Rightwing libertarians and drugs

please stay on topic.

 

Earthmother

But I’d already answered than from when we were last talking about it, if you didn’t read it then what’s the point of repeating it here so you can ignore it again?

Thing is that it was an important piece of information in a thread that we were both deeply involved with that you didn’t read, you ignored.
Basically its about respect, real respect not the sham kind that you claim is not being given just as an excuse to get out of debate. No the respect to read the post of people that are involved in a thread with me.
I do make mistakes or miss some post, but if it is pointed out to me I feel a duty to go and look it up, I feel I owe it to that person. The post I mention isn’t had to find, yet you can’t be bothered to even look. Thing is that I don’t think you are actually interested in the answer otherwise you would have looked but that’s not what this is about, this is just more evasion, a bit of misdirection to try and hide the fact that you still haven’t explained or answered anything.
Anyway that thread is now closed so if you actually want a discussion on Social Darwinism I’ll bump up one of the threads on this subject that have appeared here over the years.
*
Now can you please answer the questions that are relevant to this thread and the seeming contradictions within your thinking.

 

I suspect they left because this is the Hip Forums, and right-wing views are not hip.

Things didn't just go bad for Bush, they went bad for the whole right-wing ideology. I'll say it again: right-wingers are quick to go to war and quick to throw people in jail for victimless crimes. They are very, very weak on the notions of justice and fairness. I say this after observing their actions for over 40 years.

 

That's why so many "right wingers" don't want to be called that. The people balbus just spent many hours trying to convince that they are in fact "right wingers" are certainly not quick to go to war or throw people in jail for victimless crimes, from what I've seen. I know I'm not.

 

Again, this all depends on what you call the right. The old school right calls for an isolationist policy in foreign affairs. Remember it was Kennedy and Johnson who made Vietnam happen and they were "left" Reagan sent troops overseas and he was "right" but so did Clinton and he was "left" and so did Bush, who is an "asshole"

 

Blah blah blah. I looked at the post you "bumped". All you really said is "Social Darwinism, not exactly a great model for a society is it?"

That does not tell anyone much about what YOU yourself believe that Social Darwinism means. It only shows that different people have different perceptions.

 

Oh and balbus, WHO CARES? Really. Does any of this address the topic of the thread? You REALLY need to stay on topic, so that people don't have to waste a bunch of time sorting thru old posts to find something you wrote that does not ultimately matter anyhow. Everyone here has come to realize that it does not matter what you think. You have made that abundantly clear. Your posts are just "speed bumps" to be gotten around or over some how and nothing more.

And you can't be bothered to look either, nor simply repeat it. Which would probably be a lot easier and more acceptable than behaving like a child.

 

This!
:cheers2::cheers2::cheers2:

 

Earthmother

Again your reply was just you saying you are going to refuse to enter into an open and honest discussion.

 

Mad, DL, Sun

Thing is the right has many factions, they are all of the right but they go in and out of fashion and wax and wane in power and influence.

The faction that has been in the ascendant recently has been the neo-cons, I think the one that could rise is the right wing libertarian faction.

Just as in the UK the right used to be under the leadership of ‘one nation Tories’ then the Thatchrites gained power.

*

 

..... With you. As long as you keep acting like an ass.:toetap05:

 

Earthmother

Oh you are willing to tell people about your views and even willing to talk with uncritical sympathisers BUT and it is a big but, as soon as someone is critical or begins asking questions you seem unwilling to answer you start becoming evasive. And if someone persists in their criticism and continues to ask questions, you start being huffy and calling them an ass.

The upshot is that you never address the criticisms and refuse to explain you apparent contradictions.

Now are you going to enter into this debate and answer my questions or continue to be evasive?

 

You're talking in circles again, Balbus.

 

You have said this same thing over and over and over and over....... What do your personal problems have to do with the topic of this thread?
Stay on topic. Ask one question at a time. Be respectful. LISTEN to what people say to you. Then we'll talk.

 

Balbus

From reading many of your replies on these forums, I have reached a realization that the main problem people seem to have with you is that you put them into categories that they themselves do not associate. You may feel that they belong to these categories or you may know know that they do. But all I'll say is to give them the time to communicate what they want to say. Conversations emerge and the more time goes on more will be revealed. In other words, if you don't allow them to have their say, then the conversation cannot grow; it cannot prosper.

Maybe if by allowing them their viewpoints can you and the individual that you are responding to can reach an understanding. Usually your responses are a bit standoffish, and this can push people back. Maybe by sympathizing with their viewpoints can you begin to communicate your ideas as you allow them to communicate theirs.

Oh, I know you will say, "Well, Def, I have done everything that I can to communicate with them by being open and honest'" But I'll say this to you, Balbus. What matters is what each individual thinks and not what I think or what you think. If we want to understand others viewpoints, we have to think as they do for a short moment, sympathize with them, and try to come to a certain compromise while at the same time not compromising our own opinions.

It can't be that everyone here is wrong about your overall attitude. Your writings are very monotone, and that's fine. But you have to understand how they can put people off, especially when the writings makes assumptions about the others perspective before a conversation begins.

For example:

I'll say to you:

Balbus

Your Trotskyist position is mixed up with a social Darwinist approach which has been a part of the left wing for many years. Can you explain to me how this position works in reality?

Now if you want your viewpoints to be recognized, you would want someone to actually understand your viewpoint before they label you as something that you are not, regardless of whether or not that label of you makes sense to them. Because by labeling without understanding, they confine your arguments in such a way where there cannot be an exchange of ideas because assumptions have already been established and leaves little room to move away from it.

 

Earthmother

And yet more evasion.

All I’m trying to work out is the thinking behind your views on the issue of drugs so why are you going to such lengths to get out of answering some simple and rather basic questions?

 

Def

It is about what people say.

I’m not purposely trying to insult people I’m genuinely just expressing what I see based on what people are saying.

I read a lot of what people write and I remember a lot of people’s comments and where they said them, it is from those that I make an opinion.

Sometimes it’s plainer that others and I understand I could be getting something wrong or that I might have misunderstood or misconstrued a viewpoint. That is why I ask questions, that’s why I might seek clarification or explanation.

My own opinions are explained and my arguments for my opinion are given, they are open to everyone here and people can debate them or try and refute them (in fact I actively encourage it).

So if someone disagrees with my arguments they can put up a counter arguemet.

But if they refuse to debate, well then my argument and opinions would seem to stand.

**

For example -

Your accusations go against what I’ve said in countless posts and you must know it since you’ve read a lot of them. But some people still insist on calling me a communist, a pinko, or even a Stalinists. Over the years I’ve also been labelled a fascist, a racist, an imperialist and an agent of a ‘the conspiracy’. I find it more amusing or interesting rather than offensive or hurtful.

In fact to take such offence and to claim such hurt that you refuse to debate seems in many way suspicious, I mean in myself I know I’m not a fascist so why would I take offence? Now if I was a fascist who was pretending not to be I might get upset because it may ‘blow my cover’. And since I’m not a fascist I can try and explain openly and honestly why I think I’m not. It seems to me only a fascist pretending not to be one would be evasive or refuse to discuss the accusation.

*

And so the thing is I don’t know of any Trotskyite that is a supporter of Keynesian economic theory and I’ve written a hell of a lot here in the last few months supporting just that.

BUT if you want to put forward an argument, I’d be very happy to discuss it.

Again I’ve written a lot in opposition to Social Darwinism so I’d like to see your argument.

AND that is my point, it you have an argument to present I’d love to discuss it with you.

I’m not going to try and evade it, I’m not going to refuse to discuss it because of X, Y or Z, or start claiming you’re disrespecting me for even suggesting such a thing.

(ps if you do with to discuss these thing can you please begin another thread)

*

I’ve accused people of seeming to hold right wing views, I’ve given my arguments, if they have some counter argument, great I’d love to hear them, the problem is all I seem to be getting is evasion.

You say we should have a conversation well first this is a place for political debate if people want a contestation they should go to a general chat room. And second if I was in conversation with some as evasive as some on these forums I would conclude they were not interested in have a conversation.

*

Any this thread is an example of what I’ve just said.

I’ve set up my arguments, but besides people basically just telling me I’m wrong there really hasn’t been any rational counter argument.

No one seems willing or able to debate.

 

Balbus, you've been given a counter argument numerous times on numerous subjects by numerous people, but if the view doesn't match your own it's not an "open and honest debate"

 

Debate involves multiple arguments and counter arguments it doesn’t just stop at one counter argument.

It is a process that involves the criticising and defending of a view or stance.

Are you saying I’m wrong for defending my viewpoint?

I don’t think you’re wrong for defending yours.

My point is that some people don't seem willing or able to defend their views.

Which makes me wonder why they have them.

 

Stay on topic. Ask one question at a time. Be respectful. LISTEN to what people say to you. Then we'll talk.