Iraqi-Freedom.com
Due to the repeated commenting of the most frequent commentator on this blog, I checked out the site he linked me to, iraqi-freedom.com. It's your average conservative forum, with Republican supporters going off about how liberals are endeavoring to ruin the country, and how every single person who disagrees with them is one of these said liberals. In my brief duration over there so far, I've been called that AND a socialist hippie. It's fantastic observing this phenomenon in action.
John Stuart Mill once said "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." While my libertarian self disagrees with both conservative and liberal, I've found that debating those whose views are rooted in liberalism (which includes socialism and anarchism) is much more fact-based than those whose views are rooted in conservativism. When I debated with liberals on DFS, the arguments revolved around sophisticated conceptions of natural rights theory; self-ownership; the abolition of hierarchy and what, if any, forms of hierarchy are acceptable; and we then approached real-world issues based on those philosophical principles and their direct effect upon the situation given. While emotionalism is a factor in any given debate with any sane person, emotions were easily detached from the rational discourse.
If the word "stupid" can be defined as "emotionally-driven to the point of eschewing clear reason if it does not serve my argument", then the Mill quote above is true enough. My arguments on Iraqi-freedom.com revolved around reason in my first couple days there, to see how much reason-based arguments were accepted there. I found several people agreeing with my second post on the site, a no-holds-barred denunciation of the GOP employing those libertarian principles which are popular in conservative circles. I also made certain to keep anything that could be construed as "bleeding-heart liberalism" out of my posts; my reason was clear, unfeeling, and obvious.
The best example of this was a thread I started on libertarian philosophy (at the request of a moderator). Very quickly the focus turned to the War on Drugs, one of the most controversial positions of the Libertarian Party. I didn't argue the "bleeding-heart" points about breaking up families, establishing a police state, and terrorizing Colombian peasants and encouraging genocides there. I focused on points conservatives could identify with-the Constitutional protections that have been eroded by the Drug War, and most emphatically how the Drug War indirectly bankrolls al-Qaeda's actions against us. I laid out my points with clear facts and reason, presenting a very conservative case for the legalization of drugs. What was I met with?
You see, I am not a dreamer that works at Mickey D's or the hamburger hut or lives off mommy and daddy.
I live in the world you fuks try to destroy with your illogical logic.
I know that heroin is to addictive for monkey ass maggots to even care if it is legal, I know, from first hand experience, the devastation wrought from a cocaine induced fervor.
I know that legalizing some of these drugs is simply telling the mangy idiots they have it easy, they can steal off mommy and daddy or who ever to get the legal drugs and thats alright.
No, this is why I could not join the libertarians, this, and a few ridiculous other items of dreamer fantasy.
If half the idiots on this board actually worked for a living, or had other people depending on them, the dreaming would stop, the real world, the one the rest of us live in, is a hard place, doesn't matter what you care about, doesn't matter what whim of fantasy fuking situation you decide to champion. Only thing that matters is that the people depending on you will be OK tomorrow and beyond.
It was the self-same "bleeding-heart liberal" emotionalism that these people detest! So I decided the time was ripe to introduce some emotionalism of my own. Most conservative emotionalism is centered around patriotism and a hatred of France and "letting the terrorists win". So I crafted a response that was overly emotionalistic, and now I'm gauging its effect on the conservative population. Here it is:
Maybe you don't love America enough to stop giving bin Laden money. In which case, I think you ought to join the rest of the America-haters over in France. Hell son, I'll even buy you a plane ticket just to get your bleeding-heart liberal voter self out of the country.
The conservative reaction to this bit of emotionalism should be noteworthy. The rational conservatives (and there are some on the site) will likely see through it as the emotionalistic nonsense it is, although they probably agree with my points already.
John Stuart Mill once said "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." While my libertarian self disagrees with both conservative and liberal, I've found that debating those whose views are rooted in liberalism (which includes socialism and anarchism) is much more fact-based than those whose views are rooted in conservativism. When I debated with liberals on DFS, the arguments revolved around sophisticated conceptions of natural rights theory; self-ownership; the abolition of hierarchy and what, if any, forms of hierarchy are acceptable; and we then approached real-world issues based on those philosophical principles and their direct effect upon the situation given. While emotionalism is a factor in any given debate with any sane person, emotions were easily detached from the rational discourse.
If the word "stupid" can be defined as "emotionally-driven to the point of eschewing clear reason if it does not serve my argument", then the Mill quote above is true enough. My arguments on Iraqi-freedom.com revolved around reason in my first couple days there, to see how much reason-based arguments were accepted there. I found several people agreeing with my second post on the site, a no-holds-barred denunciation of the GOP employing those libertarian principles which are popular in conservative circles. I also made certain to keep anything that could be construed as "bleeding-heart liberalism" out of my posts; my reason was clear, unfeeling, and obvious.
