ElectricMucus so afraid of admitting fallibility deletes comment instead

[Anon136]

ElectricMucus felt so threatened by the that he might have to admit that he said one thing in his entire life that was not correct he deleted my comment from his thread. Of course i would like to continue the discussion but i can not play rock paper scissors against someone who will just shoot dynomite any time he feels that he is losing so I invite ElecticMucus to continue the discussion here on neutral ground where censorship will not take place. Seeing as how deleting a comment is defacto admitting that you have lost the argument, he can be assured that i will not delete his comments.

Libertarianism is the bastardization of Anarchism. It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle.

Elwar gets bonus godwin points.

what??? perhaps we are wrong about what does and does not justify acquisition, but your claim that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified is prima facie ridiculous. we are CONSTANTLY debating ad nausium amongst each other about what does and does not justify acquisition. If you actually believe that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified than you clearly have made very little effort to understand our position.

tip: Ownership can't be justified with a circular argument - as such not by any term used in describing capitalism.

But lets assume you are right and I haven't researched your position: Then I should be baffled by a fitting explanation of that position by you.
Yes just write it down in your own words and lets see where it leads us.

Ok so I would love to talk with you about this it is one of my favorite topics but before we move onto a new topic i need to make sure that the previous one is settled. Do you believe that i have made a convincing argument for how your previous statement with regards to whether libertarians believe that property ownership must be justified was incorrect? Not meaning anything rude by it, i often myself find that i have said things that are incorrect, i just want to be clear.

As previously said, I often read from the Libertarian standpoint that property supposed to be either a) natural or b) a "god-given" right or a mixture of both.
Analogies like "two people can't eat the same apple" are used.

When it comes down to it I have seen no proper justification for the authority to claim property at all. What I often see is muddling property with consumption (which is justified by need).
I have not seen any proper justification for the authority over ownership of land for instance, you might start with that if you don't know where to start. If you know better it's fine if you start somewhere else.

This is perfect. Unfortunately this sort of rhetorical trickery works on me far too often. This is more than anything where i need practice in my debating so thank you for providing me with a really good opportunity to practice what i need the most practice with.

In this comment you are moving the goalpost and pretending as if this new similarly worded but entirely different claim is exactly the same as the original claim. You are hoping that since the wording is so similar that i will not notice that the goal post has been moved. Often i do not notice and it is often my downfall (i have a bad memory), fortunately this time i have noticed  Grin.

Before you said:

It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle.

Earlier you made the claim that libertarianism exempt property from the principal that authority must be justified.

In this comment you say:

I have not seen any proper justification for the ownership of land for instance

this time you are saying that libertarians do not make proper justification for ownership. Notice that it does not matter whether the justification is proper. All that has to happen for your claim to be false is for them to attempt to make any sort of justification for the authority that flows from property ownership.

I even anticipated this and accounted for it in my previous comment here

perhaps we are wrong about what does and does not justify acquisition, but your claim that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified is prima facie ridiculous

So now i ask the same thing that i asked in my previous comment again.

Ok so I would love to talk with you about this it is one of my favorite topics but before we move onto a new topic i need to make sure that the previous one is settled. Do you believe that i have made a convincing argument for how your previous statement with regards to whether libertarians believe that property ownership must be justified was incorrect?

sorry for being so... mechanical about this. I learned a lot from debating with crumbs and mostly what i learned is that you have to be mechanical like this or you will never get anywhere  Grin

[Mike Christ]

In all honesty, I'm impressed he didn't nuke the entire thread and lock it

[Anon136]

In all honesty, I'm impressed he didn't nuke the entire thread and lock it

its sort of amazing to me. it really seems like my argument is simple and should be crystal clear to ANYONE. it really baffles me how he is able to act as if he still doesn't understand what i am claiming. his responses indicate that he is under the impression that i am claiming that libertarian methods of justifying acquisition are legitimate when i have as of yet made no such claim. its like he looks at the words but rather than reading them as they are, he interprets them to mean what ever they need to mean in order to allow him to beat what ever dead horse he has already set his mind on beating. it almost feels like he is failing the turing test

[ElectricMucus]

protip: trying to troll somebody in his own self-moderated thread doesn't work. (Especially if it's somebody who is accused of trolling on a regular basis anyway)

[Lethn]

protip: trying to troll somebody in his own self-moderated thread doesn't work. (Especially if it's somebody who is accused of trolling on a regular basis anyway)

You're a halfwit, the thread isn't self-moderated at all, also, this is another person on my ignore list that people should know to avoid.

[hilariousandco]

protip: trying to troll somebody in his own self-moderated thread doesn't work. (Especially if it's somebody who is accused of trolling on a regular basis anyway)

You're a halfwit, the thread isn't self-moderated at all, also, this is another person on my ignore list that people should know to avoid.

I think he was referencing his own thread.

[Lethn]

protip: trying to troll somebody in his own self-moderated thread doesn't work. (Especially if it's somebody who is accused of trolling on a regular basis anyway)

You're a halfwit, the thread isn't self-moderated at all, also, this is another person on my ignore list that people should know to avoid.

I think he was referencing his own thread.

>_< He may well have been lol that'll teach me to read and post when I'm still waking up, he's still stupid though.

[Anon136]

protip: trying to troll somebody in his own self-moderated thread doesn't work. (Especially if it's somebody who is accused of trolling on a regular basis anyway)

It was never my intention to troll anyone. If its alright with you i would like to get back to our discussion.

I would like to move on to discussing whether libertarians justifications for the authority that comes from property ownership are or are not legitimate justifications. Unfortunately before we can do that i need you to acknowledge that, be those justifications legitimate or otherwise, libertarians do infact believe that property ownership, and the authority that flows from it, must be justified. Furthermore i need you acknowledge that this previous acknowledgement demonstrates that the following statement,

It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle.

made by you, is false.

[ElectricMucus]

[Anon136]

I'm sorry but it is unclear to me what bearing this picture has on any of the premises or conclusions pertaining to my argument. Perhaps you can find a way to be a little more clear about what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps one way to do this would be to use words rather than pictures to advance your position.

[Anon136]

Let this thread be a testament to the ages and all who are interested that ElectricMucus is either a troll or such an extreme narcissist as to be unable to admit even minor fallibility. I have been extremely patient with this person but he is beyond persuasion with even the most rudimentary and easily demonstrable arguments involving almost no abstract reasoning what so ever. I would advise anyone who is reading this not to engage with this person. You CAN NOT WIN because while you are trying to play baseball he will be playing calvinball.

[stompix]

Lesson to be learned:
1) Do not post in a thread if it's self moderated
2) Do not engage in discussions with a person with a brown button
3) Winning a battle of arguments with somebody who is just trolling it's impossible

[Anon136]

Lesson to be learned:
1) Do not post in a thread if it's self moderated
2) Do not engage in discussions with a person with a brown button
3) Winning a battle of arguments with somebody who is just trolling it's impossible

I have this bad habit of trying to see and assume the best in everyone. This naive notion that basically everyone wants the same sorts of things out of life (prosperity, compassion, justice, ect...) and that disagreements are the products of misunderstandings about what sorts of strategies are most effective for achieving our common goals. That if I just approach things the right way, patiently, logically, methodically, and consistently enough than connections can be made even with even the most ideologically polar opposite. I still think thats probably true for the well intentioned, unfortunate none of that applies when you are dealing with a troll. The only solution for dealing with this sort of person is ostracism.

I will attempt to learn those lessons.