Message from @scaevola
Discord ID: 590281308127887379
I wouldn't encourage that, Tim.
It's not mere disagreement, Bee. I litterally copied and pasted the comment. (It was surprisingly easy to find, because that group is dead. 😢)
That's fine, *a* libertarian != libertarianism
Even within big L there's a lot of disagreement
There are purists in every movement. Leninists saying Stalinists arent marxist. Stalinists saying Maoists arent marxist. OR Paleocons saying neocons arent conservative and Neocons calling constitutional conservatives not conservative. Why do AnCaps get to define libertarianism if non of the other groups get to define conservatism or marxism?
"Prove me wrong"
>anecdote
You have to prove yourself right first
If I say "I'm a libertarian" and I'm not anti government, then I have your exact evidence in the contrary
No Bee, my experience is what it is... This is the same *"No, **YOU** prove you're wrong"* shit that convinced me Debate wasn't worth my time anymore.
My mind IS made, I've never seen a not-anti-government libertarian.
I have seen MANY bullshit artists, though.
I would say libertarian is probably the best way to easily describe my position. I also know multiple Libertarians and libertarians that are for minarchy or higher levels of govt hierarchy
Rand and Ron Paul are frequently cited as libertarians, if not Libertarians, and are both for decreased government involvement
The problem when you work off of anecdotes only is that you make the conversation utterly asinine
I can't disprove an interaction you claim to have, but it is foolish to extrapolate your interactions to a larger population without any sort of dara backing it
Also perceptions are wrong all the time. Witnesses are one of the least reliable forms of evidence
*"I also know multiple Libertarians and libertarians that are for minarchy or higher levels of govt hierarchy"*
Ya. That's what I thought...
Stop. Please.
Lying sets off my PTSD and Bee... I kinda like you. So just stop.
>prove me wrong
>claims to the contrary? Must be lies
Nice one. Why are you here if you're only going to make bad faith statements?
Is anything that contradicts your preconceptions automatically assumed to be lies?
No, @C1PHER, *lies* are lies.
@Beemann here wants me to believe 2+2≠4, where my experience is 2+2≡4.
My experience is that *ALL* libertarians hate *ALL* government; The so-called *"moderates"* more or less *tolerate* local government... *As long as there's no law enforcement.* (Sometimes said *gendarmes* if being kindly, but most often said as *gestappo,* spelling errors and all.)
Now ¿*ONE "libertarian"* is saying *'No none of us are like that, those are just purists, those are anecdotal"* (and **DON'T** use that word with me, leftists turned it into a dirty word) *'**I'm** the real example"* and I'm supposed to just *accept* it? ¿*THOUSANDS* of *"purists"* are ***ALL*** lying, you're the way the light and the truth?
... You're joking, ¿right?
It's not on ***ME*** to prove ***MY***expirence is wrong, it's on ***YOU*** to prove my experience is wrong. Calling it *"bad faith statements"* is doing a lot to prove everything I've *perceived* about libertarians is correct.
Legalize claims he was banned from Reddit for ***ONE*** comment that *'wasn't supportive **ENOUGH**'* of gay pride; That's a prima facie bullshit statement... Except for the fact that it's happened to me *for even less.* (I asked if anyone was willing to discuss MandatoryCarry, I was banned by my own first *reply* because *"that's not libertarian."*)
¿You want me to believe 2+2≠4? Prove it. Otherwise, stop trying to bullshit me; I'm not buying it.
You're trying to argue that there's some sort of objective truth to your subjective experience, while assuming that others providing their subjective experience are arguing in bad faith. Nobody's going to want to engage in a conversation like that
Because it's bullshit.
I grew up with cattle, I know the smell a mile away. Now if you're gonna prove to me libertarians ARENT non-violent extreme anti-government weirdos then do so otherwise stop lying to me. You're wasting your time and mine.
The easiest way to "prove" that would be informing you that I'm a libertarian who's not anti-government. But you've already dismissed such claims as trolling.
Pretty much, ya.
***YOU*** are the *"anecdote,"* not the norm.
Also Matt has often described himself as libertarian leaning and I wouldnt call him a non-violent extreme anti-government weirdo
Your idea of the burden of proof is a strange one
"If you do it, it's just an anecdote. If I do it, it's hard evidence"
*'I don't care how many millions of people say 2+2=4,* FOR ME, *2+2=5 and that makes it true.'*
@Legalize
Remind me never to defend you again. 😒
We'rs not talking about 2 and 2 though, we're talking about a circular argument you've made
From 1:43 onwards I agree with Legalize
But that's a I've read
i'm a libertarian who wants limited government, not the abolition of government, so add one more to the anecdote 😉
Kek
@Mandatory Carry taxation is theft OLD MAN
Since you've demanded I prove my *perception* that libertarians I've dealt with are anti-government, @Beemann, I *chose* to indulge your fantasy world;
https://www.lp.org/platform/
*"Libertarian Party
"2018 Platform
"As adopted by convention, July 2018.
"PREAMBLE
"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others. ... The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. ... We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose. ... Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent. ... We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual..."*
And that's your own party platform.
So yes, we **ARE** talking about *"2+2."* (Now watch this...)
@Legalize
No, I did not.
***IN FACT,*** since you went there for me, quotation marks (") mean "absolute quote" whereas apostrophes (') mean not absolute quote ('such as paraphrasing'). I *could point out that Beeman's use of quotation marks attributes to me something I **didn't** say, or I *could* be nice and just assume he wasn't familiar with the proper grammar, since our schools leave **MUCH** to be desired these days.
Since it doesn't 'appear' that he's trying to plagerize me, I'm going to assume the later.
¿Anyone ***ELSE***wanna try this *"old man"*? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ah fuck that deserves another 🤣
Shit, ¿where did those extra hard returns come from? ðŸ˜
You didn't say merely 'all the libertarians I know are anarchists', you said 'all the libertarians I know are anarchists *and* that means all libertarians are anarchists *and* anyone who disagrees with that statement is not merely wrong but a liar'.
I mean, do you really not see what a totally insane standard that is @Mandatory Carry?
Wow learned something new today about paraphrasing quotations
TAHNKS DAD @Mandatory Carry
I'm still trying to figure out if he blocked me for 'lying' aka disagreeing with him so maybe he won't see or reply to that.
Nothing in the preamble says abolish government.
" ... We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual..."
pretty straightforward
*dabs on that*
Big strong.