Who is Dark_man???

[Dark_Man]

1. How'd you find the Freethought Forum?

I was trying to find IRON MAN from IIDB and someone there said he went here.

2. Are you a member of any other online forums? Which?

IIDB and 1-2 gaming ones including my own clans.

3. How do you feel about smilies (emoticons)?

Depends on weather the person using them has a clue what they mean or not...:)

4. How do you feel about 3000+ smilies?

fuck off

5. Is flaming:
A. Hilarious
B. Beneath you
C. Irritating as fuck

All of the above. Depends on my mood.

6. Is vulgar language:
A. Hilarious
B. Beneath you
C. Irritating as fuck

Lets try D it's fucking normal for people to fucking cuss and I'm so god dam mother fucking sick of people around me telling me not to. Then again I live in the Bible belt...:(

7. Why did the chicken cross the road?

Cause he could? How the hell should I know I'm not a chicken.

8. Who pays for your food?

Not me. That is all that matters...:) Sesame Chicken FTW.

9. What's one thing you've always wanted to do but never have?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Spend an entire week hanging out with Jessica Beil...:) Preferably on a beach in timbuck to with no1 else around for 200 miles... :bow:

10. What is your single favorite place in the world?

Sigh... I miss Arwic on Solclaim in Asherons Call. Talk about good times. Yeah I know us MMO addicts are sick people.

11. What's the significance of your username?

When I was younger (17-19) for like 2 yrs we had been trying to figure out a good nickname for me. Problem is my real first name is well pretty dam unique. Like 6 people in the US have the same first name with the same spelling unique. So when I was around 19 me and 3 friends went to see the movie in the theaters. One of them was this totally hot chiq that I had a HUGE (unshared) crush on. When we were walking out of the theater she just suddenly says that is it my nickname is darkman. Cause I ware ALLOT of black cloths. It just sort of stuck. Later when I got on IRC I started using Dark_Man as in "The Dark Man" and that is who I've been for 10+ yrs now.

Owe and no I'm not black. I'm born and bread GA boy of Scottish/English dissent. Although I'm sure if you find one of those fuck-nuts in #kkk on EFnet IRC that I used to terrorize they will sware up and down I'm black.

12. What about your avatar?

Come to think of it my lame ass should probably make one.




Frankly I'm looking forward to hanging out here. The mood on IIDB is starting to freak me out. Its like they all have some mental disorder that prevents them from thinking clearly about anything. Especially things that involve politics or Bush.

Owe and I'm a pretty smart person but I'm dyslexic. So I don't do spelling a grammar. I've learned to use a spell checker and I generaly make one solid pass to catch obvious stuff but if you don't like the couple of things I inevitably miss well fuck you cause I'm not going to take 20 fucking minutes to figure out every little mistake to write one fucking paragraph.

:wave: Dark_Man

PS - IRON MAN we need to talk...:)

PPS - I forgot to mention I'm an atheist. Not one of these whiny weak atheists ether. I'm the would burn every bible in site if they would let me type atheist. Religion is for weak minded stupid people.

Owe and I'm also not a leftist peace and love type person ether. I actually like Bush. If his dumb ass would just stop all that god bullshit he might be worth the air he breaths. I'm sure plenty of you will learn to hate me for this to but its all good. I'm quite capable of defending myself... :whup:

[ceptimus]

Welcome, Dark_Man.

[IRON MAN]

Setting a high standard yourself I see. Good to see you again.

Could be the start of an IIDB exodus. :wink:

I get the feeling you'll like it here. viscousmemories and livius drusus are the administrators, and shock horror you can openly debate them, (and they have no compunction about debating back either), on any topic including board policy. Just like the FSM always intended for the internet to be.

It took me a while to get used to the avatars, signatures and liv's apparently ongoing mission to host every smilie in existence, but now I don't mind. There are plenty of options to disable the clutter. I recommend that at least temporarily if it bothers you.

For your avatar, and since we are all doing the Halloween thing, (no we are not just a bunch of psychos). you could always go with the all too obvious Liam Neeson character, (at least for this month).

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1460/untitled1gv2.gif

Glad to have you on board.

[Legs]

Welcome Dark_Man :darkness:

[livius drusus]

Not every smiley, I'll have you know. I have extremely high standards. :hmph:

Welcome to FF, Dark_man. :welcome1:

[viscousmemories]

:welcome: to the FF, Dark_Man.

[godfry n. glad]

Yeah... She won't even let discomonkey in, despite having that abhorent little drunken blind onion with gum on his foot.

Welcome Darkman. I'm one of the Bushit haters around here. The current administration is so fucking bush league.

FF is worldwide, too. It would be rash to assume that your audience here are all USers.

[Dark_Man]

Thx for the welcomes... The one question that comes to my mind is what are these boards about? I guess what I mean is what is the mood around here like? On IIDB it was obvious it was 90% about religion which inevitably leads to politics, and its all leftist oriented. What is the mood like here? Any taboos? Things I should know?

And yes in case you hadn't figured it out I've discovered that I'm the rarest of beasts. I'm hard core atheist but I'm not a humanist (tree hugging pinko commie) or an anarchist(smoking drinking sex addict that is self destructing).

Godfry to clairfiy... I don't really like Bush. I just don't hate him. I'm a lesser of two evils sort of person. I shutter to think at how horrible things would be if Gore was pres.

