on strike...

[Jonathan]

I think it's because they recognize that logic is so simple to grasp, and therefore they think that they should be able to help you grasp it.

That's how liberals think, Jonathan.

Actually, no. Liberals only pose as having concern for others and as having a natural tendency for wanting to help them, and they strike that pose because they know that others -- non-liberals -- actually do care for other humans and wish the best for them.

It's the self involved belief in the fantasy that no one could ever possibly disagree with their view unless they didn't understand their view.

No. I think that many people can disagree with my views while understanding them. Most other people easily grasp logic. You do not. Just you, Greg. I've Identified several times the specific logical fallacies that you employ. And you didn't get it. You replied with more of the same. You don't understand it. You. Not lots of other people. Just you.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Doesn't understand logic or has no use for it?

--Brant

[moralist]

It's easy perhaps from where I sit, to suggest that there are Christians and other believers who could well play a large part in the future of the libertarian and Libertarian movement. Some of them I've known are what I think of as 'natural individualists'. It's fascinated me to gather from past reading of fictional and factual sources, how early religious refugee-pioneers to a strange and dangerous land (mainly North America, but South Africa too) organically developed (as I see it) a raw 'rational egoism' as a direct result of their exposure to the harsh realities of living: i.e. applying reason to existence, for a self-interested purpose. Certainly, in their minds they were supported by their Faith - but fundamentally, any non-believer will know it was by rationality, objective moral principle and character that they survived and eventually thrived. To get a bit poetical, riding with Bible in one hand and rifle in the other -- it was his rifle, his mind, and rational selfishness that saw the individual and his people through.

Those Christians, today, who are convinced, comitted and active Capitalists all know too well that free trade in the complete absence of force, is the only manner of dealing with other people at large, so they fully accept separation of economy and State, therefore, it should follow, of Church and State. Those, who could not dream of enforcing their religious doctrines on others, what better political allies to have?

There is a natural affinity between Christianity and real Capitalism which exists within an ethical framework. So much of what isn't actually Capitalism gets labeled as such, and that gives it a bad reputation.

I wish there was a separation between the secular political religion of Liberalism and the State. But that's the will of the majority, and exists for no other reason than it is what most people have demanded.

What are your thoughts on third party voting?

Greg

[moralist]

No. I think that many people can disagree with my views while understanding them. Most other people easily grasp logic. You do not. Just you, Greg. I've Identified several times the specific logical fallacies that you employ. And you didn't get it. You replied with more of the same. You don't understand it. You. Not lots of other people. Just you.

That's because I don't think like a liberal, Jonathan...

When a feminine ideology resides within a male it causes them to (un)reason. What seems like logic to you is immoral libertine hysteria to me. It is your feminized mindset which creates big liberal socialist government welfare states...

...and that's just plain nuts.

Greg

[anthony]

There is a natural affinity between Christianity and real Capitalism which exists within an ethical framework. So much of what isn't actually Capitalism gets labeled as such, and that gives it a bad reputation.

I wish there was a separation between the secular political religion of Liberalism and the State. But that's the will of the majority, and exists for no other reason than it is what most people have demanded.

Greg

Greg - yes, I do also think of it as a "secular political religion", which merely involved a mental transfer: from God... to The People and The State. Its will is forced on us, as much as a theocracy would.

The most critical point for me, begins from the fact that the secularists saw and continue to see, Christian 'judgmentalism' as the enemy. Again, they replaced it with "Don't judge! Love, and tolerate!"

Except - man is not equipped to love, indiscriminately. Most importantly, he HAS to 'judge' (mostly privately) to be able to choose, which he must do to be able to live properly. So you see the glaring false dichotomy? You understand this, I know. Christianity had a history of imposing its judgments of individuals and punishing them, but the response is not the other side of the coin, which is to condemn or restrict an individual's judgments and choice by state decree.

The Left can't (or won't) see, that to live together amicably, does not presuppose that I should approve of what you or anyone else says or believes in - on everything from atheism or gays to abortion. Likewise, you can think whatever you please of me - but we can't (and more importantly, will not want to), act on our opinions, coercively.

Nope, the Left wants everybody to approve of everyone else, and they will make it happen...

(Then of course, they tie themselves in knots when they find that deep down they're as uncomfortable, disapproving and prejudiced about sexuality, race, religion, etc, as the people they attack - but still have to keep up the pretence.)

[anthony]

Excellent post Tony.

The conservative Christians that I have worked with politically are precisely the type of folks who you described and:

A...

Adam, Of course this is way outside my territory, you would know a lot about Conservative Christians' attitudes to the Libertarian Party. Much must have been discussed about this by libertarian intellectuals. Do you think there could be some cross over?

[Brant Gaede]

No. I think that many people can disagree with my views while understanding them. Most other people easily grasp logic. You do not. Just you, Greg. I've Identified several times the specific logical fallacies that you employ. And you didn't get it. You replied with more of the same. You don't understand it. You. Not lots of other people. Just you.

That's because I don't think like a liberal, Jonathan...

When a feminine ideology resides within a male it causes them to (un)reason. What seems like logic to you is immoral libertine hysteria to me. It is your feminized mindset which creates big liberal socialist government welfare states...

...and that's just plain nuts.

Greg

Logic is logical but you've not demonstrated Jonathan is illogical while he has offered, if not yet done, to demonstrate your illogicalities to you.

--Brant

rules of logic are objective--"immoral libertine hysteria" and "feminized mindsets" and "think like a liberal" are subjective ad hominem evaluations sans logic itself and "which creates big liberal socialist government welfare states" an undemonstrated conclusion (to tie a string of asseverations together you need a logical chain of reasoning)

[Selene]

Excellent post Tony.

The conservative Christians that I have worked with politically are precisely the type of folks who you described and:

A...

Adam, Of course this is way outside my territory, you would know a lot about Conservative Christians' attitudes to the Libertarian Party. Much must have been discussed about this by libertarian intellectuals. Do you think there could be some cross over?

Tony, I had a wonderful client and she said that people on the Board, [she was President of the School Board], play the glass half full/half empty philosophy game and all she knew was that someone has to wash the ______ing glass!

My role, generally, would be to put together a field force which would operate like a machine 72 hrs before the polls opened.

Therefore, my role was to work with folks and stress our common elements and goals.

Now, if my goal is to polarize a community like Sharpton, Holder and the President have chosen to do, I would be working on widening the gaps. That however is quite sick.

I think folks are basically good and I am comfortable washing the glasses.

I think we should be crossing over everywhere.

A...

[moralist]

Excellent post Tony.

The conservative Christians that I have worked with politically are precisely the type of folks who you described and:

A...

Adam, Of course this is way outside my territory, you would know a lot about Conservative Christians' attitudes to the Libertarian Party. Much must have been discussed about this by libertarian intellectuals. Do you think there could be some cross over?

I'd hazard a wild guess that crossover would likely be minimal as Conservative Christians aspire to live by an objective moral code which is greater than themselves.

A moral code designed by the Creator who wants His children to do good... because it is for their own good... not His.

What people call the political spectrum is actually a circle, so there are certain qualities the extreme libertarian secular right shares with the radical anarchical secular left as the two meet each other on the other side. And those qualities concern the character of personal behavior... namely drugs, perversion, and abortion... all of which are promoted as high ideals by both the radical anarchical left and the extreme libertarian right alike. So it is these shared libertine values which puts the extreme libertarian right in exactly the same location as the radical anarchical left...

...outside the objective moral standards of Conservative Christians.

There would still certainly be some overlapping political issues. I'm just mentioning a basic difference in fundamental views.

Now depending on how realistically pragmatic a person was and if they were not a total ideological purist, they might yet see the value of a political coalition...

...for fracturing the right on the grounds of ideological purity only hands power over to the left.

Greg

[Selene]

...they might yet see the value of a political coalition...for fracturing the right on the grounds of ideological purity only hands power over to the left.

Precisely. That is how you build a civil society, not a repressive secular, or, theological state.

I was living with a woman, had no children and walked around with a book by Rand, or, other classical liberal authors when I was elected to the school board.

Yet, I was endorsed by all the unions, the Parents Council, the Church Slate[included Orthodox Jewish, Christian and Eastern Churches] and the secular political parties.

Truth and integrity are powerful weapons.

A...

a great field organization kinda helped also...

[moralist]

...they might yet see the value of a political coalition...for fracturing the right on the grounds of ideological purity only hands power over to the left.

Precisely. That is how you build a civil society, not a repressive secular, or, theological state.

I was living with a woman, had no children and walked around with a book by Rand, or, other classical liberal authors when I was elected to the school board.

Yet, I was endorsed by all the unions, the Parents Council, the Church Slate[included Orthodox Jewish, Christian and Eastern Churches] and the secular political parties.

Truth and integrity are powerful weapons.

Yes they are, Adam.

There are certain universal qualities that transcend the abyss between the left and the right. They are found on the front side of the political circle, and not in the back.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here is a definition of argumentation:

The process of forming reasons, justifying beliefs, and drawing conclusions with the aim of influencing the thoughts and/or actions of others. Argumentation (or argumentation theory) also refers to the study of that process. http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/argumentationterm.htm

Are you comfortable with this definition?

A...

Not in the context of your statement (emphasis added):

[Greg's] argumentation is solid [...].

I'm interpreting you as indicating that you think Greg provides good basis for his statements, whereas often he doesn't so much as provide a semblance of an appeal to reasonableness (see your post #91).

Ellen

Ellen:

I understand that you are "interpreting" what I stated.

This is what I taught. I can be objective as to evaluating "Greg's" argumentation. Solid means he proceeds from "his" fixed assumptions and premises and is consistent within "his" argumentation.

I do not have to validate the truth or falsity of the argumentation.

When we move into the rhetorical sphere of ethos, pathos and logos, we arrive at what Brant observes as his "preacher voice."

Greg exhibits high ethos because he "practices what he preaches."

Emotionally his "sense of life" and productive work demonstrates his approach to reality.

His logic from his stated premises leads to his conclusions which I stated was "solid" as I would probably observe that he built a solid house.

A...

Adam,

I wonder how "equal opportunity" you are in applying your standards of "solid."

If, in calling Greg's "argumentation" "solid," you mean that:

"he proceeds from 'his' fixed assumptions and premises and is consistent within 'his' argumentation,"

do you also say of leading climate alarmists that their "argumentation is solid"?

I'll grant that leading climate alarmists, unlike Greg, exhibit concern for the trappings of an appearance of reasonableness. Thus, if I understand the standards you're using, you should, to be consistent, give them a higher score for "solid" than you give Greg.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I'll grant that leading climate alarmists, unlike Greg, exhibit concern for the trappings of an appearance of reasonableness. Thus, if I understand the standards you're using, you should, to be consistent, give them a higher score for "solid" than you give Greg.

Ellen

Adam is describing an "if-then" style of argument. He sees Greg's base as "solid" if taken as it is but mistakenly says or implies that the "then" of Greg's "if-then" logically follows qua argument, but it doesn't. Why? Because Greg never supplies any logic. His "if-then" is completely implicit so if you agree with Greg you have to supply the missing logic (and data). If you have a certain government governing you then that's your responsibility if not creation is not enough data or argument for the political supposition although some considerable truth can be refined from it.

--Brant

[Selene]

I'll grant that leading climate alarmists, unlike Greg, exhibit concern for the trappings of an appearance of reasonableness. Thus, if I understand the standards you're using, you should, to be consistent, give them a higher score for "solid" than you give Greg.

Ellen

Ellen, as usual, you make thoughtful points to consider.

Questions about the above quote that would arise in considering it is:

Does the "fact" that Greg lives according to his "solid" premises, and is open about it, matter to the "solid" label I used?

I find that a climate alarmist who will order you, or, your fellow citizens, to live in homes that are built to their mandated square footage, etc., while they do not, to be "un-solid."

Do you take that context into your evaluation of a person's argumentation?

I do.

A...

[moralist]

I'll grant that leading climate alarmists, unlike Greg, exhibit concern for the trappings of an appearance of reasonableness.

You're "leading" global warming "alarmists" are just useless unproductive liberal parasites leeching off of government grant money.

No alarm = no funding.

They can only lead whoever is stupid enough to follow them.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I'll grant that leading climate alarmists, unlike Greg, exhibit concern for the trappings of an appearance of reasonableness. Thus, if I understand the standards you're using, you should, to be consistent, give them a higher score for "solid" than you give Greg.

Ellen

Ellen, as usual, you make thoughtful points to consider.

