Official Gary Johnson Discussion Thread

[Brons]

Originally Posted by TomCollins

I'm not saying it's not terrible, but it hardly seems like the answer to the question they supposedly answered.

They are going for gotchas.

It really appears to be a question about the CRA, which is what got Rand in trouble. But even that it seems like the answer doesn't make sense. "they go go overboard" is the first thing he says.

Of course, he could have confused the bill (or not known what it even was). It's always possible. Even if it was the question asked, I wonder what question he thought they asked, or if he was just Miss Teen South Carolining.

I'll just shoot his campaign an e-mail this afternoon and we'll see. If the video is real I highly doubt it was bad intent from Johnson. I think it's most likely he didn't know what the act was about. Making **** up to cover yourself is completely standard but he probably should have gone with a different angle, this just makes him look dumb. A states' rights answer would've been perfect.

[FlyWf]

Originally Posted by bonsaltron

uhhhhhh CRA = good, except for the federal government assuming it can override private property laws. Ever wonder where the federal government had precedent./authority to ban smoking in restaraunts countrywide?

There is no federal smoking ban, so no, I don't spend a lot of time wondering about it.

TomCollins- Besides principled libertarians, who are obviously the most logical thinkers in all of the IT department, is there any other group capable of thinking logically?

Bonus points: Can you identify the logical flaw in "X is bad so it should be outlawed"?

[bonsaltron]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

There is no federal smoking ban, so no, I don't spend a lot of time wondering about it.

Oops I thought there was for some reason... my pants are down, ignore my previous post

edit: it's been years since I've been to a restraunt/bar that allowed smoking anymore, and I've lived in 3 different states the past 4 years

[NeBlis]

Originally Posted by bonsaltron

Oops I thought there was for some reason... my pants are down, ignore my previous post

There could be using the logic you stated. And allot of people would instantly accept that it is within governments perveiw to instate a national ban.

but it is funny that you didn't realize that there wasn't one.

[TomCollins]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

There is no federal smoking ban, so no, I don't spend a lot of time wondering about it.

TomCollins- Besides principled libertarians, who are obviously the most logical thinkers in all of the IT department, is there any other group capable of thinking logically?

Bonus points: Can you identify the logical flaw in "X is bad so it should be outlawed"?

Principled *insert group*all fit the bill. I think most of them tend to be missing some other key part of the equation, but I won't fault them for being logically inconsistent.

I wouldn't say that even most libertarians are capable of it as well. It's a huge human weakness in general. Maybe 1-2% of the population is actually capable of it. And even then, many choose to ignore it to push their own agenda.

The reason why in software it comes up, is that you pretty much cannot function in that role if you are not capable of it. Perhaps lawyers might be a good example of absolutely needing that capability, although I'm not as knowledgeable in the field.

[FlyWf]

I think you missed my point, which was not to begin a ranking of logic skills by profession/political philosophy.

[TomCollins]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

I think you missed my point, which was not to begin a ranking of logic skills by profession/political philosophy.

Then I guess I agree that most software engineers are racists.

[FlyWf]

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Then I guess I agree that most software engineers are racists.

wat?


My point is that your argument about logic is pathetic(which meshes well with how arrogant it is) and there's absolutely nothing illogical about supporting the CRA. Stop framing the debate to stroke your own ego.

One reason why people think libertarians are insufferable is that nearly every one of their political arguments takes the form "if you weren't so stupid...", like here it's "if you weren't so stupid you'd agree with me that people should be able to run a whites only lunch counter".

That's part of the reason this here Official Gary Johnson Thread isn't going to be on the first page come next November.

[HomerNoonJr]

I agree with FlyWf. I found Riverman's argument about libertarians being retarded much more sophisticated (not to mention humble) and thus merited a much more reasonable response. Liberals are obviously famous for their cogency which explains why the Official Barack Obama Thread gets so much activity.


Now let's try to get back on topic... please?



ABC News Interview: "I am the underdog" -Johnson

[EricLindros]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

One reason why people think libertarians are I'm insufferable is that nearly every one of their my political arguments takes the form "if you weren't so stupid..."

Yeah, that kinda goes both ways.

[TomCollins]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

wat?


