A couple reasons I couldn't vote for Rand Paul

[PDS]

That's a strange way to handle boredom.

Have you considered a hobby instead? Perhaps the martial arts?

[Robert Baratheon]

Sorry - busy 100-percenting Mega Man 2 on my NES with an economics podcast running.

[PDS]

Pretty much explains everything.

[Serapis Bey]

Here's a premise that needs checking with these three. (I could have said, "These three need to check a premise," but I'm beginning to like passive voice... it's so polite... )

From everything I've read so far, they base ALL of their interaction on a subtext, a...

False Premise: The readers care about what they think of each other.

False Corollary 1: The readers make character assessments based on the opinions they write in their bickering.

False Corollary 2: The readers find their bickering to be profound instead of petty.

You're wrong for the most part. I don't believe any of us give much thought to what the readers are thinking, but what's interesting are the different reasons each of us have for such cavalier disregard.

I have to take a moment to clear the record regarding one of Kacy's accusations. As RB said, there is too much revisionism in his narrative to correct in one post, but I simply have to address Kacy's broad-brush characterization of me as a socially inept fool. In addition to the facts already presented showing that RB and I were often ahead of the curve in certain respects, the truly ironic thing is that it was *I* who frequently had to admonish Kacy for launching into garrulous philosophical rants at the most inopportune times. As they say, there is a time and a place for everything, but Kacy's passion for atheism often manifested in his being the "buzzkill" in certain social situations. Most socially-adjusted people know what a "vibe" is and refrain from breaking it unless demanded by circumstance. Kacy's blind spot regarding this fact can be seen in his own admission here that he and his ex-wife used to bicker constantly in public. In both cases we see an egocentric mentality with little regard for the larger context. It should also be noted that his habit of constantly debating religious people wherever such could be found was eventually corrected by him and became another in his list of epiphanies which I never received any acknowledgement for. I understand he came to his realization himself, but it does become tiresome when one's own wisdom is given short shrift time and time again.

And if anyone senses a contradiction between my endorsement of the "larger social context" and the anti-social behavior I exhibit on this forum, I would point out that what we have here barely resembles the organic and wholistic dynamic found in meatspace. All I know of the other posters on this forum are their conscious declarations, therefore, I am unable to judge any (in)congruency between their statements and their behavior or lifestyle. As such, I look at this forum as a mental playground where ideas are the only coin of the realm (for the most part).

Now, as to why I find it fruitful to get a little more...uh...personal... with Kacy without regard to the readership here -- I will paraphrase what I said earlier: psychology is more fundamental than philosophy, and if we lose sight of this fact we run the risk of pointless pedantry. Getting at the motivational root of certain beliefs can be illustrative and impactful, as Nietzsche understood. For example, RB wrote:

The picture becomes even richer when we then self-examine, asking WHY Kacy's narrative is so different from our own. But Kacy never gets to that point in analysis. Instead he merely contents himself with maintaining his self-indulgent narrative, fat and happy like my namesake, as absolute ruler of his emotional realm. This is what is so frustrating to us. We're on a never-ending journey and Kacy has already reached his destination...

Brant took issue with this statement claiming that such a thing is not a philosophical divide but rather a divide based on psychology. So what? We are still left with a certain gap, or impasse, in our communication with Kacy. If we can't begin to understand the differences between ourselves as Objectivish people, what hope do we have to persuade those outside of our subculture? In this case, we see that much of Kacy's self-concept is tied up with a certain delimited perspective of the facts -- a perspective which excludes the reality of his being a government employee paid with tax money. I submit this observation has implications for the nature of self-esteem and its seemingly necessary usage of a kind of evasion (or restricted awareness) in maintaining its precarious balance. But that is a topic for another day.

With that out of the way, I would like to ask you (MSK) if you are prepared to speak about your experience in Kacy's so-called "echo chamber." I believe you have now had suitable time to get a feel for the tenor of the discussion there. Can you share with us your Solomon-like judgement?

[Serapis Bey]

Kacy, sorry to see you jet, but I would remind you that all of us here are Advocates of Reason. Explicitly, even. Where else will you find a group of people united in their use of Reason? Atheist blogs?

BTW,

Brant said:

Funny as hell.

ginny said:

I mean, you're funny, but is that your only purpose?

You said:

I don't find anything funny about SB's behavior

[Serapis Bey]

A straw man. I don't think Kacy and Brant expect Rand Paul to be perfect, with or without caps. They expect from him, if I understand them, substantive principled performance.

Like it or hate it, but politics is the art of compromise.

Take the case in hand, ending the “War on Drugs.” We might agree that injustices of long-standing are usually best ended incrementally, but it should go without saying that the increments must be substantial changes, not infinitesimal ones that go nowhere.

What would be a substantial increment? Thinking about it off the top, the following could done, in order, with no more than a few years in between:

1. End all mandatory federal sentencing immediately Sentences will be up to the judge. All past sentences made under the mandatory sentencing laws will be vacated and re-considered.

2. Decriminalize marijuana.

3. Decriminalize unrefined opium (it used to be called laudanum).

4. Phase out, in sub-stages, the criminalization of refined opiates. I haven’t thought much about what the sub-stages could be. Such opiates could be licensed like alcohol is now (but should not be). The quantity per sale per month could be restricted, etc.

