Uncle Bob:
Stefan Molyneux: wilheldp: Stefan Molyneux: I'm not going to debate Ron Paul any more, since I've now asked several times for evidence that he has reduced the size of government in his home district, where he has power, and all I get in response is that Ron has not voted to increase taxes.
Hey Stef, would your opinion of Ron Paul increase/decrease/stay the same if he abstained from every vote in Congress and still accomplished nothing? How about if he had never run for Congress and still accomplished nothing?
Do you think people would be more/less/similarly interested in your political/economic/personal happiness theories if you had decided to not distribute your podcasts?
Stefan Molyneux: no gun will ever set you free.
What if the gun were used to kill shooter? Guns don't kill people...people kill people.
My respect for Ron Paul would increase if he was not a superstitious mystic, not a hypocrite in his affirmation and denial of the non-aggression principle, and if his candidacy was not giving people false hope that violence can solve problems.
You're talking about Stef being dismissive towards you, not being dismissive of Ron Paul, right? My response assumes the former.
I'm trying to find the dismissiveness in Stef's response. I suppose we could also address the "nonsensical response" part that you mention also, but I think we should address one issue at a time.
Your first question is a multiple choice question that Stef did not answer by, in effect, "circling one of the choices". It could be said, however, that he addressed the general 'respect' aspect the question.
Stef did not respond to your second multiple choice question.
The rest of your post does not ask any questions.
You are claiming that Stef is clearly being dismissive in his response to you in this example. It is not my intention to simply defend Stef. If I ever find that he is a fraud, I will ditch him like I did the transcendental meditation movement years ago.
To claim someone is dismissive, in my opinion, necessarily means engaging in a direct action with the intent to dismiss someone. For example, saying something like, "you're new here, what do you know" -- I would take that as an overtly dismissive gesture.
Failing to answer questions asked, however, is not an overt action. Therefore, it cannot be dismissive. If someone does not do something, the only thing you can accuse him of is not doing something.
Does this make sense? If you have other examples, I'll be willing to look at them as well.
OK, if you look at what I have left of the original conversation above, you will note that there are 3 questions. You say that Stef answered the spirit of my first question while not "circling one of the choices" and I disagree. I wanted to know if Stef would like Ron better if he took the same stance of "voting lending legitimacy to the government". What I got was some nonsense about Ron being a "superstitious mystic". I don't even know what that means, much less how it pertains to any of my questions. As you note, my second question was summarily ignored. My third question, which summarizes my argument for Ron Paul, was ignored by both of you.
I will also summarize my reasoning behind supporing Ron Paul in 3, easy to debate bullet points:
1. There is going to be a new President next year. There is nothing you, I, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself can do about it. Given that fact of reality, I would like somebody in that office that makes my life as tolerable as possible from the "state intervention" side of things. There has not been a candidate running on one of the two major party tickets in the span of my memory that would accomplish that goal any better than Ron Paul. No, he is not the ideal candidate, but he is the least of several evils.
2. I do not agree with Stef's assertion that Ron is a hypocrit just by participating in government. If and only if Ron shared all of Stef's beliefs would that be true. The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is NOT a anarcho-capitalist, he is a Libertarian. He favors a much smaller government than we have now, but he still favors a government.
3. I do not agree with Stef's assertion that voting lends legitimacy to the government. If somebody gave me a choice between being shot in the face or shot in the hand, I think I would have to choose the hand. Of course, given all available options, I would like to not be shot at all, but that isn't an option in this scenario. If I don't make a choice, I probably have a better chance of getting shot in my face against my will.
By the way, the question that may have been taken as rhetorical in my original post, wasn't rhetorical. "What if the gun was used to kill the shooter?" I really believe that Ron will fight to reduce the size of the government (whether or not he will succeed is another question entirely). To me, that is far preferable to the candidates that talk not only about not reducing governmental control, but expanding it. But even given my argument above, and like I said earlier, I probably won't even end up voting. I just don't understand Stef's passionate arguments against Ron Paul.
Finally, here is another example of Stef walking away from a debate...
http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/thread/93649.aspx
Stef declares the debate over because the other side has no evidence when neither side has anecdotal evidence to support their argument.