My point is that your argument about logic is pathetic(which meshes well with how arrogant it is) and there's absolutely nothing illogical about supporting the CRA. Stop framing the debate to stroke your own ego.

One reason why people think libertarians are insufferable is that nearly every one of their political arguments takes the form "if you weren't so stupid...", like here it's "if you weren't so stupid you'd agree with me that people should be able to run a whites only lunch counter".

That's part of the reason this here Official Gary Johnson Thread isn't going to be on the first page come next November.

I understand why people might support the CRA. But when people say it's a terrible position, perhaps from a political standpoint they are correct. But most people are not capable of understanding how one could be against racism, but also the CRA.

Same reason why people struggle so much with giving lots of despicable people free speech. People just can't understand how supporting the right of a despicable person to speak is different than supporting that speech.

More people understand that because it has been ingrained in their minds that they should do that, but even then, it's not a popular position. But make a similar argument in a related area, and they can't separate the two ideas. "I support free speech, but...."

Stupidity is not being able to understand the argument. I would say that some people are capable of understanding the difference, but disagree, and that's fine. They are more like "I really want to have control over XYZ, even if it costs me something I do like". That is the main reason why libertarians are such a minority. Most people have the desire to control others more than the desire to not be controlled. It doesn't help that some people can't separate the two. "I want to control XYZ, but don't want them to control me!" Then they get upset when their guys aren't in charge. People *really* like controlling others.

[FlyWf]

Originally Posted by TomCollins

I understand why people might support the CRA. But when people say it's a terrible position, perhaps from a political standpoint they are correct. But most people are not capable of understanding how one could be against racism, but also the CRA.

Not capable? I mean, wow. You really don't think it's possible that anyone who understands your views to disagree, don't you?

Hint: Everyone is capable of grasping that difference. The 1st amendment stuff you mention later in this post is like super basic 8th grade civics for everyone. Now, maybe people don't BELIEVE you, but whose fault is that?

(note that when we did this song and dance in the Rand Paul thread it was mostly composed of libertarians embarrassing themselves by making a bunch of contrafactual statements about American history specifically and economics generally, followed by liberals concern trolling you guys about why Rand said it and why the paleoconservative wing of the libertarian movement has such a virulent hate for federal expansions of liberty)

Stupidity is not being able to understand the argument. I would say that some people are capable of understanding the difference, but disagree, and that's fine. They are more like "I really want to have control over XYZ, even if it costs me something I do like". That is the main reason why libertarians are such a minority. Most people have the desire to control others more than the desire to not be controlled. It doesn't help that some people can't separate the two. "I want to control XYZ, but don't want them to control me!" Then they get upset when their guys aren't in charge. People *really* like controlling others.

This is all more ego stroking. Not only are you more logical, you're also a better person than everyone else? Wow, swooooooooon. No wonder Ron Paul often gets up to the high single digits in Republican primaries.


Eric- What on Earth has given you the idea that I'm trying to make political arguments?

[AKSpartan]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

One reason why people think libertarians are insufferable is that nearly every one of their political arguments takes the form "if you weren't so stupid...", like here it's "if you weren't so stupid you'd agree with me that people should be able to run a whites only lunch counter".

That's part of the reason this here Official Gary Johnson Thread isn't going to be on the first page come next November.

And what makes your posts insufferable, Fly? Libertarians just can't take your torpedoes of truth?

[TomCollins]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Not capable? I mean, wow. You really don't think it's possible that anyone who understands your views to disagree, don't you?

Hint: Everyone is capable of grasping that difference. The 1st amendment stuff you mention later in this post is like super basic 8th grade civics for everyone. Now, maybe people don't BELIEVE you, but whose fault is that?

Sure, it's super basic. They understand it only on the most superficial level. Mostly just memorization. People are dumb, dude.

Originally Posted by FlyWf

This is all more ego stroking. Not only are you more logical, you're also a better person than everyone else? Wow, swooooooooon. No wonder Ron Paul often gets up to the high single digits in Republican primaries.

Better person is not quite the same thing. Different values is more what it is. I never said better or worse.

But more logical, absolutely. You realize how dumb the average person is, right?

[leavesofliberty]

anybody who watches 30 second campaign ads and is capable of identifying logical fallacies knows that the electorate overall is not very bright and easily manipulated as TomCollins is saying here.