Good ideas. If Rand Paul is not your man, who is?

[Serapis Bey]

I have more observations, but I won't be making them in a public forum. Ask me about Narcissus and Medusa next time we hang out.

The suspense is terrible. I hope it lasts.

(and speaking of that...have you finally determined the details of your texting plan? Or will I suffer your wrath again for the 10 cents I add to your phone bill?)

[Serapis Bey]

This is poison. The intensely personal nature of this riposte to PDS is troubling to me. Using a bit of reduction, I could fairly say that the portly pseudonym is expecting all and sundry to agree that a dark badness infects Kacy and renders him Beyond Bad on scales of integrity and humanity.

It is ugly in a psychological way, I find. If I was a girl on the outskirts of this three-way invecta-blah, I would edge ever so carefully further away. I would wonder why the goal seems to be Negation, and why the sentence sought by Judges Girlfake and GirlFalloon is so, um, Final, punitive. I might even consider that the two Kacy-glued McPersonalBitchos are fixated on vanquishing Kacy. Not mere correcting, but a bowed head, full acknowledgement that the good girls judgement was correct and necessary.

I would probably get the impression that whatever the truth in their estimations of Kacy's argument, it is a creepy thing to expect him to submit to their psychological judgments and sentencing suggestions. This is the rough ground, when "Your argument is faulty" becomes "You. You you you. You are Bad. Bad to the bone. Admit it, or me and Stacey will make you suffer forevermore, wherever you alight."

I take it you prefer to tiptoe through the tulips?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You're wrong for the most part. I don't believe any of us give much thought to what the readers are thinking, but what's interesting are the different reasons each of us have for such cavalier disregard.

I have to take a moment to clear the record regarding one of Kacy's accusations...

SB,

Real individualist, huh?

A regular Roark, your are...

"But I don't think of you."

Well, tell me this, big shot.

You are "taking the moment to clear the record" for whom?

Who's supposed to read that crap?

Those people you don't "give much thought" to?

Dayaamm!

(Jeez... that was way too easy... Are you related to Phil?... )

Michael

[Serapis Bey]

You're wrong for the most part. I don't believe any of us give much thought to what the readers are thinking, but what's interesting are the different reasons each of us have for such cavalier disregard.

I have to take a moment to clear the record regarding one of Kacy's accusations...

You are "taking the moment to clear the record" for whom?

For Kacy. The irony was just too rich for me to ignore. Trust me, I could have corrected any number of other misinterpretations of his, but this one was too much to let pass.

A regular Roark, your are...

"But I don't think of you."

Oh, I do think of other folks on the forum. I have a certain online reputation to protect after all.

What I don't worry too much about are other people's feelings.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For Kacy. The irony was just too rich for me to ignore. Trust me, I could have corrected any number of other misinterpretations of his, but this one was too much to let pass.

SB,

So you think Kacy is now corrected and duly repentant?

If you were only concerned about this, why not use email? Why not keep this stuff private? Why humiliate the poor soul in public (if that's what you think you did), especially to an audience who could not care less except how to get you guys to stop boring them with crap and get to the ideas?

Is this a weird comedy routine or something?

Nobody's laughing. Nobody's even reading anymore.

Sometimes it's good to see where the inner myth meets the outer reality...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anyway...

I'm tired of scolding.

I feel like a friggen' kindergarten teacher with a bunch of tattletales.

Carry on. Your life. Your choice.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

(and speaking of that...have you finally determined the details of your texting plan? Or will I suffer your wrath again for the 10 cents I add to your phone bill?)

Huh, where's this coming from? Not that I expect OLers care to know, but in case any are now curious: I have what you might call a philosophical objection to text messaging. Receiving and sending texts is basically the same thing as having another email address, except you can't print or use search tools on your messages. And you have to pay extra for it. So I had text messaging completely disabled on my Iphone, I don't receive them, and I believe I can't even send them (I haven't tried). If you have to talk to me RIGHT NOW, call. If I'm available (and/or inclined) to read a text, I'm almost certainly available to take a call. Otherwise, email me, I check my email often enough.

Another problem I have with text messaging is all the damn spam. I just looked through my old texts, and there's mortgage refinance offers, sell your junk car for cash, fast cash advance, tree trimming...hey, here's one from Serapis, the only one, dated 4/7/09, asking me where I got the Paulaner Oktoberfest beer. You could have asked me that by email, y'know. You're saying I unleashed my wrath on you over that? No freaking way. Wait a minute, what was I doing with Oktoberfest beer in April? It's pretty hard to get when it's out of season. Ah, so it makes sense you would ask where it could be found. What makes less sense is that I had it, and when I had you over I offered you one. Wicked Hobbits, the precious is OURS!!!

The downside of this policy is that people assume I do receive text messages, so I have to make a point of telling them (usually when I first provide my number) that I don't. This often means I have to explain my philosophical objection, and I risk coming across as a miserly pedant. Too bad so few people are even nearly as smart and principled as me. Including you, Serapis.

Hasta viernes