Freedomain Radio

i assume he would pay for [the fence] by way of taxes or printed money or borrowed money.

So he is using violence to build a fence to stop people from moving here because that which he opposes the existence of (welfare) is being used by people who move here.

yes, that's it.

I'm not sure how telling the truth about what this guy thinks is "trashing" someone.  T

your initial points were about RP being a racist, not about the (payment for) the fence

he only comparison made to Hitler was the race issue (although the Jews are not a race, no one is born Jewish).  I'll concede on that though given that the word "solution" was used by Rod, not Ron.

but you have not backed down from your 'racist' accusation  while the grounds for that accusation seem flimsy as i tried to show (to which you still havent responded)

However, the comparison I made earlier was to the Berlin wall (built by the Russians after Hitler died), not necessarily to Hitler.

yes, but i dont quite understand why you use 'however'  here.

also, the Berlin wall was prevented to keep people from escaping, the fence Paul would build is to prevent people from coming in. It's the difference (if all were private property that is) between kidnapping somebody and not helping a 'kidnapped' person to escape to your property.

Nathan McKaskle:

Conrad:

I would often try to play the hero who protected others.

does that help?

What "others" were being protected from what?

Considering you're protecting a politician who implicitly in his actions condones a monopoly and the initiation of aggression from people who are against the initiation of aggression on moral grounds... I'd really like to know.

and I would be happy to answer your questions if you first went ahead and answered some of the questions I asked you earlier.

also, I may not answer this question until tomorrow as I have to leave not long from now

 

also, the Berlin wall was prevented to keep people from escaping, the fence Paul would build is to prevent people from coming in. It's the difference (if all were private property that is) between kidnapping somebody and not helping a 'kidnapped' person to escape to your property.

Coming into what? 

 

but you have not backed down from your 'racist' accusation  while the grounds for that accusation seem flimsy as i tried to show (to which you still havent responded)

While there could be a possibility that the out of context quote mischaracterized his views, given his views on Mexican immigration these views would be consistent.  I don't know, you could be right that he isn't a racist, but then again he is all about sovereignty and "America" so I would at least consider that bigotry if anything.

Nathan McKaskle:

 

also, the Berlin wall was prevented to keep people from escaping, the fence Paul would build is to prevent people from coming in. It's the difference (if all were private property that is) between kidnapping somebody and not helping a 'kidnapped' person to escape to your property.

Coming into what? 

into a territory where you can either partly (first generation immigrants) or fully (later generations) participate in legalized plunder

 

but you have not backed down from your 'racist' accusation  while the grounds for that accusation seem flimsy as i tried to show (to which you still havent responded)

While there could be a possibility that the out of context quote mischaracterized his views,

it's odd that you would say that 'the out of context quote mischaracterizes his views' since the quote itself doesnt say anything about the topic you thought it said something about [i.e. views on race, in particular racist views], so to say 'the out of context quote may mischaracterize his views' rather than 'I jumped to conclusions' seems unnecessarily evasive

given his views on Mexican immigration these views would be consistent. 

what views? racist views? in that case, it would be nice if you were to respond to the question I asked you earlier. I'll quote the post here

 

Nathan McKaskle:

a racist is somebody who thinks people of a certain race are inferior because of that race. Can you explain how this follows from what you wrote above?

 

The fact that he isn't advocating a wall on the Canadian border. 

 

 

and you dont think that poverty and the existence or non-existence of a welfare state have something to do with this?

is he also trying to prevent Mexican-Canadians from getting in?

 in short, his views on immigration do by no means imply that he holds racist views and thus it is empty for you to say 'While there could be a possibility that the out of context quote mischaracterized his views, given his views on Mexican immigration these views would be consistent. '

And below you sort of admit as much when you say:

I don't know, you could be right that he isn't a racist, but then again he is all about sovereignty and "America"  so I would at least consider that bigotry if anything.

Well, I would need some more specific Ron Paul quotes than your mere remark 'but then again he is all about sovereignty and "America"' to get an idea of how Ron Paul thinks about these matters.

in the absence of more specific quotes your remark seems like an attempt to evade criticism by making the terms ('bigot') and the evidence ('he is all about sovereignity and "America") much more vague (than 'racist' and the quote you based it on as well as the Mexico thing) so that it becomes harder to put my finger on what aspects of what you are saying are or may be incorrect, since it becomes less clear what you are saying.

In any case, even though I think I have showed that your argumentation throughout this discussion was quite weak (which does not mean that the point you were making is necessarily incorrect, only that your arguments for it are weak) you do not seem to have lost much of the venom with which you attack Ron Paul. That should perhaps give you pause for thought

Nathan McKaskle:

Conrad:

I would often try to play the hero who protected others.

does that help?