[Dark_Man]

Hmmm I answered some of my own questions by reading the history. Very interesting stuff. I never understood that IIDB is actually owned by a 501 non profit. Makes more sense to me now why they are run how they are. No one is actually "in charge".

I think I might like it here... :chin:

[viscousmemories]

It's pretty much like any other general discussion board here, but without much moderation. Do unto others and all that. If you approach issues with a closed mind and label people who don't share your views as "tree hugging pinko commies" (for instance) you'll probably end up on the receiving end of a lot of reciprocal nastiness or on a lot of ignore lists. :shrug:

[godfry n. glad]

Sure thing, Dark_man... I'm not a real big fan of Gore, either. He stinks of the same ol' plutocracy that's been trying to fleece the American public for decades now. Yet, somehow, I think we'd have been in a much better situation right now had Bush not been appointed to the presidency by five Supreme Court turncoats.

I bailed out of the Democratic party this year after too many years of staggering disappointment. I'll vote how I damned well please, and I'm not very happy with all three branches of the government being beholden to the same political party....it leads to a misguided arrogance in governance, just like it did for LBJ, another son-of-a-bitch in the White House.

I'm of the opinion that, in comparison to the "sins" of the Clinton Administration, those of the Dumbya bush league administration are downright traitorous. Of course, I can trace a lot of the silliness in governance back to the machinations of the Dulles brothers in the Eisenhauer administration and the control of the "defense" sector of the economy by too few, too powerful, economic interests. Since the mid-20th century, those formerly "American" industries have grown beyond the boundaries of the United States and have been able to strategically "buy" the necessary influence to continue their control of US policy positions, even when, in the longer term, it can be shown that such influence is detrimental to the US as a nation.

Military/industrial corporate good has diverged considerably from the good of the nation. I'd bet that a good portion of the profits don't even go to American citizens, but to Saudi, Japanese and Mainland Chinese interests. I'd bet that a concerted effort on the part of OPEC nations to disinvest in US capital markets could economically emasculate the US.

[Dark_Man]

Godfry hmmmmm........... I do admit there is some truth in what you say. I like to simplify things for the sake of making a choice though. Its clear to me terrorist want to kill me. Thus I lean twards solving that problem first while simply trying to prevent other problems from getting to much worse. What good does it do us if the dems stop the evil rebulican conspiracy just to have us all blow up by Iranian nukes. Its makes no sense. We will surely bump heads in the news and polatics board though... :argue:

On a whole other topic I'm already liking this place. Anyone that lets me have a BFG 9000 and a hot chiq to shoot it gets my vote.

:abitmuch: :Motoko: :q?:

[godfry n. glad]

Thx for the welcomes... The one question that comes to my mind is what are these boards about? I guess what I mean is what is the mood around here like? On IIDB it was obvious it was 90% about religion which inevitably leads to politics, and its all leftist oriented. What is the mood like here? Any taboos? Things I should know?

Considering that many came here to escape the many little tin gods that bedevil IIDB, there also tends to be a high level of similar outlooks represented amongst the FF membership. There also seems to a correlation with a tendency to challenge authority.

And yes in case you hadn't figured it out I've discovered that I'm the rarest of beasts. I'm hard core atheist but I'm not a humanist (tree hugging pinko commie) or an anarchist(smoking drinking sex addict that is self destructing).

I'm going to be charitable and assume that this doesn't necessarily mean that you're a asphalt and concrete hugging, holier-than-thou, frigid, teetotalling, jackbooted fascist.

Just to forewarn you, there are some really, really decent theists on this list. You'll probably run into them in due course. You may not even realize it.

As for "taboos", I recommend that if you are a NAMBLA member, or feel the need to defend paedophilia, you'll run into some pretty rigid opposition. Other than that, sheer incoherency is the fastest way to get yourself on multiple ignore lists.

[IRON MAN]

As far as I can tell, this forum has more than it's fair share of lefties, but I always took that to be the result of its atheist origins.

I soon discovered at IIDB, that in the minds of some atheists:

Right wing political idea = religion = automatically wrong.

Therefore:

Left wing political idea = anti-religion = automatically right.

This tends to create a lot more atheists who sit at home with a bong in their lap, biting their fingernails while watching Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth', than you would otherwise expect from people supposedly involved in critical thinking.

Trust me, being on the ignore list of some people would be no great loss, because you are not talking to another free-thinking human being anyway, just a regurgitating Dembot. Besides, who the hell cares about anyone who can't handle a differing opinion anyway?

[viscousmemories]

As far as I can tell, this forum has more than it's fair share of lefties, but I always took that to be the result of its atheist origins.
I've noticed that a number of atheists (at IIDB, anyway) seem to believe there is a natural connection between atheism and liberal politics. I even started a PD thread on the subject a couple years ago, asking the rhetorical question: Are all atheists liberals? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=105881) (Which I haven't recently re-read, so I can't say whether I still hold the opinions that I expressed in that thread.) Still, I'm a lot more interested in whether someone can provide good reasons and arguments for their beliefs and opinions than how or where they might've originated.

Trust me, being on the ignore list of some people would be no great loss, because you are not talking to another free-thinking human being anyway, just a regurgitating Dembot. Besides, who the hell cares about anyone who can't handle a differing opinion anyway?
Then again, it's possible that a freethinker who can handle differing opinions might put you (the general you) on ignore because they've determined that the probability of your posting something of value or interest to him or her is slim enough that it doesn't warrant investing their time in reading your posts.

[IRON MAN]

I've noticed that a number of atheists (at IIDB, anyway) seem to believe there is a natural connection between atheism and liberal politics. I even started a PD thread on the subject a couple years ago, asking the rhetorical question: Are all atheists liberals? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=105881) (Which I haven't recently re-read, so I can't say whether I still hold the opinions that I expressed in that thread.) Still, I'm a lot more interested in whether someone can provide good reasons and arguments for their beliefs and opinions than how or where they might've originated.

Well that's my point, most of them are what I would refer to as 'dogmatic atheists'. They believe religion is bullshit, because they believe religion is bullshit, or because their parents were psycho fundies and they didn't like it. Therefore they think everything a liberal says must be true. In this way they are more 'anti-religion' than 'atheist'.

I'm amazed at the number of people, (at IIDB in particular), that have apparently learned debates like evolution/creation by rote but never expended one nanojoule of brain power thinking about it.

It is my contention that the true liberal position is closer to Libertarianism, and the current "liberal" left is an extremist position so far left that's it's off the fucking map.

In that way I agree that atheism is, (generally speaking), a liberal position in terms of old school liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism).

Your thread, (which I will make a point of reading in it's entirety later), looks like a more to the point version of the same subject that came up in my IIDB thread Mud-blood Atheists vs. Pure-blood Atheists. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168605&highlight=mud-blood)

Then again, it's possible that a freethinker who can handle differing opinions might put you (the general you) on ignore because they've determined that the probability of your posting something of value or interest to him or her is slim enough that it doesn't warrant investing their time in reading your posts.

Okay conceded. And I support their right to do so. But still I am also entitled to my opinions that;

a. some people do it just because they are pussies.

and that;

b. as you point out, some people do it as a non-pussy way of exercising their right to choose for their own personal non-pussy reasons.

Only the FSM really knows the difference. :fsm:

But I can still say I think someone is a pussy for doing it, especially if they state what I think are limp-wristed reasons for doing so.

[viscousmemories]

Well that's my point, most of them are what I would refer to as 'dogmatic atheists'. They believe religion is bullshit, because they believe religion is bullshit, or because their parents were psycho fundies and they didn't like it. Therefore they think everything a liberal says must be true. In this way they are more 'anti-religion' than 'atheist'.
I'm following all this except "therefore they think everything a liberal says must be true." Did you mean everything an atheist says?

It is my contention that the true liberal position is closer to Libertarianism, and the current "liberal" left is an extremist position so far left that's it's off the fucking map.

In that way I agree that atheism is, (generally speaking), a liberal position in terms of old school liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism).
Truth be told terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are almost useless to me in anything but a really general sense, since I hate arguing about politics and spend very little time trying to pigeonhole myself or others by their political views. (Although I know enough to know that liberals are right and Libertarians are whackjobs. :P)

Your thread, (which I will make a point of reading in it's entirety later), looks like a more to the point version of the same subject that came up in my IIDB thread Mud-blood Atheists vs. Pure-blood Atheists. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168605&highlight=mud-blood)
I'll check it out.

But I can still say I think someone is a pussy for doing it, especially if they state what I think are limp-wristed reasons for doing so.
Fair enough.

[IRON MAN]

I'm following all this except "therefore they think everything a liberal says must be true." Did you mean everything an atheist says?

No I was referring to the tendency of some people to leave their fundie home, grow their hair long, smoke marijuana, and attend Green Peace conventions just because that's the opposite of what everyone at church does.

Truth be told terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are almost useless to me in anything but a really general sense, since I hate arguing about politics and spend very little time trying to pigeonhole myself or others by their political views.

Well I can tell you that I don't exactly agree with everything the Libertarian Party has to say either, but it's just a concise way of stating my political views generally.

(Although I know enough to know that liberals are right and Libertarians are whackjobs. :P)

Of course you believe know that. Doesn't matter if you are left or right, that's the standard dismissal of Libertarianism because there aren't any good arguments against it. :P

[godfry n. glad]

I'm following all this except "therefore they think everything a liberal says must be true." Did you mean everything an atheist says?

No I was referring to the tendency of some people to leave their fundie home, grow their hair long, smoke marijuana, and attend Green Peace conventions just because that's the opposite of what everyone at church does.

Hmmm...That's not my experience. I grew my hair long, learned to smoke cannabis, and left home. I then participated in the establishment of the local Greenpeace chapter. Although I had attended church youth group meetings at the local Methodist church, I was the in-house agnostic skeptic. Also, I learned to smoke cannabis from the deacon's son, who was, for years, my supplier.

Truth be told terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are almost useless to me in anything but a really general sense, since I hate arguing about politics and spend very little time trying to pigeonhole myself or others by their political views.

Well I can tell you that I don't exactly agree with everything the Libertarian Party has to say either, but it's just a concise way of stating my political views generally.

I certainly hope not. In my perspective, the Libertarian Party is oxymoron. As I see it, anybody who is truly libertarian would have no part of any kind of groupthink.

(Although I know enough to know that liberals are right and Libertarians are whackjobs. :P)

Of course you believe know that. Doesn't matter if you are left or right, that's the standard dismissal of Libertarianism because there aren't any good arguments against it. :P

:roflmao:

What? Other than it has little to do with any kind of political reality?

[Dark_Man]

Its funny because in some ways I'm a dogmatic atheist. Its not really because I can't learn the arguments. Its because I just don't want to spend hours and hours learning something I already know is true. Call it belief or gut feeling whatever. I gave up long ago trying to deconvert people. I know the arguments I just don't study the details over and over etc if you get what I mean. Its part of the reason I've all but stopped going to the religion board on IIDB. I learned ALLOT in my first 2-3 months and proved to myself what I believed was right and that was that.

My problem is politics. The number of dogmatic people on each side of politics is completely insane. Its like they would kill their baby's if the other side said all baby's must live. The number of conspiracy nuts on the far left scares me. Recently if you study PD on IIDB every other post is about some neocon conspiracy to take over the world. However the very same person posting in that thread says that the neocons are incompetent in another thread etc etc. So which is it? I could go on and on. It all comes back to one simple thing... Allot of the leftists only have one pet issue. They then automatically side with all the other leftists about all the other issues just to oppose the "evil religious right". However they then end up opposing ideas that at any other time a sane person would see as a good thing. In short they have become obstructionists.

My other problem is Humanism. On paper its a great idea. In practice its VERY dangerous. Why? Because its borderline on pacifism. At least the ones I know of do. They clamor to give equal rights to terrorist that want to kills us. They would rather see a grove of trees live than food grown on that land, but then bitch about people starving in some crazy place I've never heard of before. On and on. Thus you get my pinko commie tree hugger comment. This is a complicated issue and every person is different. However it has been my observation that ALLOT of atheists and agnostics have jumped on this bandwagon and preach the party line.

I'm a much more particle person. The captain on Firefly said it best. "People try and kill you. You try and kill them back." I feel that many times atheist take very simple things and blur the lines with over thinking them to a point of inaction. Which to me is very illogical and has nothing to do with critical thinking.

Sigh I could go on and on but I'll rap this up with one simple point. I probably should be a little bit more open minded about certain subjects. However I know plenty of leftists that need to be ALLOT more open minded about ALLOT of subjects.

[Dark_Man]

I'm following all this except "therefore they think everything a liberal says must be true." Did you mean everything an atheist says?

No I was referring to the tendency of some people to leave their fundie home, grow their hair long, smoke marijuana, and attend Green Peace conventions just because that's the opposite of what everyone at church does.

See this is what baffles me. I sort of understand it, but I don't understand why SO MANY atheist do this. They are not "atheist" they are anti-religion. OR I guess maybe just anti-establishment? Maybe all 3? This then morphs into being an obstructionist. As long as they are fighting the religious right then they are a holly warrior for the cause. They become so blinded by that cause or idea that they forget to look up and smell the bacon. Owe wait that is the napalm that set there leg on fire from the terrorist bomb ooops YOUR DEAD.

I know I know stop being dramatic and stop screaming fire in a theater blah blah blah... It doesn't change the fact that even the most hard core wacko Christian's and religious right people in the west simply want to convert you and save your soul. 99.99999% of them are worried about you and care for you. If not care for you to much.

Then on the other hand you have the Muslims. They want you to convert. If you don't they just kill you and ask the next guy. This isn't an over statement. Its not an exaggeration. Its the truth. It could be as many as 10% or even 20 30 40 50% that think this way. They just simply don't act on it out of self preservation. Given the right conditions such as a revolution and change of government to a more radical form these people suddenly come out of the wood work and do their thing.

The lefts way of dealing with this problem? Talk them to death. Concede and capitulate until there is nothing left to give them. When they finally get backed into a corner my bet is they will all convert to Islam. That is unacceptable to me, and if I have to join in with a wacko like Bush that believes in the invisible man to see that these other wacko's can't hurt me then so be it. Its a practical solution to a tough problem. The fact that I have to fight and argue with my fellow atheists to get anything done is VERY distressing to me. Almost to the point of driving me insane.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm following all this except "therefore they think everything a liberal says must be true." Did you mean everything an atheist says?

No I was referring to the tendency of some people to leave their fundie home, grow their hair long, smoke marijuana, and attend Green Peace conventions just because that's the opposite of what everyone at church does.

See this is what baffles me. I sort of understand it, but I don't understand why SO MANY atheist do this. They are not "atheist" they are anti-religion. OR I guess maybe just anti-establishment? Maybe all 3? This then morphs into being an obstructionist. As long as they are fighting the religious right then they are a holly warrior for the cause. They become so blinded by that cause or idea that they forget to look up and smell the bacon. Owe wait that is the napalm that set there leg on fire from the terrorist bomb ooops YOUR DEAD.

I know I know stop being dramatic and stop screaming fire in a theater blah blah blah... It doesn't change the fact that even the most hard core wacko Christian's and religious right people in the west simply want to convert you and save your soul. 99.99999% of them are worried about you and care for you. If not care for you to much.

And, amongst some of these "caring christians" are numbered those who would make those who do not convert and who fail to agree into second or third class citizens. Witness dumbass George H.W. Bush's public statement that atheists should not even be considered citizens.

Then on the other hand you have the Muslims. They want you to convert. If you don't they just kill you and ask the next guy.

This is bullshit. Islam probably has as diverse a base of dogma as does christianity. I travelled through Islamic central Asia and during that time, not one person...not a single Moslem...even suggested, much less demanded, that I convert. If they're so all-fucking-fired to convert non-Moslems, why do you think it is they didn't take advantage of a small group of westerners to at least provide them with the apologetics and/or scriptures to make an informed decision?

