Haymarket:

To hell with the "plush" boxes. Their owners don't want the common folk mussing them up. I don't mind a few stains and cracks in mine. It means the place was actually lived in.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I don't mind a few stains and cracks in mine. It means the place was actually lived in.

All our boxes have stains and cracks. Just not everyone admits to seeing them in their own -- it helps them convince themselves that there's nothing of any value to be had in going outside from time to time.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

All our boxes have stains and cracks. Just not everyone admits to seeing them in their own -- it helps them convince themselves that there's nothing of any value to be had in going outside from time to time.

Glad to see that "plushiness" is no longer the issue, but rather access and egress.

Justin
so your mental processes were confused by the double talk of my post? Congratulations. You actually got the point for once ..... well, at least part of it.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Glad to see that "plushiness" is no longer the issue, but rather access and egress.

Never was, really (though I try to keep the limits of my thinking pushed as far back as possible).

I start to wonder, if Kiff (who, unlike the individual whose rant kicked things off here, consistently demonstrates her capacity for rational thought and generally high comprehension skills) is missing the metaphor, maybe it really was not clear enough? I'll re-cap; maybe that will straighten things out.

Originally Posted by haymarket

...we are all in the damn box. But you persist in this delusional fantasy that you ... are all outside the box living this freer life.

Originally Posted by Justin

What makes you so angry about those of us in our own, bigger, more plush boxes? Is it the fact that we keep trading up while you remain afraid to even crack the lid on yours? Or merely regret that you cannot be as content with your life and among the people around you as are we

Did the 'box' metaphor get lost somewhere in between where he used it (in the sense of limitations on thinking or creativity or action or otherwise worldview) and where I used it (in the context 'bigger' - indicating boundaries further out than the ones he has himself, and 'more plush' - that what we have inside our boudaries is able to provide a better experience)? It seems pretty straightforward to me, particularly given the context of my following two sentences; but maybe I overstretched the metaphor?...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Did the 'box' metaphor get lost somewhere in between where he used it (in the sense of limitations on thinking or creativity or action or otherwise worldview) and where I used it (in the context 'bigger' - indicating boundaries further out than the ones he has himself, and 'more plush' - that what we have inside our boudaries is able to provide a better experience)? It seems pretty straightforward to me, particularly given the context of my following two sentences; but maybe I overstretched the metaphor?...

The metaphor is fine. In fact, I think I used it earlier in the discussion. What might have ticked HM off (and he'll have to clarify) is the idea that your box is a trade-up from his.

For my part, I think there are elements of both boxes that work pretty well, and some that can be left behind -- so *I* get the best of both worlds.

Which is not to say that I can't still trade up.

Somebody please stop me before I start in on Wilber, evolution, and holons.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

The metaphor is fine. In fact, I think I used it earlier in the discussion. What might have ticked HM off (and he'll have to clarify) is the idea that your box is a trade-up from his.

Well, in a sense that's exactly the idea I was trying to get across. I perhaps could point out that I recognize and can evaluate the options to which he is limited, plus several other paradigms which he ill not allow himself to even recognize (much less rationally contemplate). I think that means that, whatever my limitations are, they are far beyond his. I'd add that, since I haven't seen you run up against any hard limitations yet, and have also seen you leap outside of some previous limitations, I have no reason to think that your box is particularly smaller or less-well-equipped than mine.

The box is not what we think, but the extent to which we limit our own thinking. You and I differ on the first, but we both radically diverge (in the same direction) from haymarket and the like on the second.

But if that was really what got him frothing (hard to say, since he froths at pretty much everything), then why did he automatically jump to a checkbook-challenge? Then try to deny that in doing so he was changing the subject (at least I think that's what his latest run-on semicoherent rambling was aimed at)?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

But if that was really what got him frothing (hard to say, since he froths at pretty much everything), then why did he automatically jump to a checkbook-challenge? Then try to deny that in doing so he was changing the subject (at least I think that's what his latest run-on semicoherent rambling was aimed at)?