What "others" were being protected from what?

i think that varied but am not even sure. we would just play stories on the playground and there was this other group of kids in our class that we saw (not just while playing) as 'bad' and there was this girl who i think i then wanted to protect from them. But the interesting thing is that I remember very little about the content of the stories, what has stayed with me is the feeling of feeling heroic. and i dont mean heroic in like a brute or macho sense, but in a sort of noble friendly but firm sense.

Considering you're protecting a politician who implicitly in his actions condones a monopoly and the initiation of aggression from people who are against the initiation of aggression on moral grounds... I'd really like to know.

well, first of all I try to show the weaknesses in your argumentation which is not just defending Ron Paul, but may also help you directly and indirectly.

secondly, i dont see why the fact that somebody is a politician or a thief or a rapist or whatever means that they can be attacked unjustly and without grounds, in this case by linking him too Hitler and calling him a racist. attack RP all you want about his not being an anarcho-capitalist and thus being compromised, and i think (but not sure) it would also be okay to question his intellectual honesty on this basis and thus predict that if he gets into office he wont do what he now says. That all seems like legit criticism to me, but as I tried to show calling him a racist and linking him to Hitler on the basis of the race-quotes and his view on Mexican immigration seems wrong to me

thirdly, it could also be that I am holding the members of the FDR board to higher standards than I do with other people, since the people on the board exactly profess a belief in openness, vulnerability, honesty and rationality. That's great and that's also why it should be good and no-problem for other people to point out where FDR board members may go wrong in these respects: it will only help them understanding themselves and the world better and making future communication less tense. Whenever you feel that I am violating the before-mentioned standards then please let me know, cuz I dont want to do that and at times it takes other people to point my flaws out to me since I am too much 'in them'

I wrote above: [...] since the people on the board exactly profess a belief in openness, vulnerability, honesty and rationality. That's great and that's also why it should be good and no-problem for other people to point out where FDR board members may go wrong in these respects: it will only help them understanding themselves and the world better and making future communication less tense. Whenever you feel that I am violating the before-mentioned standards then please let me know, cuz I dont want to do that and at times it takes other people to point my flaws out to me since I am too much 'in them'

Let me give an example of doubts about my own behaviour that I have in this respect. In a thread on whether libertarians should have any hope that Ron Paul would be able and/or willing to shrink the size of government were he elected, and whether it is anyway legitimate for somebody to run for office if his intention is to shrink that office, I criticised Greg for a snarky response to something I wrote

Conrad: okay, no need for snarkiness. since the point you were making was a principled point about principles i thought it was fair to imagine an extreme example to test those principles and your commitment to them. I completely agree that the scenario I was sketching is hugely unrealistic, but it is a logical possibility and therefore your principles should apply to this.

the problem with such extreme examples of course is their rareness (rarity?) and this may make it pointless to discuss them, (just like in discussion with non-libertarians they often make up such bizarre and unlikely examples)  but I am not absolutely sure that this is so given the above (about principled points about principles) and given the fact that Ron Paul is somewhere on the continuum of which this example is one of the extremes. It could be that you are right that it is pointless to discuss such a scenario, but then please help me understand in more detail why this is so

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But looking back on remarks that I made in response to Nathan (see below), I don't know whether I am not doing exactly the same thing, being snarky, as what I was criticising Greg for. or rather, the question is: why did I initially sense negative energy/snarkiness coming from Greg's post whereas i dont recognize that negative energy/snarkiness in my own post while they in fact seem quite similar? and I would very much hope for people to be able to say something about this cuz I dont want to come across as snarky or be a hypocrite:

Nathan "Regardless of what Hitler might have done, the use of those words can still remind us of that time in which the word "solution" was used. 

Conrad: yes, just like it reminds me of how this new detergent is the *solution* to all your stain-problems

Nathan: Did any of those Jews or Germans see that coming?  No, it crept up real slowly after a number of "solutions" didn't work out as planned.  That the circumstances were different doesn't argue anything against the actual point Greg was trying to make.

Conrad: yes, so every time somebody starts something we dont know how it will work out and so we can link it to Hitler. "

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and as an example of how it has helped me in the past when people pointed out things about my behaviour to me, you can check out this thread http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/thread/59042.aspx

btw, I really should learn how to use quotes and respond to them in a correct layout

Stefan Molyneux:

No it's more personal than RP...

can you tell me whether you base this belief on my behaviour on the board (chossing this rather than other topics to respond to (either for its content or for its argumentation style or something else still), replying in rather rapid succession, and so on) or on personal information that you have about me?