Questions about the above quote that would arise in considering it is:

Does the "fact" that Greg lives according to his "solid" premises, and is open about it, matter to the "solid" label I used?

I find that a climate alarmist who will order you, or, your fellow citizens, to live in homes that are built to their mandated square footage, etc., while they do not, to be "un-solid."

Do you take that context into your evaluation of a person's argumentation?

I do.

A...

Hypocrisy de-solidifies anything. Disingenuousness is hypocrisy wearing gloves. Lying is the root of both. The root of lying is roots of lying.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

No. I think that many people can disagree with my views while understanding them. Most other people easily grasp logic. You do not. Just you, Greg. I've Identified several times the specific logical fallacies that you employ. And you didn't get it. You replied with more of the same. You don't understand it. You. Not lots of other people. Just you.

That's because I don't think like a liberal, Jonathan...

Actually, you do think like a liberal. Liberals do not think logically, just like you. Instead of presenting logical, rational positions, you present your feelings about how others whom you've never met are morally inferior to you and deserving of everything they get in their lives, where you are excused from the same negative judgments. They are morally responsible for that over which they have no control, where you are exempt from being judged for things over which you have no control. That's very a very liberal mindset.

When a feminine ideology resides within a male it causes them to (un)reason.

You can't claim that others are unreasonable while making the type of illogical statements that you make. What has caused that unreason in you? Was is "feminine ideology," or was it something else? Why do you refuse to learn about logic and how it works?

What seems like logic to you is immoral libertine hysteria to me.

Um, logic isn't about how something feels or seems to you, or to anyone else. Logic is a specific method of dealing with premises and arriving at conclusions. You don't practice that method. You don't understand it.

I've mentioned in the past that one of the logical fallacies that you employ most often is that of affirming the consequent. You haven't understood what that means, and therefore you haven't been able to logically refute the accusation. Instead, you ignore it, hope it will go away, and then you commit more of the same fallacy over and over again. That sounds like the actions of someone who is intellectually weak and fragile.

Now, what should a big, strong, virtuous, intellectual he-man do? Should he continue to pretend out of ignorance that logic is whatever he wishes it to be, or should he grow a pair of balls and achieve the courage to crack open a book and study the subject? Shouldn't he have the masculine pride to rise above his ape-brain mindset, admit to his mistakes, and correct them? Isn't that what a real man would do? Or should he remain illogically dedicated to his emotional belief that admitting to errors and stupidity is "feminine," and therefore that being a stubborn dunce is somehow masculine and virtuous?

It is your feminized mindset which creates big liberal socialist government welfare states...

...and that's just plain nuts.

Actually, no, what creates liberal socialist government welfare states is certain people exempting themselves from logic and their own stated morality, and posing as superior. Just like you do.

Anyway, I get a kick out of your bumbling attempt to portray yourself as morally superior, and now as masculine in your thinking style. It's especially funny considering the fact that spent a year of your life peeping on another male. So, apparently peeping on another guy is masculine? Heh.

J

[Brant Gaede]

A logical mind set and orientation starts out about the age of 2 1/2 and goes hand in hand with cognition. Good luck with a book. Greg's problem isn't complete lack of logic, but he can't make any good sense generalizing out of his own backyard. And yes, he's a moral narcissist, as I've said once before. So are all preachers from the pulpit who sincerely believe their own bs. All sermons are bs at the core no matter how much truth is in any paragraph and Greg speaks a lot of truth, all of it ironic and all of that sincere.

--Brant

if you trust Mormons in business dealings because they are Mormons (I wouldn't) you can similarly trust Greg (I would after reading most of his postings) even though I've always found Mormons to be quite superficial people if they lead with their religion as with all Christian feel-good sinceriatists leaving church after the sermon shaking hands with the preacher and assorted fellow members of the congregation heading home for lunch and the next NLF game

[moralist]

Actually, you do think like a liberal. Liberals do not think logically, just like you.

We'll just have to agree that we each disagree on that, Jonathan.

You're the end product of liberal government education... while my education came from the conservative real world. Tenured unproductive government employed public sector liberal failures taught you theory... while I learned reality from the Conservative American Capitalist private sector business world. The public sector taught you how to think like a liberal female... while I learned how to become a Conservative man in the Capitalist private sector.

And this explains why our two views of the world are so different:

You were taught.

I learned.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Actually, you do think like a liberal. Liberals do not think logically, just like you.

We'll just have to agree that we each disagree on that, Jonathan.

That's the type of thing that liberals say when they're wrong but aren't man enough to admit it.

You're the end product of liberal government education... while my education came from the conservative real world.

That's a very silly opinion, since almost every other conservative on the planet, other than you, understands logic and highly values it. Logic is a method of thinking which has a very long history, and it isn't a "product of liberal government education" or of feminism just because you don't understand it or like it.

Logic is good, Greg. You're being really, really stupid in trying to paint logic as a feminine liberal thing.

Tenured unproductive government employed public sector liberal failures taught you theory...

False. I was taught logic by conservatives. They were the ones who first exposed me to logic and inspired me to value it.

while I learned reality from the Conservative American Capitalist private sector business world. The public sector taught you how to think like a liberal female... while I learned how to become a Conservative man in the Capitalist private sector.

It sounds as if you're saying that you're proud to be uneducated and unintelligent.

Be a man, Greg. Set aside you fragile image of yourself, and be brave enough to study logic. Go out and buy a book on logic which was written by a Conservative. You're not going to understand it by working in the capitalist system. You're not bright enough to rediscover/reinvent logic all by yourself, especially when you're already so used to thinking illogically.

Being willfully ignorant is not virtuous. It's not Conservative. And it's not manly.

And this explains why our two views of the world are so different:

You were taught.

I learned.

Greg

One thing that you didn't learn was logic. You don't understand it. And your ignorance of it and your stubborn refusal to learn it is weak and childish.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'll grant that leading climate alarmists, unlike Greg, exhibit concern for the trappings of an appearance of reasonableness. Thus, if I understand the standards you're using, you should, to be consistent, give them a higher score for "solid" than you give Greg.

Ellen

Ellen, as usual, you make thoughtful points to consider.

Questions about the above quote that would arise in considering it is:

Does the "fact" that Greg lives according to his "solid" premises, and is open about it, matter to the "solid" label I used?

Adam,

In post #90, you gave this definition of "argumentation":

The process of forming reasons, justifying beliefs, and drawing conclusions with the aim of influencing the thoughts and/or actions of others. Argumentation (or argumentation theory) also refers to the study of that process. http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/argumentationterm.htm

What does Greg's way of living have to do with that definition?

Are you now changing your definition in mid-stream and merely expressing your evaluation of how Greg lives?

I don't think he in fact lives by the "premises" he states, but how someone lives is completely irrelevant to the person's "argumentation" defined according to the definition you gave.

I find that a climate alarmist who will order you, or, your fellow citizens, to live in homes that are built to their mandated square footage, etc., while they do not, to be "un-solid."

Do you take that context into your evaluation of a person's argumentation?

I do.

A...

No, I don't consider a person's behavior in evaluating the person's "argumentation." I don't use that term with the meaning you use, but taking your meaning as the basis, my answer would still be "no," since the definition you gave says nothing about how a person acts.

I'm coming to the conclusion that all you really mean in calling Greg's "argumentation" "solid" is that you approve of Greg as a person.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'll grant that leading climate alarmists, unlike Greg, exhibit concern for the trappings of an appearance of reasonableness.

You're "leading" global warming "alarmists" are just useless unproductive liberal parasites leeching off of government grant money.

No alarm = no funding.

They can only lead whoever is stupid enough to follow them.

Greg

The reply has nothing to do with the statement I made

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

duplicate - I was trying to correct something in post #121, and I hit "quote" instead of "edit."

[Ellen Stuttle]

duplicate duplicate - don't know why it posted twice.

[Selene]

No, I don't consider a person's behavior in evaluating the person's "argumentation." I don't use that term with the meaning you use, but taking your meaning as the basis, my answer would still be "no," since the definition you gave says nothing about how a person acts.

I'm coming to the conclusion that all you really mean in calling Greg's "argumentation" "solid" is that you approve of Greg as a person.

Ellen

Ellen:

When you use the term "evaluate" in reference to the "person's 'argumentation,'" what do you mean?

Do you "evaluate" pursuant to your sense of right and wrong?

Or, truth, or, falsity?

A...