He'd have to answer that specific question.

But, generally, if his history here is any indication, I think he just likes to take on libertarians in any way, shape or form.

Justin ...
a man goes into a bar and tries to pick up a fairly attractive woman. She takes a good look at him and says "no way - you are ugly, have a terrible haircut and smell bad." He goes home and tells his brother that "this dyke would not dance with me because I wasn't rich."


Why is it that when someone has examined your theories, has thought about them, has researched them and then utterly and completely has rejected them as worthless, you cling to the idea that the person simply will not allow themselves to do all the mental work that you like to flatter yourself in calling "thinking outside the box"?

Just like the lonely and rejected ugly man, I guess whatever gets you through the night is what you are entitled to in your own mind.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Why is it that when someone has examined your theories, has thought about them, has researched them and then utterly and completely has rejected them as worthless, you cling to the idea that the person simply will not allow themselves to do all the mental work that you like to flatter yourself in calling "thinking outside the box"?

Well, for one thing, I question the notion that you have thrown out every single item in the libertarian toolkit.

Child of Socrates
I think there is a distinction between a particular item in the libertarian tooklit, let us say a particular position on a specific issue, and what I described as the greater theory that surrounds it.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Why is it that when someone has examined your theories, has thought about them, has researched them and then utterly and completely has rejected them as worthless....

You know such a person here? Because, like, the closest I've seen to it is Brian Rush -- except that he and I have actually a fair bit of overlap (you tend to find that among intellectually-coherent people; regardless the degree to which they disagree, they always tend to have quite a bit in common). In fact, the claim to know all about something is itself far beyond what even the most pretentious might claim -- but it seems to come naturally to such a Credentialed Figure as yourself.

You, on the other hand -- little man -- have yet to even indicate the slightest passing familiarity with the even barest form of the ideas presented here by me or the several others who you might want to try to group onto "my side" (as if such a thing could exist among independent, rational people). Further, continuing exposure to the oozings of your thought-processes makes it increasingly clear that, like all good dogmatics, you have the remarkable quality of not even being able to comprehend a challenging opinion when it is expressed to you directly and clearly. Rather instead you fall back to:

• flogging the demon of your own imagining
• repeating what must seem to you (based on the fact of the box in which you keep yourself) to be self-evident axioms as if simply stating them were sufficient to answer objections to them
• changing the subject
• claiming to 'already know' what someone else is thinking and dismissing further discussion
• claiming that your (or someone else's) Authority is sufficient in itself to render their views the force of Truth without reflection

These are not the responses of a person who makes rational assessments.

Again, this is based solely on the quality and content of what you put up here -- I make no claim to know if this is a true reckoning of how you really are in life (it is entirely possible that you are just incompetent at putting your thoughts into written form; I've known more than a few people with that difficulty, and their failure to communicate in the one manner really doesn't reflect the quality of their thinking).

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Child of Socrates
I think there is a distinction between a particular item in the libertarian tooklit, let us say a particular position on a specific issue, and what I described as the greater theory that surrounds it.

Of course.

Then why use the all or nothing language that you did...i.e., "COMPLETELY and UTTERLY rejected them as USELESS."

Do you see how people might perceive that you're boxing yourself in?

CofS
here is what I said

Why is it that when someone has examined your theories, has thought about them, has researched them and then utterly and completely has rejected them as worthless ...

I clearly indicated I was talking about the theories behind the positions. There was no boxing in with that statement. And I do NOT see how anyone could see it differently since I was so clear. You were the one who changed the discussion from the overall theory to a particular item in the toolbox - as you put it. There is a huge difference.

But that confuses the issue which is that Justin and Rani continue to hide behind the phony issue that somebody just does not "think outside the box" enough to understand their higher order of thinking that is beyond most of us. Its self serving rationalization of the sorst sort designed to both elevate them and lower their opposition.

Like I said - if the ugly rejected guy wants to go home and call women gold digging dykes to run away from thie own deficiencies and realities - thats their problem.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

CofS
here is what I said



I clearly indicated I was talking about the theories behind the positions. There was no boxing in with that statement. And I do NOT see how anyone could see it differently since I was so clear. You were the one who changed the discussion from the overall theory to a particular item in the toolbox - as you put it. There is a huge difference.

But that confuses the issue which is that Justin and Rani continue to hide behind the phony issue that somebody just does not "think outside the box" enough to understand their higher order of thinking that is beyond most of us. Its self serving rationalization of the sorst sort designed to both elevate them and lower their opposition.

Like I said - if the ugly rejected guy wants to go home and call women gold digging dykes to run away from thie own deficiencies and realities - thats their problem.

OK. Do I have this correct? You reject the theory, but are okay with certain practical applications?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

I clearly indicated I was talking about the theories behind the positions.

Oh yes, you were very clear. That's why it is so easy to explain exactly how what you are doing and what you are saying do not match up at all.

But that confuses the issue which is that Justin and Rani continue to hide behind the phony issue that somebody just does not "think outside the box" enough to understand their higher order of thinking that is beyond most of us.

Actually, it's not beyond hardly anyone -- certainly not beyond Kiff (it's rather rude of you to imply otherwise -- your inadequacies don't in any way drag her down). You seem to be a special case. With most everyone else, discussion is possible. You're really a rather fascinating rarity - the truly impermeable mind. I can't say that I've ever come across so extreme the kind before.

No. That is not what i said.

You used the term "a particular item in the libertarian tooklit." What it meant to me was something such as one position that some libertarians and some non-libertarians may have some area of agreement with -- let us use the example of extending persons their Constitutional rights if accused of a crime. I support that. I would guess libertarians support that. If we use your metaphor of a toolkit, that belief would be in both of our toolkits. That is what I took you to be saying.

Because libertarianism is all over the map in terms of left and right, probably a very large number of persons would have a similar item in their toolkit if you want to keep using your term.

But simply because one shares one item of belief - or even more - does not mean a person cannot eject the very philosophy and theory behind libertarianism. That larger theory is what i said has been read, examined and utterly rejected.

I also eat meals each day. I drink liquids. I empty waste. I sleep. Libertarians believe in doing these also. Does the fact we share these things mean I cannot reject libertarianism?

Its clear to me.

I am reminded of the work of songwriter Paul Simon in his song The Boxer:

a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Some of you here are trying to box me in so you are redefining, restating, reinterpreting my words. You reshape them, you reform them, you tell me what I really meant and then you create the Frankenstien Monster that you then want to do battle with because it suits your prepackaged arguement to do that. I believe that is called the Strawman is it not?

I would also like to say I have never encountered such a tactic before. Sadly, I have seen it far too many times to ever forget it.

Why is it so necessary for anyone to intellectually come up with the lame excuse that somebody is simply not opening up thier mind to a new way of thinking and thus it is that persons fault instead of accepting the reality that their views have been examined and utterly rejected as unworthy?

Are you so insecure in your own views and beliefs that you have to resort to those lengths?

Haymarket:

Because libertarianism is all over the map in terms of left and right, probably a very large number of persons would have a similar item in their toolkit if you want to keep using your term.

But simply because one shares one item of belief - or even more - does not mean a person cannot eject the very philosophy and theory behind libertarianism. That larger theory is what i said has been read, examined and utterly rejected.

Okay. I thought that's what I was saying.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Worse yet, the abortion reversal was wrong-headed, if not outrightly hypocritical: If you support conscientious objector's status for would-be military personnel - as the left has done consistently dating back to Roger Baldwin - then how can you fail to support a sincerely religious person's conscientous objections to participating in what s/he regards as murder? The exception should be drawn narrowly, however, and apply only to abortions and euthanasia/assisted suicide-type cases; any doctor who refuses to treat HIV patients on the grounds that to do so would somehow promote "sexual promiscuity," for example, should have their license yanked and should be thrown in jail for placing the health and well-being of the general public at risk.

If they have issues with doing their job it they can find a new job. A better comparison would be to a Quaker of Jehovah's Witness joining the military and then refusing to serve.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

from Justin



Considering where and how you now live, this is one of the most absurd statements I have ever read.

Tell you what I will do libboy. I will put my net worth up against yours and the loser departs this board and never comes back. So now put up your bigger plush box against mine.

Or shut the hell up for once. Your fingers are writing checks that your ass can never cash.

Prediction: we hear some self serving BS that attempts to mock me but you tuck your tail between your legs and run away refusing to put up or shut up.

Lets see that Bigger and Plusher box you live in libboy.

As I recall, the last time you were placed in a position of being asked to put up or shut up, you sunk low, tucked your tail between you legs and ran away from me. I'm dying to see a full display of (Blue) White Power. For once, I'd love to have some blue idiot show me just how well the other side lives.

KIA
I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

KIA
I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Does zebra skin ring a bell?

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

As I recall, the last time you were placed in a position of being asked to put up or shut up, you sunk low, tucked your tail between you legs and ran away from me. I'm dying to see a full display of (Blue) White Power. For once, I'd love to have some blue idiot show me just how well the other side lives.

KIA --

Do you even know what "White Power" means?

No, it's not hydroelectric projects in the context that you suggest.

It is instead that white people get to do nasty things to non-whites with little fear of consequences. Non-whites and others that the White Power people ordinarily demonize (typically Jews) face persecution, violence, and exploitation -- if not robbery, torture, and even murder.

It's the title of a putrid and incompetent book by the late and unlamented George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of an American Nazi Party. Add to this, the first item that popped up when I Googled the words "white power" was this dreadful site which I don't endorse to those squeamish about Nazi symbols and ideology. This vile one offers much the same.

Then there's one site suggesting "tooth whitening" and sports news lamenting that the Chicago White Sox baseball team doesn't hit enough home runs. OK. Then comes something touting the sartorial in "Aryan" tastes. To give some idea of the wares it offers the Cross of Satan (swastika) flag to represent the German language instead of the black-brown-red tricolor of Free Germany or even the Austrian red-white-red in case some German speaker wishes to make some purchases (materials may be banned in much of Europe). After a site by a civil rights group (the ADL) warning about White Power symbols follows a record label for racists that has copious images of Klansmen and some fellow named Adolf with a funny mustache.

Please be careful about your word choice. Getting involved with Democratic politics is one sure way of meeting people who aren't white Christians in many places.

KIA - spit it out. Say it loud and proud. If you have something on your chest, lets hear it.

Is this about you attempting to pry into my real world life and inquire repeatedly about my racial heritage?

And if this is about some sort of Aryan recruitment for White Power, you can keep it. I would no sooner give you personal information that you not only have no right to, but have no right to even ask about more than once, than I would give you my bank account passwords.

That is not tucking tail and running. It is telling somebody who is being rude and going beyond their limits to mind their own business.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

KIA -- ..

Do you even know what "White Power" means?

...

Please be careful about your word choice. Getting involved with Democratic politics is one sure way of meeting people who aren't white Christians in many places.

And what's wrong with meeting Xians of any color?

But, in Uralic it has another non-Progressive-in-a-hurry definition for my Euro-cousins:valkea

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Whites had no clear political aims in common, other than stopping the revolutionary Reds from taking power and returning to constitutional rule by the Senate (the government of the Grand Duchy) which was formed by the non-socialist parties of the Eduskunta (parliament) and returning to the Rule of Law. The provisional head of state of White Finland was Pehr Evind Svinhufvud, chairman of the senate at the time, and its military was commanded by Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim.

The Crushing of Progressives of the Ruddy Sort was an excellent use of White Power!