The best example of this was a thread I started on libertarian philosophy (at the request of a moderator). Very quickly the focus turned to the War on Drugs, one of the most controversial positions of the Libertarian Party. I didn't argue the "bleeding-heart" points about breaking up families, establishing a police state, and terrorizing Colombian peasants and encouraging genocides there. I focused on points conservatives could identify with-the Constitutional protections that have been eroded by the Drug War, and most emphatically how the Drug War indirectly bankrolls al-Qaeda's actions against us. I laid out my points with clear facts and reason, presenting a very conservative case for the legalization of drugs. What was I met with?
You see, I am not a dreamer that works at Mickey D's or the hamburger hut or lives off mommy and daddy.
I live in the world you fuks try to destroy with your illogical logic.
I know that heroin is to addictive for monkey ass maggots to even care if it is legal, I know, from first hand experience, the devastation wrought from a cocaine induced fervor.
I know that legalizing some of these drugs is simply telling the mangy idiots they have it easy, they can steal off mommy and daddy or who ever to get the legal drugs and thats alright.
No, this is why I could not join the libertarians, this, and a few ridiculous other items of dreamer fantasy.
If half the idiots on this board actually worked for a living, or had other people depending on them, the dreaming would stop, the real world, the one the rest of us live in, is a hard place, doesn't matter what you care about, doesn't matter what whim of fantasy fuking situation you decide to champion. Only thing that matters is that the people depending on you will be OK tomorrow and beyond.
It was the self-same "bleeding-heart liberal" emotionalism that these people detest! So I decided the time was ripe to introduce some emotionalism of my own. Most conservative emotionalism is centered around patriotism and a hatred of France and "letting the terrorists win". So I crafted a response that was overly emotionalistic, and now I'm gauging its effect on the conservative population. Here it is:
Maybe you don't love America enough to stop giving bin Laden money. In which case, I think you ought to join the rest of the America-haters over in France. Hell son, I'll even buy you a plane ticket just to get your bleeding-heart liberal voter self out of the country.
The conservative reaction to this bit of emotionalism should be noteworthy. The rational conservatives (and there are some on the site) will likely see through it as the emotionalistic nonsense it is, although they probably agree with my points already.
posted by Kent Chamberlain at 12:31 PM
STUART RICHARDS
8 Comments:
Ha ha! I tried to warn them your way outside of liberalism. And I told you emotion works otherwise you look like a boring intellectal like Thoth.
If the worst criticism you have of me is that im an 'intellectual' then by all means, keep on dishing... Im man enough to take it.
As to the topic at hand however: I knew something was up.. I was keeping tabs on your progress there out of interest at their response and all that macho 'boy' crap you took on just didn't seem right. I was going to make a comment in the Fora, but I guess its all clear now.
Im sure there are intelligent conservative forums out there- though I doubt intelligent republican forums exist- but looking at one Acamas, feels at home in is an exercise in futility.
PS- Miss you Acamas:(
Alright the only person I truely wanted to invite to Iraqi-freedom.com was only Princeps, now everyone is going there!!
Don't get your panties all in a bunch, I doubt I'll be there long. I just want to see if your little Republican stonghold has anything meaningful to say beyond 'Liberals suck'.
So far, no dice.
I tire easily of people with no depth to their beliefs.
It's getting old... they're not even capable of admitting that America's is a partially socialist system, and Debo's begun deleting some of my posts when he can't even pretend to refute them.
Deleting posts? :(
Yes, I must admit Debo is a very bad mod and somewhat of an idiot. Of course, most of you don’t realize that the American political world is 2 parties, Liberal party and Republican party.
Most of you are completely outside of that and support minor or foreign parties that have no existence to the public of the forums which is what makes them a little confused but fast to figure it out. And no, most of the republicans that go there are not stupid its a strange experience with such an outside party after being used to debating liberals so much.
Please unban me Princeps! :)
Stu,
Conservative moronery (i made the word up; i can do that) doesn't end with pro-war forums. If you listen to any mainstream conservative radio show (Rush Limbaugh), you'll find that they are loud, idiotic, and their sole argument is "all liberals are pinko-commies." Listen to any mainstream liberal radio show and you'll find that they are somewhat soft-spoken and rational with actual facts and concerns for the people of the U.S.
I'd also like to note that I'm a libertarian, and that I found your blog through the LP's blog. I don't agree with everything the liberals say, but I feel that they generally have more intelligent heads on their shoulders. I am atually sickened by most conservatives. I'm hesitant to join the LP, because through the LP blog, I've noticed that most LPers are really just conservatives in the upper part of the "right" quadrant in the Nolan chart.
Post a Comment
<< Home