Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Db0 on January 13, 2010 at 11:51am

I'm "full of myself" because I say things as I see them? What? Should I stroke their cheeks and whisper sweet sweet words to their ears? When have you seen this working again Nerd? From the Atheist appeasers maybe?

I would say that you need to look inwards to see who's full of himself. I'm not the one going to random fora and declaring that "you're doing it all wrong". If you have a better plan, let's hear it. If you simply don't like how I write or my attitude with perpetuators of human suffering, you're welcome to not read or link to me.

Permalink Reply by Db0 on January 13, 2010 at 2:09pm

There's some people who can be convinced and there's some who can't. The person that particular post was related to had embraced "Anarcho"-Capitalism and was asking me how Anarchism could function better to provide him with all the things he already had. The whole point of the article was to point out why this was entirely the wrong way to look at it.

If you notice, I've spend a good part of my blog doing part B (See [1], [2] etc), but occasionally, there's some people who are just enemies. People who during a time of strife and attempts to move towards Anarchism will go on "the other side of the barricades" so to speak. Sometimes, one needs to be polemic and hope that this will shake people enough to reconsider.

In short, I do mostly B but sometimes someone will say something which will warrant A as well. I fail to see how this makes me more "full of myself" than Dawkins speaking abotu the God Delusion or PZ Myers desecrating a cracker.

Permalink Reply by Db0 on January 13, 2010 at 2:14pm

?

Permalink Reply by Sitakali on February 6, 2010 at 5:28pm

I have a big problem with PZ Myers; I think he is very abrasive, and has a cult of followers that he uses as a snake-pit to throw people in who don't have exactly the same beliefs as him. He creates an atmosphere of abuse on his blog, and proudly states that he will not regulate it. I have been attacked several times on that blog, usually for specific things that aren't entirely related to the subject I'm commenting on, including typos. It is a self-regulating blog where those who spit vitriol push out anybody who is even somewhat capable of having their feelings hurt.

As for Dawkins, he is extremely civil; I don't see how anybody could see him as on a par with Myers. He calls out bullshit, but still believes in conversation and not just ad-hominem attacks.

Permalink Reply by Sitakali on February 6, 2010 at 5:22pm

Db0 is generally quite tolerant of people with radically different views from him; frankly, I don't know where he finds the patience. If he writes the occasional aggressive blog post, I see nothing wrong with that. He still responds to virtually every comment on his blog with very straight-forward logic.

Permalink Reply by Anwar Diamante on February 7, 2010 at 10:14am

Well, I find that the idea of Anarchism is great. However, I think that it is better as a form of state government not federal. I think that limited government is the idea in terms of it being a federal influence. I also think that the constitution should be re-written. It is antiquated and biased our country is too diverse to truly follow its essence anymore.