Originally Posted by
guerilla
If I have said something wrong, correct it. Show me where I am wrong.
"If I'm not infallible, prove it."
But that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is, stop attacking me the person, and point out where my argument is wrong. If you feel the burden of proof is on me to prove my position, say so, and if we can agree the burden is on me (when I claim something positively) then I will have to meet it.
I reject your hypothesis that your opinions are right and therefore must be proven wrong. All you've done in this thread is counter others arguments by turning their words against them, as I have done to you now above.
But you haven't, all you have done is what dispel did. Strawman my position by rephrasing what I wrote.
I'm not claiming my opinions are right. I am claiming my arguments are right. They aren't the same thing. Now if you disagree, please counter my arguments, or establish the burden of proof on me. That's how the discussion advances.
I don't think you should invalidate your own ideas because they are your own. I am suggesting that you have come to the conclusion that all ideas, that are your own, are right because you wouldn't believe something that is wrong.
That is another strawman. I've never claimed that. Nor do I claim it now.
I have believed a lot of wrong things. I probably still believe wrong things. I will probably die believing wrong things. Your assertion doesn't have merit.
But you're still attacking me, and not my argument.
"This quiz is wrong because it doesn't hold the same conception of libertarianism as I do because I can definitively define libertarianism."
I do believe I can definitively define libertarianism, by using the definitions of other notable libertarians and the core philosophical ideas behind those definitions. It's not my own unique definition I am advancing.
This is another attack on me, not an argument against my definition.
"Remember, you are a foolish mortal. Let me enlighten you. The mainstream political rectum would be 100% authoritarian because it seems that way to me. Do you see now?"
You're rephrasing me in a strawman again. Why is my statement not clear enough, that you can just dispute its validity? Why do you have to rephrase it to something different, to not make any argument what so ever?
Another attack on me, another avoidance of arguing what I have written.
"These graphs don't agree with my conception of Hitler being 100% this and Stalin 100% that so they are wrong."
Same thing, strawman and ad hom. Still no argument.
Also you argue about what is just or unjust what is socialism or isn't what is liberty or isn't as if these terms are static and equally understood as the same thing by everyone. This is the source of your arguments from authority. Assuming that your definition of these terms is the right one. Among other things.
The terms may not be understood by everyone equally, but do I bear the burden of defining every term, and checking to see if every reader, lurker or poster is sufficiently knowledgeable? That's where debate comes in if we have a conflict in understanding.
You misunderstand an argument from authority. An argument from authority isn't,
"that arrogant prick guerilla said something, and he seems damn confident he is right"
it is
"that arrogant prick guerilla said something, and he says it is right because he is guerilla and guerilla is awesome."
I'm not claiming to be an authority, and so my same arguments could be advanced by a retarded monkey, or the world's smartest man, and that wouldn't change their validity. They are either true or not, and you only made one small attempt in a paragraph I didn't quote to actually address what I have said.
If you'd like sources, or an
excellent working definition of libertarianism, or you would just like to chat about this further, I would be happy to do so. Maybe out of the limelight, you won't feel the need to attack me, and can instead attack my ideas. I don't claim to be good for much, but I think these ideas, of which most are derived from better people than me, are pretty darn good. And maybe under better circumstances you will think so to. Or maybe you will teach me something new by exposing my error or perspective I didn't have before. Either way, seems like the potential for a win-win scenario.
Thanks for listening.