About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


Post 60

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

If you have lost all respect for me, then feel free to ignore me. I promise you that I won't miss your replies to me, and I'm happy to let my responses speak for themselves.
-----------

I said, "You accuse everyone who votes Libertarian of moral hypocrisy, picking and choosing their principles, acting sanctimonious, and those here of engaging in slander. You are so out of line."

You replied, "I don't think so, Steve"

But what about in post #52, addressed to me and "(and to the others voting Libertarian)", where you say, "The moral hypocrisy here is picking and choosing when to stand up to your principles according to your line of reasoning of what that means. You feel sanctimonious when standing up and voting for a candidate that will probably not win. And later in the same post, "...whatever slander du jour I get these days."

"I don't think so"? So either you meant that you didn't say those things, which the posts prove that you did, or that you believe that is "in line" to call everyone who votes Libertarian a moral hypocrite, picking and choosing their principles, sanctimonious, and engaging in slander. That last doesn't even make sense as being addressed to all Libertarians - most of them probably don't know you exist.

You've worked yourself up into such a lather about the "sanctioning of evil" - What do think it means? If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are sanctioning the lesser of two evils - that shouldn't be hard to understand. If you don't believe the Libertarian party is evil, and you vote for them, you are NOT sanctioning evil. If you believe as Ayn Rand did, that the Libertarian party is the most evil, then, YES, JOHN, Ayn Rand was sanctioning the least of three evils but only because there were no non-evils in her view. I stated quite clearly in one of my posts that we are put in the position of choosing between the lesser of evils or abstaining from exercising our vote - a no win situation. It isn't that difficult to grasp.

You say, "The problem here really is you don't like it when your positions are challenged." Explain why that doesn't apply to you! Or explain where you get off psychologizing.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 61

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 11:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

John,

If you have lost all respect for me, then feel free to ignore me. I promise you that I won't miss your replies to me, and I'm happy to let my responses speak for themselves.
-----------

I said, "You accuse everyone who votes Libertarian of moral hypocrisy, picking and choosing their principles, acting sanctimonious, and those here of engaging in slander. You are so out of line."

You replied, "I don't think so, Steve"

But what about in post #52, addressed to me and "(and to the others voting Libertarian)", where you say, "The moral hypocrisy here is picking and choosing when to stand up to your principles according to your line of reasoning of what that means. You feel sanctimonious when standing up and voting for a candidate that will probably not win. And later in the same post, "...whatever slander du jour I get these days."

"I don't think so"? So either you meant that you didn't say those things, which the posts prove that you did, or that you believe that is "in line" to call everyone who votes Libertarian a moral hypocrite, picking and choosing their principles, sanctimonious, and engaging in slander.


Yes Steve, that is exactly what I meant. That having to respond to slander and pointing out the sanctimonious condemnations justifies my response and is completely in line.

You've worked yourself up into such a lather about the "sanctioning of evil" - What do think it means? If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are sanctioning the lesser of two evils - that shouldn't be hard to understand.


Likewise Steve, it shouldn't be hard to understand for you to say Rand also sanctioned evil by picking between the best of available options, and that you yourself continue to pay taxes to stave off your execution in order to avoid imprisonment, which is also something that should not be hard to understand, yet for some reason for you it is.

Now Steve changes the moral conditions for when someone is sanctioning evil:

YES, JOHN, Ayn Rand was sanctioning the least of three evils but only because there were no non-evils in her view.


Ah yes!!! I see it now Steve!! Choosing between the lesser of two evils is sanctioning evil, but choosing between the lesser of THREE evils, is no longer sanctioning evil!!

[Waiting to hear how Rand was sanctioning evil. Continuing to believe you're just a moral hypocrite]

Post 62

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 6:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." -Ethan



Post 63

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 8:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good one Ted, but my vote is going to Azathoth!

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


User ID Password or create a free account.