I uderstand what you're saying; but that's the same as saying "slave masters used to be able to beat their slaves every day of the week. Now they are only allowed to beat them once a week. That's amazing progress and the slaves should be happy only being beaten once a week".



    Pretty sure, from your answer, or lack of it, you do not.

    Travel broadens the mind, try a year or two in some of the old outposts of the empire and see what the natives have to say. Somalia should be on your list, you might find it educational



Me:

I ignored most of the points because they are full of logical fallacies, arguments from effect, strawmen, and generally distract from the point.

As far as old outposts go, they seem to want us back. The reason being that our occupations forced change upon them, and now, having left, they are unable to manage the society we've left them with. There are so many troubles in places like Sierra Lone, Zimbabwe, Kenya, etc that are arguably artifacts left by the introduction of coercive state machinery. If I didn't know that Rudyard kipling was a racist I'd be certain that "White man's burden" was satire.




statist:

    Me wrote:......

    I ignored most of the points because they are full of logical fallacies, arguments from effect, strawmen, and generally distract from the point.



The points I made were all directly related to, and relevant to, the stance that you take. Trying to switch/divert the discussion when faced with overwhelming evidence against your argument is childish.

Millions of people took pleasure in the Jubilee celebrations, what a bonus in this day and age. Thousands of people happy and enjoying themselves for a few days.

It takes a special kind of person to want to pi55 on that parade....





Me:

    statist wrote:

        Me wrote:......

        I ignored most of the points because they are full of logical fallacies, arguments from effect, strawmen, and generally distract from the point.



    The points I made were all directly related to, and relevant to, the stance that you take. Trying to switch/divert the discussion when faced with overwhelming evidence against your argument is childish.

    Millions of people took pleasure in the Jubilee celebrations, what a bonus in this day and age. Thousands of people happy and enjoying themselves for a few days.

    It takes a special kind of person to want to pi55 on that parade....



Could you please direct me to that overwhelming "evidence"? I must have missed it.
If you don't know the difference between strawmen and "evidence", then calling me childish says more about you than I.





statist:

    Me wrote:
    I'm with Rothbard in this clip:
    (youtube title reckons this destroys statists - prepare to be destroyed!!! :bang: )



Are you for real ... :roll: :roll:

It presents nothing to make a case against statists, never mind "destroy". Zero facts or evidence to prove the theory ... nada... nothing... whats the point ?

Talk about clutching at straws.

Guess its the appeal of being in a very small, exclusive minority that drives you to take this elitist stance. Justified, in your mind, by casting those who don't agree as not intellectually worthy of understanding your utopian ideals.

You could hold a convention for all like thinkers.. a phone box should do it. :lol: :lol: :lol:







statist:

    Me wrote:

        statist wrote:The points I made were all directly related to, and relevant to, the stance that you take. Trying to switch/divert the discussion when faced with overwhelming evidence against your argument is childish.

        Millions of people took pleasure in the Jubilee celebrations, what a bonus in this day and age. Thousands of people happy and enjoying themselves for a few days.

        It takes a special kind of person to want to pi55 on that parade....



    Could you please direct me to that overwhelming "evidence"? I must have missed it.
    If you don't know the difference between strawmen and "evidence", then calling me childish says more about you than I.



Still unable to offer any answer ......... Ho Hum :whistle: :whistle:





    statist wrote:

        Me wrote:[
        I'm with Rothbard in this clip:
        (youtube title reckons this destroys statists - prepare to be destroyed!!! :bang: )



    Are you for real ... :roll: :roll:

    It presents nothing to make a case against statists, never mind "destroy". Zero facts or evidence to prove the theory ... nada... nothing... whats the point ?

    Talk about clutching at straws.

    Guess its the appeal of being in a very small, exclusive minority that drives you to take this elitist stance. Justified, in your mind, by casting those who don't agree as not intellectually worthy of understanding your utopian ideals.