This isn't an over statement. Its not an exaggeration. Its the truth.

No it's not. It's a baldfaced lie.

It could be as many as 10% or even 20 30 40 50% that think this way. They just simply don't act on it out of self preservation. Given the right conditions such as a revolution and change of government to a more radical form these people suddenly come out of the wood work and do their thing.

They are minority opportunists, then? Rather like the freaking christian fundamentalists in this country.

[quote]The lefts way of dealing with this problem? Talk them to death. Concede and capitulate until there is nothing left to give them. When they finally get backed into a corner my bet is they will all convert to Islam. That is unacceptable to me, and if I have to join in with a wacko like Bush that believes in the invisible man to see that these other wacko's can't hurt me then so be it. Its a practical solution to a tough problem. The fact that I have to fight and argue with my fellow atheists to get anything done is VERY distressing to me. Almost to the point of driving me insane.

Well, for one, I'd think we'd stop invading Moslem countries and meddling in their internal politics, and when we imprison those of Moslem belief, we should at least respect their theistic beliefs while they are in our control. Not like Abu Gharib.

Just out of interest, what is your definition of these "terrorists"? I'm curious, because I suspect your chance of being killed in some kind of violent exchange is much higher when it's a fellow citizen...or, better yet, a member of your family...than some jihadist from another part of the world.

[IRON MAN]

Hmmm...That's not my experience. I grew my hair long, learned to smoke cannabis, and left home. I then participated in the establishment of the local Greenpeace chapter. Although I had attended church youth group meetings at the local Methodist church, I was the in-house agnostic skeptic. Also, I learned to smoke cannabis from the deacon's son, who was, for years, my supplier.

:chuckle:

I certainly hope not. In my perspective, the Libertarian Party is oxymoron. As I see it, anybody who is truly libertarian would have no part of any kind of groupthink.

:eager: Ooh, ooh, I get to debate Godfry! (I figured we'd been agreeing so much lately that we might as well start swapping spit in the shower or something).


You'll find that if you look into that they don't. There are of course dogmatic libertarians who couldn't tell you who John Stuart Mill is, but like I said, every political faction has their fair share of those.

In fact, Libertarians as a whole have a far more diverse set of opinions than any party I know of, fully expect to, and are comfortable with that.

A good example is Penn Jillette, a guy who doesn't even touch alcohol, let alone drugs, speaking out for the rights of those who want them.

Likewise, I am straight-as-an-arrow monogamous when it comes to sexual matters, but I defend anyone's right to a polygynist attitude like his.

Bottom line: I doubt I would particularly like the guy if we met in person, because of his subjective views. But both of us are smart enough to recognise those views for what they are and only advocate acting upon what can be objectively shown to be reasonable.

:roflmao:

What? Other than it has little to do with any kind of political reality?

I know that's what you have been told, that Libertarians have some idealist view of the world, but I'm telling you that's absolute bullshit.

Let's take an example:

Abortion.

:worksign: Warning: Shameless strawmen ahead for the sake of brevity, proceed with caution.

Republicans: It's murder. God don't like murder therefore we should outlaw abortion, even in cases where the mother who, (to quote Julia Louis-Dreyfus from Seinfeld), "got impregnated by her troglodytic half-brother".

Democrats: It's not murder because it's not born yet, (we know this for a fact). It's not a real person, even five seconds before birth.

Real realistic. :rolleyes:

Libertarians: Well since we cannot objectively prove abortion to be murder, (or not), we must therefore allow everyone to make their own decision according to their own conscience, (even if the possibility exists that it may actually one day be objectively shown to indeed be murder), lest we violate the higher principle of freedom.

Anyone who can prove it either way objectively beyond reasonable doubt - we'd love to fucking hear it. But we are not really interested in your subjective opinions, (or that of your God), or your bullshit slanted studies when it comes to making laws.


Now I ask you. Who is being realistic here? The Libertarians are the only ones who have the guts to make a pragmatic decision in this example. Everyone else is demanding that they know the answer to an issue that obviously isn't that black and white.

And they claim that Libertarians have a view of some unrealistic utopian society. :rolleyes:

Let me tell you where the religious right view ultimately leads - a dictatorship with God, (or in reality the church), as the dictator.

The left leads down the path of collectivist pinko bullshit, where everyone has to adopt the same selfless attitude, (or else), for it to work.

The Libertarianism ideal is a government that doesn't apologise for not knowing the answer to everything, but makes pragmatic decisions instead of knee-jerk laws.

Look at the current debate on "Should teachers have guns"

Republican: Let us change the law, give the teachers guns, and it will prevent this sort of thing happening ever again. Your children's lives are at stake.

Democrat: Guns kill people, more guns kill more people. Let us take away all guns so the bad guys can't use them either. That will prevent this sort of thing happening ever again. Your children's lives are at stake.

Libertarian: This kind of thing can neither be foreseen or totally prevented. We're sorry, but that's just the way life is. Don't blame us we didn't make it that way. But we will not just knee-jerk make laws in a vain attempt to eliminate a problem we have little control over, or will create more problems and rights violations in doing so.

You want a guarantee? Buy a toaster. :toaster:*

If anyone actually has any good ideas to reduce these deaths without tearing up the Bill of Rights, we'd fucking love to hear them.


Notice who has the pragmatic, (and unpopular), view here when it comes to election time? Pity isn't it?