I'd be very interested to know your reasons for saying this: I thought about the remark last night and I think it makes sense in an important way and i can think of several ways in which this may be so, but i do not know whether these are similar to your reasons and whether you see things that I do not (or cannot) see.

I saw a comedian last night at a comedy club in Houston.  It was a black comedian, claimed to be a Christian which isn't surprising.  He was complaining that white people didn't beat their children enough.  He said all kinds of horrible things about how he hates his kids yet "loves them to death" but really hates them.  That people were laughing is an indication of the state of the world or that they didn't think him serious.  I live in a very dominantly black neighborhood, I know he was serious, I see it all the time.  I can't remember all the things he said but not once does he think that hey, maybe this is why there are more black people in jail.

I was able to laugh at the rest of his routine but not at this part although I did chuckle in an uncomfortable "this is so wrong" kind of way and I guess in as Robert Heinlein says, humor is about wrongness. 

Nathan McKaskle:

I saw a comedian last night at a comedy club in Houston.  It was a black comedian, claimed to be a Christian which isn't surprising.  He was complaining that white people didn't beat their children enough.  He said all kinds of horrible things about how he hates his kids yet "loves them to death" but really hates them.  That people were laughing is an indication of the state of the world or that they didn't think him serious.  I live in a very dominantly black neighborhood, I know he was serious, I see it all the time.  I can't remember all the things he said but not once does he think that hey, maybe this is why there are more black people in jail.

I was able to laugh at the rest of his routine but not at this part although I did chuckle in an uncomfortable "this is so wrong" kind of way and I guess in as Robert Heinlein says, humor is about wrongness. 

comedians like Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle and Bill Cosby have made jokes and remarks about these issues though, about the negative aspects of 'black culture' (yes, that's an awfully big generalization)

but yeah, it shows the sad sad state of the world

Conrad:

Stefan Molyneux:

No it's more personal than RP...

can you tell me whether you base this belief on my behaviour on the board (chossing this rather than other topics to respond to (either for its content or for its argumentation style or something else still), replying in rather rapid succession, and so on) or on personal information that you have about me?

I'd be very interested to know your reasons for saying this: I thought about the remark last night and I think it makes sense in an important way and i can think of several ways in which this may be so, but i do not know whether these are similar to your reasons and whether you see things that I do not (or cannot) see.

Almost all the debates I have had with RP supporters are fundamentally religious in nature, which involve:

• blanket assertions of unprovable facts (RP will help reduce government in the future)
• blanket rejections of referenced facts (RP has not reduced government in the past)
• ignoring requests for factual information (i.e. how much spending has RP cut in the 20 years he's been in government?)
• totally ignoring information that opposes the pro-RP assertion
• when that information is repeated, responding with tangents, hostility, or continuing to ignore it
• totally ignoring what I think are strong arguments against the pro-RP position (i.e. the KKK metaphor I used lately, which was never responded to)
• biased use of statistics
• personal attacks (those who oppose RP are whiners, unrealistic, hostile, negative etc etc etc)
• and so on

Clearly, this is far more personal than RP, who nobody I've debated with known personally.

I believe that there are two main reasons for pro-RP irrationality (I don't mean that all pro-RP sentiments are irrational, just the ones I've debated)

1. A desire to stay within the bounds of 'mainstream' society, which includes not challenging others who have irrational pro-RP faith. This includes the belief that the existing system can be positively changed from within. It is painful to give up that belief.
2. A family member - probably a father - is being held on to despite strong evidence of corruption. This family member is probably a good talker - like RP - and also probably portrays himself as the 'good' parent'. This is the more important reason.

The defenses used in the RP debate are far too sophisticated and well-developed to just have 'popped up' for current political purposes. These are very old and deep defenses.

Does any of this ring true for you?

Does any of this ring true for you?

I thought my ears were ringing.

EDIT: nm the quote was messed up on one of your posts I missed the answer, sorry.

Maybe I am being evasive.  Maybe I did (and Rod, Stef and Greg and the news reporter) jump to conclusions about his views.  I've read a lot of Lew Rockwell articles by Ron Paul.  I'm well aware of his stance on immigration. I'm aware of his stance on "sovereignty" which is bigotry in my opinion. He lives about 20 minutes away from where I live.  I could vote for him if I moved slightly south.  I'm kind of up to date on Ron Paul and I am a former Ron Paul supporter.

Stefan Molyneux:

Conrad:

Stefan Molyneux:

No it's more personal than RP...

can you tell me whether you base this belief on my behaviour on the board (chossing this rather than other topics to respond to (either for its content or for its argumentation style or something else still), replying in rather rapid succession, and so on) or on personal information that you have about me?

I'd be very interested to know your reasons for saying this: I thought about the remark last night and I think it makes sense in an important way and i can think of several ways in which this may be so, but i do not know whether these are similar to your reasons and whether you see things that I do not (or cannot) see.

Almost all the debates I have had with RP supporters are fundamentally religious in nature, which involve:

• blanket assertions of unprovable facts (RP will help reduce government in the future)
• blanket rejections of referenced facts (RP has not reduced government in the past)
• ignoring requests for factual information (i.e. how much spending has RP cut in the 20 years he's been in government?)
• totally ignoring information that opposes the pro-RP assertion
• when that information is repeated, responding with tangents, hostility, or continuing to ignore it
• totally ignoring what I think are strong arguments against the pro-RP position (i.e. the KKK metaphor I used lately, which was never responded to)
• biased use of statistics
• personal attacks (those who oppose RP are whiners, unrealistic, hostile, negative etc etc etc)
• and so on

Clearly, this is far more personal than RP, who nobody I've debated with known personally.

I believe that there are two main reasons for pro-RP irrationality (I don't mean that all pro-RP sentiments are irrational, just the ones I've debated)

1. A desire to stay within the bounds of 'mainstream' society, which includes not challenging others who have irrational pro-RP faith. This includes the belief that the existing system can be positively changed from within. It is painful to give up that belief.
2. A family member - probably a father - is being held on to despite strong evidence of corruption. This family member is probably a good talker - like RP - and also probably portrays himself as the 'good' parent'. This is the more important reason.

The defenses used in the RP debate are far too sophisticated and well-developed to just have 'popped up' for current political purposes. These are very old and deep defenses.

Does any of this ring true for you?

eh Stef, first of all can you tell me in what posts I have been guilty of any of the above? Cuz I really dont see it, I think I tried to argue pretty openly and responded with facts and logic to every argument presented to me (and as I have tried to point out repeatedly i cannot say the same thing about the other participants in the discussion. so that makes me wonder whether you would approach their behaviour in a similar vein.

secondly, in this thread I have strictly limited myself to trying to show why the accusations of racism and the Hitler link are unfounded, and I think I have done so in a careful manner

thirdly, I myself still dont really know what to think about Ron Paul's entry into the race, so to call me a Ron Paul supporter in the same vein with the others seems somewhat preseumptuous

I will be happy to hear back from you

 

Conrad:

Considering you're protecting a politician who implicitly in his actions condones a monopoly and the initiation of aggression from people who are against the initiation of aggression on moral grounds... I'd really like to know.

well, first of all I try to show the weaknesses in your argumentation which is not just defending Ron Paul, but may also help you directly and indirectly.

secondly, i dont see why the fact that somebody is a politician or a thief or a rapist or whatever means that they can be attacked unjustly and without grounds, in this case by linking him too Hitler and calling him a racist. attack RP all you want about his not being an anarcho-capitalist and thus being compromised, and i think (but not sure) it would also be okay to question his intellectual honesty on this basis and thus predict that if he gets into office he wont do what he now says. That all seems like legit criticism to me, but as I tried to show calling him a racist and linking him to Hitler on the basis of the race-quotes and his view on Mexican immigration seems wrong to me

Ok I'll admit connecting him to Hitler was a bad move.  I don't think Greg's point about Hitler had to do with what Hitler did as much as how Ron Paul thinks something must be done about the Mexicans (the only connection being "something must be done about those Jews").  It is Ron Paul's view that America exists that is the problem.  It is Ron Paul's view that something must be done about "immigration" (moving) and that we should use violence to "protect" this non-existent "America" from people who move to the north into what he thinks is "America".  It is the same kind of bigotry as religious faith.

 

thirdly, it could also be that I am holding the members of the FDR board to higher standards than I do with other people, since the people on the board exactly profess a belief in openness, vulnerability, honesty and rationality. That's great and that's also why it should be good and no-problem for other people to point out where FDR board members may go wrong in these respects: it will only help them understanding themselves and the world better and making future communication less tense. Whenever you feel that I am violating the before-mentioned standards then please let me know, cuz I dont want to do that and at times it takes other people to point my flaws out to me since I am too much 'in them'

No I want to be honest and I agree that I was a little over the top with the Hitler thing.  I really tire of the argumentum ad Hitlerum anyway because it really doesn't help anyone's argument to try and link things to Hitler.

 

I haven't gotten a really strong impression that you're a big Ron Paul supporter. I think he's talking about others mostly.