Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolutely. They're the hustle-bustle centers and the pale imitators I mentioned, the place people gravitate to for any number of wacky (to me) reasons.

As a resident of one of the legit hustle and bustle places, this is the official list of reasons why people come here...

1. The splendind opportunity to ride to work every morning on a train deep below the ground, and smell the many smells of trains deep below ground. If you get out at the right stop and walk through a nice park you can wave at the queen, which is nice, her house is a bit tasteless though really.

2. The awesomeness of not knowing the guy who lives next door AT ALL. Wouldn't recognise him, don't know what country he's from. A neighbour once gifted us some east European liquor at Christmas, that was odd, I had no idea who she was. The police kicked their door in a few months later because of something to do with drugs apparently. The liquor looked like distilled puke and tasted like fermented leaves.

[Arising_uk]

Mannie-who-is-without-sin

I've never met him...but he sounds really nice. Can you introduce us?

the prism is gone and he sees very little.

It's not my "prism."

It's the Atheists who tell me their creed amounts to a one-sentence negation, and no more.

In fact, they insist upon it.

(Gotta say, there are plenty of atheists out there for whom this is perfectly valid criticism, some of those guys are fucking nuts and as far as I can tell they seem to be angry at god for not existing.)

As C.S. Lewis, the former Atheist put it...

“I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.”

Lewis was a God botherer first then an atheist and then like you a born-again proslytiser. Some of us have never been the former and those you moan about are in the main ex-theists who appear angry about something or the other, hopefully they'll get over it.

[Arising_uk]

#

Gotta say: I don't get the bile directed at Mannie. Not a one of you is obligated to communicate with him or defend yourselves against him. Me: I find him pleasant, intelligent, and just a tad bit 'superior' from time to time. We agree on little, him & me (and I'm not 'walk in the park under sunny skies' nice), but we get along. Why is that? And why isn't that with the rest of you?

Well in my case it's because when he talks about atheists he actually means ex-theists but refuses to acknowledge this distinction Oh! And that he told me I'm going to his 'God's' hell.

[henry quirk]

As a resident of one of the legit hustle and bustle places, this is the official list of reasons why people come here...

1. The splendind opportunity to ride to work every morning on a train deep below the ground, and smell the many smells of trains deep below ground. If you get out at the right stop and walk through a nice park you can wave at the queen, which is nice, her house is a bit tasteless though really.

Playin' at bein' a C.H.U.D everyday? You get to do that? Mebbe I need to rethink livin' in the country.


2. The awesomeness of not knowing the guy who lives next door AT ALL. Wouldn't recognise him, don't know what country he's from. A neighbour once gifted us some east European liquor at Christmas, that was odd, I had no idea who she was. The police kicked their door in a few months later because of something to do with drugs apparently. The liquor looked like distilled puke and tasted like fermented leaves.

You brave, brave man: drinking unknown booze from a stranger. That's how folks get their naughty places tickled, you know.

[henry quirk]

"he told me I'm going to his 'God's' hell."

I promise, if I go before you, I'll try to work it so you go to Valhalla instead (assumin' I ain't sizzlin' on Satan's grill myself).

[Immanuel Can]

You'd throw a stone at him.

Why? He hasn't done anything, apparently.

[uwot]

Gotta say: I don't get the bile directed at Mannie.

Well, in my case it's because:
He trots out a bunch of useless tropes plagiarised from the hopeless William Lane Craig.
Has the balls to accuse anyone who doesn't believe in his 'supreme being', for which there is fuck all evidence, "irrational".
Insists his pissant right-wing bigotry is his ghastly god's will.
Believes that his god's punishment for disagreeing with him, which entails having my knackers barbecued forever is 'a good thing'.
There's more but, on a purely philosophical note, he doesn't appreciate that medieval scholasticism is past it's sell by date.

Not a one of you is obligated to communicate with him or defend yourselves against him.

Really don't have to defend myself, but if I see someone talking a constant stream of bollocks, I just like to point it out from time to time.

Me: I find him pleasant, intelligent...

Each to their own.

...and just a tad bit 'superior' from time to time.

Supercilious is the word I'd use.

We agree on little, him & me...

Well, in my book, you're both right-wing nuts, but while I can respect a libertarian angle, Mr Can's 'God says so' is just nonsense on stilts.

...(and I'm not 'walk in the park under sunny skies' nice), but we get along. Why is that? And why isn't that with the rest of you?

Meh. I just don't have a lot of time for self-righteous twats.

[henry quirk]

"if I see someone talking a constant stream of bollocks, I just like to point it out from time to time."

If Mannie were in a position to actually futz with you, if his stream of manure was a harm to you, I'd see the point in speakin' up & out.

But he isn't, it isn't, so I don't.

[uwot]

If Mannie were in a position to actually futz with you, if his stream of manure was a harm to you, I'd see the point in speakin' up & out.

But he isn't, it isn't, so I don't.

So why do you get involved?

[henry quirk]

[uwot]

Great. So you get why I stick my oar in.

[henry quirk]

?

[uwot]

?

With pride. It's the better part of anyone who has it.

[henry quirk]

[gaffo]

Well it was always going to be a matter of interpretation. You believe in certain rights to shoot people do't you? That's an interpretation of the guy who is getting shot having seperated himself from his right to live somehow is it not?

the common consenses is Natural Law - which has been in agreement for eons.

you have the right to kill another if the other threatens your life.

if the circumstances are unclear, you go the trial and a judge/jury determines your guilt.

Well slavery was practiced directly by people who signed the original Bill of Rights was it not?

yes it was, in full violation of the 9th.

So my thing has never been tested for that slavery thing, but yours has and it failed.

England had legal slavery for centuries, she only made it illegal in 1838.

27 yrs before America, so big whoop there bubba.

i see no moral ground for you here.

I think you missed the context of our discussion.

Henry believes in a description of justice that projects from a small number of highly specific grounding principles, namely property rights with the self being one of those properties (very much along the lines of Luwig Von Mises). I represent an opposing view that there are an endless series of trade offs necessary to preserve individual liberty in a functional society (because I am a neo-classical-lickety-split-gosh-darned-liberal). Our comments relate to that tension of principles.

Henry thinks my thing is wishy washy, that it lacks a fundamental grounding and that this makes it liable to top down hijack by the elites. I think his is unstable under load, the simplicity of the principles fails to assist with any complex choice, and the whole thing is like entering a maze and saying you can find your way out by taking every right turn. There is every possibility that we are both right.

Thanks for clarification of this thread and the general summary of.

and so to clarify i am with you in general perspective, and you are prob 75 percent right and Henry is 25 percent.

thanks for reply (and clarification of the theme of this thread!)!