Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!jj
From: jj@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Baba ROM DOS on jj
Message-ID: <3617@alice.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 15:14:46 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3617
Posted: Mon Apr 22 15:14:46 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Apr-85 07:12:12 EST
Organization: New Jersey State Farm for the Terminally Bewildered
Lines: 55

>> Dan McK, I feel, does not realize the one fear that many people have
>> of libertarianism<If he does indeed realize it, he is far too
>> politic to explain it>, namely that under a libertarian philosophy,
>.....
>> have either been mislead or who, in fact, feel this terror would
>> fare much better under a less restrictive and more individually responsible
>> system.
>
>As long as we're on the subject of debating practices, jj, you should
>know that attacks on the motives or character of participants is
>considered very bad form.  Even if your assertion were true (don't worry,
>I'm not going to ask for *evidence*), what difference would it make?
>Ideas have to stand on their merit.

"Idea have to stand on their merit", indeed.  I wasn't aware  that
sophistry had anything to do with merit, and the most
effective (in practice) arguments against libertarianism that I've
seen on the net have been sheer sophistry, and in fact have been
attacks "on the motives or character of participants" directed
at libertarians.  I suppose that it is a sign of something that
what's fair for the opponent isn't fair for the libertarian, but I'm not
sure what.  

The conventional attack on libertarian
philosophy has been that of --you callous, selfish, self-centered
bastard, why don't you go (*&^(*&^(!".  I have speculated
about the reasons that some people attack libertarianism with such
unreasoning hate, and have advanced what seems to be to be
an explaination least requiring malice. <I like to think that people
are not deliberately malicious.>  

Your complaints about "bad form" 
would be true in a formal debate, where both sides were playing
by a set of rules.  This forum, however, is dominated by people
of apparant bad will and worse form, and one CANNOT expose such people without
appearing to cast aspersions. (If one is to mention the bad will, etc.)
If you are going to cast aspersions on my debating style, in all
fairness you must be equally severe with all debators.

I haven't been reading nut.politics enough to be able to say
certainly that you haven't attacked the folks who have been
using the emotional blackmail of "anti-women" against 
libertarians, but I don't recall you having done anything of the
sort.
>
>> "I'm amazed that men like you can be so shallow, thick and slow"
>> 
>> (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
>
>		(Baba ROM DOS)
-- 
DO TEDDY BEARS HAVE OPINIONS?  ASK YOURS TODAY!
"Indian Lake is a scene you can make with your little ones..."

(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj