Thread Graveyard

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

nskinsella — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 06:08:45 GMT

I was reared a Catholic, and am fond of it, but have not been a believer since I was 16 or so.

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

Juan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:33:53 GMT

Okay, are you done with your little rant about how this site (which you don't own) should be run, and how should I behave ? What about considering that you have no say on how the site is run, and you have even less 'jurisdiction' over my person ?

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

Juan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:28:33 GMT

I am suggesting that if I were on the search for truth about Zebras, I would not enter a llama farm.

Dondoolee, the moral relativists bore me to death.

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

William — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:04:51 GMT

And I gave you mine. And I don't think you have a point

My point is, as far as all practicle operations are concerned, there is no such thing as absolute free speech when one enters another ones environment that is run for a specific purpose, it just doesn't happen. Even so the consequential evidence is enough to show how unpracticle it is, or to put it more succinctly; undesired speech usually does not get rewarded and usually gets filterd out of more productive environments. An environment with a purpose should not try to encourage unproductive speech, just as it shouldn't encourage unproductive behavior. While you are free to wake up anytime you like, I highly doubt most empolyers would hire a chronically tardy person who sleeps in all the time. By the word "productive" I mean towards the goal/reason of the specific environment, this does not inherently mean it promotes group think or cencorship on relevant topics.

So far your point has been: "censorship in the name of freedom", an article on Copyrights, you saying that me assuming the quote "You would think libertarians would be unambiguously for freedom of speech" was not the central point of your argument and then telling me to read the copywright article again, and then saying that indeed "You would think libertarians would be unambiguously for freedom of speech" was part of your central point and that principle of free speech always (or should) applies.

I am sorry but I am a little confused, on top of that I simply don't see you giving any reason why "the principle always applies". Like I said free speech, fine, great, good. As is the same with your freedom to sleep in as long as you like, or do the drugs you wish to do. That being said, some establishments may not condone or tolerate such behaviour so you may be S-O-L if you desire to be in that establishment.

Frankly, I don't know what your argument is. If anything you seem to believe that I must discard truth in the name of some sort of political correctness. Again, supposedly, this is a site concerned with philosophy (truth) and freedom. I'm going to say whatever I think is line with that.

1) That topics should be much more relevant to the point and function on this site. Topics that are tertiary and particulary devisive and "baiting" topics should be approached with a more skeptical eye than with other topics bye the moderators

2) That there are practicle reasons why Religous topics should be seen as a caution flag for moderaters

3) Due to what this site is; on an individual level it is probably wiser, more productive, more practicle, and more civil to temper ones personal feelings about religion and to try to avoid falling into theological arguments.

"it's pretty common knowledge". Well you are wrong.

Perhaps. I know I found out pretty quickly without any effort to find out. I have also observed many people knowing that info not only on this site o, but other libertarian sites having no affiliation with Mises.org as well. Certainly my research wasn't too scientific. As a gambling man though, I would bet you 50 bucks that at least 60% of the posters on this site with 100+ posts knows that there is a strong Catholic flavour with many of the prominent fellows and scholars of Mises.

If anything you seem to believe that I must discard truth in the name of some sort of political correctness

I am suggesting that if I were on the search for truth about Zebras, I would not enter a llama farm.

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

Juan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:44:13 GMT

1) I gave you my thoughts on free speech,

And I gave you mine. And I don't think you have a point.

"I think it is pretty common knowledge to most here that this site was founded, supported, and advanced by many Catholics" If this is what you are referring to I don't think this statement at all implies that this site advertises catholocism.

I didn't say the site advertises catholicism - in fact it doesn't (as far as I know).

What I meant is : the alleged fact that the site was founded by catholics IS NOT ADVERTISED, meaning it is NOT pretty common knowledge, CONTRARY to what you stated.

Is that hard to grasp ? You seem to be assuming that I must know something cause you say "it's pretty common knowledge". Well you are wrong.

Once again the "Catholicism" is simply a Red Herring, don't think it is the center piece of my argument.

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

William — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:18:17 GMT

1) I gave you my thoughts on free speech, with countless examples and why I think it obviously doesn't (and simply can not) always apply the way you argued it should. If you want to have the final word on that go ahead, this is thread to debate how free speach should be implied in one's life philosophy. If you want to start a new thread on that, fine. Now, if you want to talk about specifically this site and my opinion about religion and this forum, that is much more my concern for this thread, and I am certainly open for discussion at the moment.

2) "I think it is pretty common knowledge to most here that this site was founded, supported, and advanced by many Catholics" If this is what you are refering to I don't think this statement at all implies that this site advertises catholocism. I most certainly no where say Mises ADVERTISES Catholocism. In one post I stated it had a "heavy Catholic flavour". Once again I do not think this statement says Mises.org advertises Catholocism. I can promise it was not meant to imply that either.

Let me reconstruct the two sentences that may hopefully show the point better:

I think it is pretty common knowledge that the LION TAMMING ACADAMY was founded by LEFT HANDERS.

The words in bold are not meant to imply that the two are related, it is just a fact that LEFT HANDERS founded the LION TAMMING ACADAMY, even though the LION TAMMING ACADAMY has nothing on the surface to do with LEFT HANDERS or handyness in general.

ASTORIA NEW YORK has a HEAVY GREEK FLAVOUR OF POPULATION

once again, the words do not mean it is only Hellenistic people who run/populate Astoria New York, nor does it state that Astoria is done only "the hellenistic way" I don't think.

Once again the "Catholicism" is simply a Red Herring, don't think it is the center piece of my argument. Just change the word "Catholic" into "widget"

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

Juan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:50:31 GMT

Dondoolee:
1) This is an article about IP.

Yes and this

Kinsella:
You would think libertarians would be unambiguously for freedom of speech

is a principle - it always applies - it's not only limited to IP. I'm suggesting you apply the general principle that Kinsella mentioned to the case at hand.

2) You seem to be pretty passionate in your hatred of Catholocism.

You can say that if you want. I dislike catholocism and I dislike catholicism as well. Actually I dislike people who make assertions they can't prove (aka revealed religion) and I dislike people who manipulate their fellows by making assertions they can't prove.

You did address me, I believe this puts the burden on you to address and understand my points and issues.

I understand your points well, I just think they are not valid. I understood your first message perfectly, my saying "what do you mean ?" was a rhetorical question.

Oh, and you made a mistake. The fact that this site has any sort of affiliation with catholicism is NOT a well advertised fact (and is something I not always knew of course). It's not even true that the site has any 'formal' affiliation with catholicism.

Look, you can go to LRC and see at the top a big banner which reads ANTI-STATE - It doesn't say PRO-THEOCRACY.

By the way, here's some interesting information about revealed religion and North...

http://www.bkmarcus.com/blog/2005/07/does-gary-north-want-to-stone.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

William — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:01:19 GMT

GilesStratton:

Dondolee, I'm sure you're aware of my religious views, but people such as yourself who know what they're talking about and can discuss religion without giving the impression you want to eradicate religion as people I can certainly respect. For the record, I agree with you, debates on religion go nowhere, they almost always devolve into both sides slinging mud.

To be honest I kind of had you in the back of my head. In your arguments on the "economics" topic you created, people were literally dismissing you simply due to your religion (among some other bizzare and often hysterical arguments). I personally find dialouge a valuable tool, and when it can't function well on an educational site due to various things (in this case a fringe topic like religion) I think it is something that should be addressed (at least civialy debated) somehow if realisticaly possible.

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:50:49 GMT

Maxliberty:
More confused

More lies.

Any time you want to construct a logically-valid, sound, and true argument: just let me know.

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

hayekianxyz — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:27:10 GMT

Dondolee, I'm sure you're aware of my religious views, but people such as yourself who know what they're talking about and can discuss religion without giving the impression you want to eradicate religion as people I can certainly respect. For the record, I agree with you, debates on religion go nowhere, they almost always devolve into both sides slinging mud.

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

William — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:10:40 GMT

Juan:
If I missed your point, please spell it out again for me. There is nothing more annoying than two people rambling on about different arguments.
Indeed you missed my point. So please re-read Kinsella's statement again and if you have a problem with it, take it up with Kinsella...who's a libertarian affiliated with the catholics you're are so gallantly defending. Perhaps Kinsella is a catholic himself ? (dunno).

Now, if you don't disagree with Kinsella's statement, then do apply it to the case at hand. I can't further help you.
Bingo. Religion is a divisive topic,
Not my fault. Oh, and it's not religion, it is revealed religion.

1) This is an article about IP. My argument has nothing to do with IP. This is a forum that employs moderators that are in turn lower on a heiarchical scale. On top of that, you say if I disagree with the article that you used in your argument, I now have to take it up with the author of the article you sent me?

2) You seem to be pretty passionate in your hatred of Catholocism. My argument is not about Catholocism. I think this may be distracting you from my point. Perhaps if you subsituted the words "Religion" or "Catholic" with words such as "widget" or "point X" there my position may seem more clear. You did address me, I believe this puts the burden on you to address and understand my points and issues. If there is anything I can clear up please let me know.

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

Maxliberty — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:02:11 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Maxliberty:
This is where our debate ended last time
That's because you attempted to shift the burden of proof. Stop doing that.

More confused atheist nonsense. No one is trying to prove anything to you.

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

laminustacitus — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:25:50 GMT

Bradipo:
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

I believe that the article does miss a lot of context- for instance, the tax collectors of Roman Palestine weren't sinner necessarily because of the fact that they were merely tax collectors, but because they were tax collectors for a foreign nations that dominated that politics of God's chosen nation. Therefore the equivocation of a tax collectors a la Matthew, and tax collectors a la contemporary ones is very weak due to the changing nature of political power, and the loss of historical context. The article also adds context, especially with regard to Romans 13:1-7 that is often lost when discussing St. Paul's teachings with respect to government.

Overall, this article is a great tool for busting the myths that political ideologies have created with respect for Jesus - it has many similarities with Economics in One Lesson in this respect. However, I would say that trying to claim Jesus for Libertarian anarchy is completely unwarranted since the Gospels were not written to communicate Jesus' politics, rather they were written to spread the good news of man's salvation.

While slightly off topic, I think that Leo Tolstory's The Kingdom of God is Within You, despite the many theological fallacies in it, is the most convincing argument for anarchy I have seen so far.

Bradipo:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm

Any Christian these days who would declare that capitalism, and markets (while not necessarily completely unregulated free markets) are anti-Christian, and should be replaced by stated-planned socialism is a nut.

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

Bradipo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:33:56 GMT

laminustacitus:
Christianity, and free will are not only compatible, but they are also complements.

What's your take on the following:

http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm

Re: Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

Bradipo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:15:26 GMT

All depends on how you look at it I suppose:

http://books.google.com/books?id=irxD86wRthEC&lpg=PP1&ots=MtXKgT5VYo&dq=Rational%20theology%20Widtsoe&pg=PA23

These few pages say a lot I think.