*:wtf: Hey liv, where the hell is my toaster smilie? You have all those smilies and no toaster smilie? What the hell?! I really wonder what is the matter with you sometimes. :no2:

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm...That's not my experience. I grew my hair long, learned to smoke cannabis, and left home. I then participated in the establishment of the local Greenpeace chapter. Although I had attended church youth group meetings at the local Methodist church, I was the in-house agnostic skeptic. Also, I learned to smoke cannabis from the deacon's son, who was, for years, my supplier.

:chuckle:

I certainly hope not. In my perspective, the Libertarian Party is oxymoron. As I see it, anybody who is truly libertarian would have no part of any kind of groupthink.

:eager: Ooh, ooh, I get to debate Godfry! (I figured we'd been agreeing so much lately that we might as well start swapping spit in the shower or something).

Yeah? Well...I suspected as much, but I didn't want to bring up my opinions of the Libertarian Party, fearing it would put a damper on things. But you had to go and wave it in my face, and all. Don't get your hopes up. I'm not particularly a good debater. Occasionally, I'll ask you to tell me what you mean by your usage. That's just because I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

So...What is it you mean by Libertarian? Note that it's capitalized (unlike my handle, which you persist in capitalizing). You see, I see in myself a very strong libertarian streak. It has meshed quite well with my "leftist" viewpoints. I'm merely an antiwar activist grown old. I've been something of a maverick for the lefties, so I'm not really trusted by the poobahs. I'm an outsider and have been for years. It's just that I have a tendency to resist fiat acts on the part of authorities. I don't trust most authorities. Including lefty ones. I'm pretty familiar with JS Mill. He was required reading. I actually kinda drifted into "democratic socialism" because of him.

I'm not a Marxist. I'm a former economist with the belly of the capitalist beast, a Chamber of Commerce. I argued against government legislation before a city council. I'm not a Libertarian, either. I attended weekly Libertarian "meetings" in Fairbanks, Alaska...which has plenty of Libertarians. They have a seemingly higher proportion of wackjobs than did the Democratic Central Committee in Puddle City. Really. Endless arguments over whether Ayn Rand was the be-all and end-all of their sordid little existences, or the equivalent of the Great Satan. I think I'd rather stay a libertarian, and not buy into anybody else's agenda. I rather like to think of myself as seeking "Capitalism With a Human Face."

You'll find that if you look into that they don't. There are of course dogmatic libertarians who couldn't tell you who John Stuart Mill is, but like I said, every political faction has their fair share of those.

In fact, Libertarians as a whole have a far more diverse set of opinions than any party I know of, fully expect to, and are comfortable with that.

Oooooh, yeah. I won't contravene you on that. It's much of the reason I think that the Libertarian Party is an oxymoron. Libertarians have far more diverse opinions on policy than any other political party.

A good example is Penn Jillette, a guy who doesn't even touch alcohol, let alone drugs, speaking out for the rights of those who want them.

Likewise, I am straight-as-an-arrow monogamous when it comes to sexual matters, but I defend anyone's right to a polygynist attitude like his.


So, Penn Jillette is a Libertarian? And a polygynist? Wow. And that's supposed to impress me how? Penn is well spoken and all, but then so are many folks.



What, objectively, is "freedom"? Or "liberty"?

:roflmao:

What? Other than it has little to do with any kind of political reality?

I know that's what you have been told, that Libertarians have some idealist view of the world, but I'm telling you that's absolute bullshit.

Let's take an example:

Abortion.

:worksign: Warning: Shameless strawmen ahead for the sake of brevity, proceed with caution.

Republicans: It's murder. God don't like murder therefore we should outlaw abortion, even in cases where the mother who, (to quote Julia Louis-Dreyfus from Seinfeld), "got impregnated by her troglodytic half-brother".

Democrats: It's not murder because it's not born yet, (we know this for a fact). It's not a real person, even five seconds before birth.

Real realistic. :rolleyes:

Libertarians: Well since we cannot objectively prove abortion to be murder, (or not), we must therefore allow everyone to make their own decision according to their own conscience, (even if the possibility exists that it may actually one day be objectively shown to indeed be murder), lest we violate the higher principle of freedom.

Cute. Actually I think it's more of a false trichotomy...but we'll go with the straw man.


Here's mine:

I hear a lot about how the two primary US political parties cannot be told apart. They are so desirous of placing themselves in front of the greatest number of voting citizens that they will wash down their agendas to make them more palliatable to a larger number of people. I think its really quite easy.

Democrats want to take your hard earned money and give it to the undeserving.

Republicans want to take your hard earned money and give it to their friends.

Libertarians don't want you to take their money or tell them what to do, but they want all the benefits that come with both.

My impression of a true blue Randian Libertarian is that they would tear down all forms of community governance and allow the superior human to direct their own lives free of encumberances of the "other".

Anyone who can prove it either way objectively beyond reasonable doubt - we'd love to fucking hear it. But we are not really interested in your subjective opinions, (or that of your God), or your bullshit slanted studies when it comes to making laws.

Okay... I have suggested that it should be acceptable to abort a fetus through the first two trimesters. After the start of the third trimester, the child should be allowed to mature as long as possible in the mother's womb and brought, if possible, to a full term birth. This is because is is medically possible to save a premature child as early as 22-23 weeks. I doubt if it will ever go earlier than that, due to the development required for the fetus to live without the mother. At that point, the choice should evolve to the mother as to whether she wishes to raise the child or adopt it out. If the father is present and wishes to raise the child, the mother should have the option of opting out, and the father given full responsibility for the child.

I also think that our society has failed dismally in educating its young in sexuality. I'd bet that most American teenagers approaching sexual activity does so with a profound ignorance. That, in my estimation, is part of the whole issue of abortion and the need for it.

I don't like abortion. I think it's very "afterthought". Yet, I know that stupidity that I grew up in and suspect it remains much the same in my generation. I think it should be available (and safe), but socially unacceptable to have more than one. It should be treated as a "learning experience" with great gravitas, not the "easy button".

Now I ask you. Who is being realistic here? The Libertarians are the only ones who have the guts to make a pragmatic decision in this example. Everyone else is demanding that they know the answer to an issue that obviously isn't that black and white.

To be frank, not a single one of them. I've seen functionaries of all three parties that are nothing but fuckwads (plus the Green Party wack jobs). I've seen perfectly decent people get elected to office and then sell out. Money runs deep in politics in the US. Corruption is very real...

And they claim that Libertarians have a view of some unrealistic utopian society. :rolleyes:

If they're Randian objectivists, they are. They're as off in woo-woo land as Kilik is with his ruminations upon Atlantis.

Let me tell you where the religious right view ultimately leads - a dictatorship with God, (or in reality the church), as the dictator.

Sorry...I think that would be very difficult in a libertarian environment. Too many folks definitions of God, or "the church", vary. They'll never agree. It'll be a internecine holy war amongst the christian sectaries.

The left leads down the path of collectivist pinko bullshit, where everyone has to adopt the same selfless attitude, (or else), for it to work.

Heh...I've impeccable colletivist credentials, too. Worked five years as a hauler/recycler with a recycling cooperative. Worker owned and operated, it was. Plus, I went to all the lefty meetings. (Remember the revolutionary meeting in Life of Brian? All too familiar.)

The Libertarianism ideal is a government that doesn't apologise for not knowing the answer to everything, but makes pragmatic decisions instead of knee-jerk laws.

Really? Libertarianism is now allowing a government? Cheeses....they must be getting soft in my old age.

Do tell.... I see Libertarians as constipated curmudgeons who want to get all the public services they can without paying a dime for it. They piss at the government and rarely bring any concrete commitment to making anything happen other than that which they, and only they, specifically desire. These are the dumb asses who bitch at local planning agencies and the US Army Corps of Engineers about not being able to build their houses where they damned well please, on their own property....and then come whining to the state and FEMA about getting disaster loan $$$ to "get back up on their feet" after their home was washed away in a flood.


(Hey...At least you're not a Scientologist.)

(Are you?)

[Watser?]

Truth be told terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are almost useless to me in anything but a really general sense

Yep. In this country and most of Europe there is no simple way to divide politics in Christian, right wing social and economic conservative on the one hand and Atheist, social liberal and left wing economic. What in the US is defined as liberal (Atheist, social liberal and left wing economic) is the position held by social democrats here mainly. In this country the Liberal Party is an economically right wing party, though socially liberal. The Christian Democrats are socially conservative but economically moderate and there are two smaller Christian parties, one of which is left wing in the economic sense (and pretty green too) and one is right wing in that sense, though both are socially conservative. Parties cover all sides of the spectrum really.

ETA:
It is my contention that the true liberal position is closer to Libertarianism, and the current "liberal" left is an extremist position so far left that's it's off the fucking map.
Ok, well to me Libertarianism is a very extremist position that I dont take very seriously. But leaving that aside, what is called the liberal left in the US would be considered slightly left of centre in most European countries. The Democratic Party as a whole would be to the right of centre even.
It is the right in the US that has moved so off the map that it can not even see the centre anymore. You have no idea how far removed some of its policies are from even the traditional right wing over here. Pretty much the whole of the political spectrum is disgusted with Guantanamo or efforts to try and reinterpret the Geneva Conventions.


See this is what baffles me. I sort of understand it, but I don't understand why SO MANY atheist do this. They are not "atheist" they are anti-religion. OR I guess maybe just anti-establishment? Maybe all 3? This then morphs into being an obstructionist. As long as they are fighting the religious right then they are a holly warrior for the cause. They become so blinded by that cause or idea that they forget to look up and smell the bacon. Owe wait that is the napalm that set there leg on fire from the terrorist bomb ooops YOUR DEAD.

I know I know stop being dramatic and stop screaming fire in a theater blah blah blah... It doesn't change the fact that even the most hard core wacko Christian's and religious right people in the west simply want to convert you and save your soul. 99.99999% of them are worried about you and care for you. If not care for you to much.

Then on the other hand you have the Muslims. They want you to convert. If you don't they just kill you and ask the next guy. This isn't an over statement. Its not an exaggeration. Its the truth. It could be as many as 10% or even 20 30 40 50% that think this way. They just simply don't act on it out of self preservation. Given the right conditions such as a revolution and change of government to a more radical form these people suddenly come out of the wood work and do their thing.

The lefts way of dealing with this problem? Talk them to death. Concede and capitulate until there is nothing left to give them. When they finally get backed into a corner my bet is they will all convert to Islam. That is unacceptable to me, and if I have to join in with a wacko like Bush that believes in the invisible man to see that these other wacko's can't hurt me then so be it. Its a practical solution to a tough problem. The fact that I have to fight and argue with my fellow atheists to get anything done is VERY distressing to me. Almost to the point of driving me insane.

