We don't live in a world of 300 million people. We live in a world of 7 billion people pushing 10 billion plus. Problems which did not manifest before are becoming obvious today. These problems require uniform efforts and awareness to solve. Do you see all nations uniformly applying solutions cooperatively to solve these problems? No. Individual agents seek to maximize their own situation, often at the expense of others. They also optimize for the near future, not the long term.

I have seen nothing in Libertarian values which is any different than the analogous scenario outlined in the above paragraph.

Instead of saying: "That argument is ad hominem bullshit. Make another, valid argument.", why don't you instead say, "Why is George's proposal ridiculous?", and optionally "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

I've witnessed too many people sling (yes, sling, as in mud) comments which accuse others of using ad hominem too much to not see it for what it really is: hypocrisy.

More to the point, the original poster posted an article. Let's assume a similar case where the article is this:


Let's say the author of the article is Bob. Since no dialog will actually ensue with Bob, because it's an article copied from somewhere else, and the dialog will only occur between forum members, it's pointless to accuse the author of the article of using ad hominem in his article. Such a statement about the article does not refute the notion that George's proposal is ridiculous. Not one iota.

The only valid argument against Bob's article would be to show how George's proposal is not ridiculous.

This is myrkul's argument against the speaker: "George's proposal is not ridiculous! The speaker used ad hominem when claiming George's proposal is ridiculous!"

That's ad hominem if I ever saw it.

You're still guilty of ad hominem yourself by attempting to imply that George's proposal is not ridiculous because the speaker used ad hominem. No way around it.

Totally missing the point. You have not made an argument against the ridiculousness of George's proposal. Instead, you've deflected the statement about George's proposal into an argument about the integrity of the speaker's statement, which is in fact ad hominem in itself.

You just used ad hominem in your argument! My usage of grammar is not related to my argument about ad hominem. LOL.

It's not mud slinging if George's proposal is ridiculous. And it may not be the speaker's duty to prove everything back to first principles. And it might be worth knowing that George did cheat on his taxes.

Sorry, but no. An example from Wikipedia:


You may accuse someone of using ad hominem in the above quoted statement. But you have refuted nothing. You have not refuted that George's proposal is ridiculous, nor have you refuted that he cheated on taxes.

Acccusing someone of ad hominem is pointless, useless, and shows you have no argument to refute what was said.

An ad hominem attack can carry weight. Calling out someone for using ad hominem never refutes or denies the statement which is made by the one using ad hominem.

That isn't the future anymore than some riot which occurred 80 years ago is representative of the 80 years since. The future will include many events, and the reactions to those events.

But how is Libertarianism not a big sham? I have never seen an example of a 'Libertarian Think Tank' that was not a big sham and doesn't engage in publishing deceptive data. Dig deep into these:

- The Heartland Institute
- The George C. Marshall Institute
- The Cato Institute
- The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
- Frederick Seitz

Of course, maybe the bad apples are heard the loudest. Such a shame if there was some legitimacy to Libertariansim.

I am not necessarily in disagreement with you. But in certain animated films, an English voice actor and the original voice actor may both voice act equally well to an animation, since they're both coming at the work from the same position. But in live action, there is a huge difference between the person doing the acting, and someone trying to match that actor's internal emotions and external appearance.

That's the proper way to watch any non-animated film which requires translation. Dubs are a poor surrogate for original acting.


I never heard of it, but now I'm interested. Especially since Satoshi Kon also directed Millennium Actress, which is on my list to watch. So I'm curious, have you watched Millennium Actress? There's a particular reason I ask, and it relates to a post I made about a week ago, not to mention the fact that it relates heavily to most of my posts.

They are not, necessarily. And that's why we end up with uninformed policy makers as well.

AnCap: a bunch of dumb people who don't understand that their neighbors are doing stuff that is not good.

Democracy: a bunch of dumb people electing dumb people who enact dumb policies.

You don't know until you try. There's also Stranger Than Paradise, Down by Law and Night on Earth. Those three and Mystery Train are Criterion films. That right there says something. I've only seen Mystery Train.

Not my choice, but yours. I'm here to listen too. You're apparently not here to listen, and you're obviously not here to contribute.

Who do you think directed the movie you mention that you continue to watch?

Have you seen Mystery Train?

There are opportunity costs to placing focus on something negative, as opposed to positive. I see Africa as a positive phase for Bitcoin to engage in. The U.S, less so.

You're taking it too seriously because of our constant agitation with each other. You are the only one who has been on the receiving end of a film suggestion in any other thread (as far as I can remember). The film recommendations are ways of taking a heated argument and flipping it on its side. No need to be quite so offended by it any more than what would have otherwise transpired in said thread. Once an argument gets to that point, a random reply (that actually might have more value than a continued flame war) is just that.

However, my random film recommendations to you were also, in fact, as you probably sensed, precisely a showing of disrespect to you, in more ways than one. But you knew that, because we're both aware of our intense disrespect for each other, at various times. So the purpose was to achieve two simultaneous goals:

1. Show disrespect in turn, as it goes both ways.
2. Find a neutral topic, where amends can be made.

As for stalking, let's not go there. Rather than point out hypocrisy, instead, I'm offering you constructive discourse on the subject of film.

Furthermore, you're accusing me of being fixated on Japanese cinema. Actually, it's an exploration of all of film, in stages, as per what currently strikes my fancy. My abilities to recommend Eastern European and Russian films at this point are limited (all I can do is mention Andrei Tarkovsky). Better that I share what I know, rather than pontificate on what I am not familiar with. But it goes further than that, as there is a special place within the film library for Japanese cinema. Consider that the most recent high level poll places Yasujiro Ozu's Tokyo Story (starring Setsuko Hara) as the greatest film ever made. All directors mentioned appear on the short lists (from perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 total films that have seen theatrical release).

Anyone who likes film (isn't that most everyone?) deserves to be exposed to some of the greatest films, many of which are Japanese.

So feel free to take offense at the disrespect I have shown you, but don't be so critical of the fact that you have learned of some of the potential in viewing Japanese cinema now, as opposed to when you desire it, as the two are unlikely to coincide unless you learn of it to begin with due to some random exposure, which is happening right now.