    You could hold a convention for all like thinkers.. a phone box should do it. :lol: :lol: :lol:



Me:

I didn't claim that this clip "destroys statists"; only that the title of the clip suggested as much. What I did say is that I agree with Rothbard with regards to the content of the clip.

Again your post contributes nothing to the discussion, unless ofcourse you value unqualified assertions about my character and the inner workings of my mind as useful discourse, and not red-herrings designed attack the validity of the ethical positions that I advocate.

Hannibal:

Hi. Apologies if this is in the wrong section -  I was looking for something like the "first encounters" section but for later encounters :D

Well, I'm kind of the "village statist" here, so let me give you a few pointers.   First of all, as yourself, what is your purpose?  Are you trying to change somebody's mind? 

If so, the conversation has gone way, way to far.  Nobody changes their mind when they are angry.  

Never say "your arguments are full of falacies".  If you think somebody's so far gone that they are making all kinds of falcies, don't bother talking to them.  

I've been taking about this stuff on the internet since 1990, and I've never once seen---at the sound of the mighty words "you are making a falacy!!"  that the other person just says "you are right!!  what was I thinking!!!".     It just never happens.

And yet, I've seen people change their minds all the time.  The best thing to do is put forth a positive view of the kind of society you want to live in.  Make it as concrete and as vividly real as you can.  Make it a place they will want to live in.

Thanks for the feedback.

What was I hoping to achieve? Well not much really. Initially I literally just stated "I think that the Monarchy is a disgusting institution" in the same way as I casually mention from time to time to people during relevant conversation that taxation is immoral. I say just that incase it prompts some to ask the question "Why do you think that?". The trouble is that often, as was in this case, noone asked me any questions at all; They just launch into a barrage of arguments containing more personal (or generalized) insults than actual points to talk about.

So, in retrospect, it would have been better to just let it wash over me; but because the responses were so personal, and pretty much entirely irrelevent assertions, it's always very difficult to avoid stating the obvious which is "what on earth are you talking about?!". Especially as it's a forum where I have a personal, real-world, interaction with members. Noone likes to be mocked infront of their peers without retort.

Looking back I can see that having asked to advise if i'm "being a tool" or not, i've not really given you guys much to go on :D   I'm just so unable to understand how people can argue so fiercly & unreasonably about issues, with zero interest in actually thinking about the subject. I can't help but feel concerned sometimes that actually I'm the crazy one.

You might be surprised how many ordinary people welcomed our brutal and murderous empire, along with its justice system, public order, infrastructure and the security it offered those subjects at the time.

Or he might consider that millions of people consider us terrorists for the very thing he is praising. Depends on your pespective, I suppose. If you believe the rhetroic of our leaders, then sure, the US is hero. If you believe 911 was not because they hate our freedoms, then maybe foreighers have a legitimate beef. 

As for debating with fools. Don't. t gets you nowhere and just makes you question your sanity. If the world is insane, then being sane is crazy.

Well, generally, if someone lashes out on you in an irrational way, what you can do is get THEM to explain their point. If it's irrational it will fall sooner or later, and all you need to do is point out and make explicit, where their logic fails them.

Also in regards to fallacies: I think most people don't know them and if they do, they often don't know the proper name for each, so you might wanna just point out specific fallacies in another ones argument and make explicit the logical error in reasoning, that way every reader can see that directly AND most importantly learn something about logic and arguments and errors in reasoning.

I mean the reason, why most people think and act irrationaly is cause no one ever thought them logic. But everyone sure has the need and capacity for seeing the world in a non-contradictory fashion. So when debating, especially when it's not only you and some other guy, but more people listen/read along, it sure helps to explain in more explicit details logical errors in the other persons argument.

My experience is, that they usually try to use a red herring to get out of that akward spot, but try pointing that out too and see how it goes...

Not sure, what to say about your question though, since I'm not sure if I understand the phrase "being a tool" correctly (not a native english speaker here..)

Thanks guys. Apparently they don't need to explain themselves because they have a masters degree "in the bleedin obvious". :D

Just frustration coming out at bigots attacking me for being intolerant of other people's opinions (apparently askign why people think things is intolerance).

Don't wrestle with pigs in the mud - the pig will like it and you both will get dirty. Even worse, someone watching you can't tell the difference.

Libertus:

Don't wrestle with pigs in the mud - the pig will like it and you both will get dirty. Even worse, someone watching you can't tell the difference.

Well said.

Unfortunately, the smarter your debate partner, the better they will be at self delusion.  I watch for this in myself continuously. Fortunately I am not that smart so I don't have to worry about fooling myself too often.  (At least I don't think I do)

The battle of ideas is definately a tough one.  The quest to find others who value curiosity and honesty is even more difficult.

Well, consider what you are dealing with here.  "... thanks Queenie for putting on a really good show and letting us have an extra days holiday. :)"  Even if that comment was said partially in jest, it underlies the perspective of the person in question - they got a "handout" from their master for which they are grateful. (sarcasm on) He enjoyed his "bread and circus" and "how dare" you take that away from him (sarcasm off).

I think your point about "fewer slave beatings" was right on target - from this perspective and from the standpoint of Colonialism / Imperialism - but emotional attachment is assurred when someone is facing the prosepect realizing their mental incarceration and daily servitude - big self-esteem hit, there. 

As to whether you should allow yourself to be "dragged in" - that is a personal decision about time and effort versus returns.  Many may read your thread, be afraid to comment for fear of getting bashed, but learn something about useful rhetoric from your points.  In short, I don't think you are being "a loon" at all. 

Regarding Colonialism, I would point out that while many prior-practices may have been awful, the practice of intentionally destroying local self-sufficiency, in order to create a supply of cheap labor and/or support a mercantilist system, not to mention the expropriation of natural resources, undermines any claim of "good intentions" on the part of the Imperial Colonizers. They merely substituted their own immoral exploitation, which they termed "more civilized," for the brutalilty which (may have) existed previously. 

Regarding anthropromorphism - out-of-time judgements of which you are accused - saying something was "the dominant mode of civilization at the time" just not justify crimes - at all. Apologists for brutality, attempting to justify the privledge they enjoy, or that which they feel emotionally attached to as a result of nationalistic-brainwashing, will often pull out this song and dance. 

Not sure where "Statist" has lived, but I find almost all nations outside of Sharia-states, China, or North Korea to be much more "free" than any Western state. They have their shortcomings to be sure, most due to poverty and wealth / resource flight, but people are generally not harrassed by the state on a regular basis; as they are not tamed / broken like Westerners, they would revolt to such micromanaging of their private lives and businesses. Granted, one needs to actually move into an apartment around "regular people" (not tourists reinforcing their reality-bubble) and get to know the locals to have a worthy opinion. (I have not visited Africa.)

Lastly, I would say, when Statists start to go off, ask them more questions - try to get them to think things through - then address those points. The speakers probably don't know they are speaking fallacies - if they even understand what a logical fallacy is. Give a reasonable analogy which shows the fallacy and ask if they would go along with that too. Let them try to explain how your analogy doesn't apply - pick good analogies - this takes practice.

Part of the goal is to understand the Statist-mind; in that light, t is Your Mind that is being honed through this exercise.

 When you say that someones arguments are full of logical fallacies, it's best to clarify and point them out. The person is unlikely to be willing and able to see them by himself. Just saying there is a logical fallacy doesn't disprove the argument or aid in learning.

Thanks for the replies. I just got back from holiday so I've only just seen them. I like the pigs in the mud comment!

sammy:

 When you say that someones arguments are full of logical fallacies, it's best to clarify and point them out. The person is unlikely to be willing and able to see them by himself. Just saying there is a logical fallacy doesn't disprove the argument or aid in learning.

Yeah, I agree. I guess that when trying to point out why a person's argument or "evidence" doesn't make sense is like beating one's head agaist a wall, then I use a term like "logical fallacies" in the vain hope that that might look it up on wikipedia or something. Unfortunately it seems that most people's response to encountering something they are unfamiliar with, or don't understand, is to pretend they didn't hear it.