Welcome Dark-Man. Well, I can see we are gonna be having a lot of fun if you are gonna be spouting nonsense like this on a permanent basis. No, the above is not an overstatement or exaggeration, it is just plain nonsense not based on anything. Have you ever met any Muslims? Talked to any?
I have met plenty, both over here and in the Middle East and I can tell you Muslims are pretty well disguised as ordinary people. They fight amongst themselves over anything you can think of, but if you lump them into one group and start attacking them they will fight back. There are pretty good reasons why the Palestinians fight the Israelis for instance or why Hezbollah does. There are equally good reasons for the Sunni Iraqis to be fighting the US and even their Shi'ite compatriots or the Kurds. That is not to say I agree with what they do, it is just saying they are not irrational fanatics. Invade a country, people will fight you.
As for the Muslims in Europe: a small number of them are fanatical Salafists that cannot be reasoned with, but most are ordinary people who just want to live their lives, just like most white people are basically decent and not neo-fascist fanatics. But these two groups grind against each other and strengthen each other.

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm...All that, and I'm ignored? :pout:

Either that or they're working on a joint magnum opus in rebuttal. :D

Did somebody slip some peanut butter into the working parts, jarhead?

[yguy]

Libertarians: Well since we cannot objectively prove abortion to be murder, (or not), we must therefore allow everyone to make their own decision according to their own conscience, (even if the possibility exists that it may actually one day be objectively shown to indeed be murder), lest we violate the higher principle of freedom.

I can hardly wait to find out how you figure that party A's right to "freedom" supersedes party B's right to life.

[Watser?]

Libertarians: Well since we cannot objectively prove abortion to be murder, (or not), we must therefore allow everyone to make their own decision according to their own conscience, (even if the possibility exists that it may actually one day be objectively shown to indeed be murder), lest we violate the higher principle of freedom.

I can hardly wait to find out how you figure that party A's right to " freedom" supersedes party B's right to life.

Let me put that in context for you: This lecture on the 'right to life' comes from the guy who proposed nuking Teheran.
You can do an awful lot of abortions before you get to that many deaths...

Ooooh, even worse: some of the people killed could be pregnant women. You'd be performing mass abortions :eek:

[godfry n. glad]

Welcome Dark-Man. Well, I can see we are gonna be having a lot of fun if you are gonna be spouting nonsense like this on a permanent basis. No, the above is not an overstatement or exaggeration, it is just plain nonsense not based on anything.

Have you ever met any Muslims? Talked to any? I have met plenty, both over here and in the Middle East and I can tell you Muslims are pretty well disguised as ordinary people. They fight amongst themselves over anything you can think of, but if you lump them into one group and start attacking them they will fight back. There are pretty good reasons why the Palestinians fight the Israelis for instance or why Hezbollah does. There are equally good reasons for the Sunni Iraqis to be fighting the US and even their Shi'ite compatriots or the Kurds. That is not to say I agree with what they do, it is just saying they are not irrational fanatics. Invade a country, people will fight you.

Yeah. Why don't we try the shoe on the other foot, now. How would you, Dark_Man, react if another country came in and deposed George Bush and tried to set up a puppet government? You sound like a strong proponent of protecting Second Amendment rights. Well, that's one of the reason those rights are there. That's what "for the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia" is all about.

As for the Muslims in Europe: a small number of them are fanatical Salafists that cannot be reasoned with, but most are ordinary people who just want to live their lives, just like most white people are basically decent and not neo-fascist fanatics. But these two groups grind against each other and strengthen each other.

I had an interesting discussion with a female fellow smoker at the pariah gathering spot. She has a very strong eastern European accent. I finally managed to determine that she's Bosnian. She came here during the purges in the collapse of Yugoslavia. I, of course, related to her my wonderment in the slant which American media had placed on the controversies of the Balkans; that it was called an ethnic war with Slovenes, Bosnians, Montenegrans, Serbs, Macedonians, Croats, and Muslims. I wondered why it was that the religious group, the Moslems, was the only such, grouped with linguistic ethnic groups. She reinforced my understanding that some members of each ethnic group had converted, in the past, to Islam. She also noted that she was Moslem. You would have never guessed it.

Also...It needs to be kept in mind that many practicing Moslems are considered our "friends" and "allies"....like the Saudi royal family. The ruling classes of the central Asian nations are nominally Moslem. Our ally, Pakistan, is largely Moslem; I believe their latest military despot is a "friend" of ours. We, the US, have military bases on the soil of avowedly Moslem nations. Should we treat these people, the Uzbekis, Tadjiks and the Kyrgyz, the same as we do all the Islamic interlopers of Afghanistan?

[IRON MAN]

Hmmm...All that, and I'm ignored? :pout:

Either that or they're working on a joint magnum opus in rebuttal. :D

Did somebody slip some peanut butter into the working parts, jarhead?

Not ignoring you godfry, just busy with that life that Scarlatti claims I don't have. Get back to you ASAP.

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm...All that, and I'm ignored? :pout:

Either that or they're working on a joint magnum opus in rebuttal. :D

Did somebody slip some peanut butter into the working parts, jarhead?

Not ignoring you godfry, just busy with that life that Scarlatti claims I don't have. Get back to you ASAP.

:bartmoon: