Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

BP's oil spill - should Statism come to the rescue?

13»

Comments

  • #102
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    fontanalis wrote: »
    I think Glen Beck stole your chalk board :D

    I had to google his name :o


  • #103
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Just a question: if libertarians really are members of the "lunatic fringe" why do you spend so much time arguing with them, and why would you set up a thread targeted at libertarians?


  • #104
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Just a question: if libertarians really are members of the "lunatic fringe" why do you spend so much time arguing with them, and why would you set up a thread targeted at libertarians?

    I think libertarians almost fall under the term "herding cats" that sometimes is used for atheists. Basically it can be a catch all term and many people who label themselves libertarians might find it hard to unify in a party.
    Personally I think some of the ideas are good but I draw the line at the all powerful market notion.


  • #105
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Just a question: if libertarians really are members of the "lunatic fringe" why do you spend so much time arguing with them, and why would you set up a thread targeted at libertarians?

    Are you asking me?


  • #106
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Basically it can be a catch all term and many people who label themselves libertarians might find it hard to unify in a party.

    Agreed. I don't like the way the forum has, of late, developed an "us vs them" attitude with respect to libertarianism, especially as it involves wide generalizations and sterotypes. Both sides have been guilty of this kind of thing, in fairness. I don't agree with calling everyone who isn't a libertarian a statist in the same way that I don't agree with calling everyone who is a libertarian a lunatic. By digging the trenches to deep and so ruthlessly the debate has descended into a pedantic and highly unenjoyable slagging match, with the common ground adopting a real "no mans land" feel: it has become, really, the place where no one dares to go.
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Are you asking me?

    Everyone, really. :)


  • #107
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #108
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,167 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    BP is trying something else right now:

    500x_topkill.jpg


    Live stream here:

    http://consumerist.com/2010/05/bp-top-hat.html


  • #109
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    I think it has come to a "us versus them" debate because some posters have particularly strong views and to debate with such views requires taking up the opposite view even if you don't believe the opposite is true either. In other words there is no middle ground when arguing with ideologues.


  • #110
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    ...
    Everyone, really. :)

    I'm the one who used the phrase "lunatic fringe". I applied it to "those whose own ideology is fundamentally opposed to the very idea of government".


  • #111
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I'm the one who used the phrase "lunatic fringe". I applied it to "those whose own ideology is fundamentally opposed to the very idea of government".

    I suppose atheists who oppose the very idea of religion were also called "lunatics" once upon a time, do remember it was the religious that ended up raping people...

    having no government or small government doesn't mean having no laws or regulations or welfare insurance or taking care of sick, but weve been thru that so many time on this forum its getting rather old


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I'm the one who used the phrase "lunatic fringe". I applied it to "those whose own ideology is fundamentally opposed to the very idea of government".

    I'm aware of that. My question was targeted at posters here in general.
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Just a question: if libertarians really are members of the "lunatic fringe" why do you spend so much time arguing with them, and why would you set up a thread targeted at libertarians?

    Rather awkward phrasing, I realize. The the first "you" was meant to be plural; the second, singular.


  • #113
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Right, I'm calling time on both of these "statism" threads. Mostly because there's hotheadedness going on here that I don't particularly like with my moderator hat on. Fault on both sides and I'm locking this before I just ban about four of you to make my life easier.

    Note for this specific thread: comments on moderation don't go here, they go through the channels existing for those comments. I shouldn't have to make that reminder.

    Note for this specific thread re my own question in post 2 for those that answered in a first usage way: the term statism has been around since the 17th century. It gained currency when used by Mikhail Bakunin as the first part of the title of his last book (Statism and Anarchy)in 1873. Websters need to update their definitions. It's currently in print in English and easy to find if that's your bag, though he didn't use it in its modern general meaning. My question was in reference to its usage here on the forum and frankly I'm sorry I asked.

    Public bit: terms like "statism" aren't well defined as people disagree on what it means. Additionally it's one of those trigger words like "trots" or "teabaggers" that's often thrown to make an insulting point. Start with that sword (at least it'll be perceived by some to be so) in discussion and there will be blood as people assume there will. Just a seed for thought.

    Private bit: by PM to relevant parties / the guilty when I have time to write it.

    Enough, for those with hot heads, find a cold shower. Yes, I'm aware that locking this leaves no-one happy. I can live with that.

    /mod


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement