No, what you do is fail to answer valid questions.
No, what I do is fail to fall for rhetorical ploys designed to divert the argument from a substantive discussion of issues to a personal discussion of personalities. Still not falling for it, sorry.
You're "article" was an opinion piece, so other people's opinions, and questions towards the validity of your opionion based on your own life experiences are just as valid.
Opinions can be judged by the degree to which they correspond to reality. They are also judged by how well they are substantiated and supported. I have constructed a very logical argument in deriving, supporting, and applying natural rights to the topic of self-defense. In order to call into question the validity of the conclusions, you must address the substance of the arguments contained therein.
Every time someone has questioned you, you either reply with "No, thats not valid," or "No, you don't get it."
No, I have provided lengthy explanations for precisely
why a given critique has been invalid or a participant has failed to grasp the concepts at play. Don't waste our time by deliberately mischaracterizing the exchange.
If it was "thorough", and the rights were "natural", why wouldnt the argument be more compelling?
To those who think rationally, it is extremely compelling (in my humble opinion). No amount of rational argument will sway someone who is determined to believe irrationally, or who substitutes emotional conviction for reasoned, critical thought.
Why would so many respondants disagree?
Right and wrong are not a matter of majority opinion. "So many" people disagree because "so many" participants -- even in martial arts fora such as this one -- do not truly understand the realities of force, the appropriate role of government, or their natural rights as human beings. Articles like this I write in an effor to help make more people aware of these concepts. Pointless arguments such as this one don't convince most of the respondents, but they do help lurkers form opinions. If I can help at least one person understand the moral foundation for his or her right to self-defense, it has been worth the effort.
Mebbe because your arguments dont track, your opinion is unconvincing, and your article reads like a first year philosophy paper.
Perhaps your opinions aren't logically based, your own attempts to refute the piece are less than compelling, and your attitude reads like an angry child who is outraged that someone else's opinion is both different and strongly professed. We can go 'round and 'round like that all day, but it does not change anything.
Its about as convincing as wearing a mass-produced necklace declaring yourself an individual.
I don't know about you, but every piece of clothing I wear and most of the items I own are "mass produced." Funny thing about mass production; it makes one's clothing, DVD players, computers, and automobiles a lot more affordable -- and in a free market economy, that's a wonderful thing. If the symbolism is lost on you, that's fine.
Didn't think so.
You see, I understand that once you place your opinions in the public sphere, any response is valid.
No, it isn't. Placing an opinion in the public sphere certainly does open one to critism. For that criticism to be
valid, however -- for it to be anything but meaningless hostility, empty jeering, or intellectually bankrupt heckling, one's criticism must be substantive. It must be targeted to the points made in the original argument if one is to engage in debate rather than pointless bickering. This is the standard you must meet if your responses are to be "valid."
To put it another way, opinions aren't all created equal. Some correspond to reality better than do others. Some are supported more thoroughly than others. Some are, in fact, uninformed -- and some are simply wrong. Unless you're one of those people who believes that all reality is subjective, there is no truth, and we all create our lives based on what we want rather than what truly is, this is unavoidable. (Even if one does believe such things, reality is
still unavoidable, but much evasion occurs between here and there.
Mebbe not constructive, or salient, but valid, nonetheless.
A response that is neither constructive nor salient is not "valid" in the context of a discussion or debate. We must then stop and define what we mean by "valid." If we consider "valid" to mean "free to state whatever opinion one possesses, no matter how uninformed or unsubstantiated," then that does fit. If, however, we use a more commonly applied connotation of "valid" as applicable and substantiated in the course of a debate on a given topic, then no, a response that is not constructive and is not salient is not "valid."
You on the other hand, thank everyone that agrees with you...
Should I get angry at them for agreeing? Should I not be polite?
...and state that anyone who disagrees "doesn't understand".
No, this is both false and a deliberate mischaracterization. If someone disagrees with me, I will
explain why they are incorrect in doing so (unless they can provide a compelling argument to support their disagreement). That is what has occurred here. Of course, to address an argument I must be provided with arguments; refuting heckling isn't exactly an intellectual process.
So I'll continue to express my opinions on yours, and you, based on my experience of such. It might not be constructive, or salient, but it will be valid.
No, it won't, for the reasons previously discussed. You may continue to make comments that are not supported and for which you have no compelling or logical arguments, but this does not make your input "valid." It does not, in fact, further the process of discussion at all. It constitutes simply bickering. If you enjoy bickering, I suppose that is a worthwhile activity, but you will not be able to convince an objective observer that your responses are in any way credible or that they constitute a "valid" refutation of the opinions you are attempting to address.
Finally, quoting oneself is really not done unless one is the leading authority on a subject, and it's really quite gauche even then.
Quoting an article previously written on the same subject an entirely acceptable tactic in supporting one's opinions.
His wife left him.
He lost his job.
He was left homeless with a child to raise.
He lived in the restrooms in the NYC subway system, bathing in the sink, begging and scrounging to feed his son, feeling the gaze of a world filled with cold unfeeling hearts, empty souls, and the blindness of the 'haves'.
Today, he drives a car that is worth more than most of us will make this year.
He is a leading businessman, and a motivational speaker.
He gives back to the community, even though he owes it nothing.
Sadly, I don't recall his name but A&E did a profile on him some months back.
People like Phil would have had him 'removed' as an 'creature'.
Yes, whenever the topic of the homeless comes up, we are always treated to the spectre of poor, down-on-their luck nuclear families living in cars through circumstances beyond their control, or single individuals who've simply had the misfortune of misplacing their means of support who are really good people -- just misunderstood. Callous, cruel members of society look down on them, failing to see that if not for the grace of God, they too are a paycheck away from donning several pairs of winter coats and joining their grimy brethren on the off-ramps of their local highway system.
While this is very touching and makes for entertaining
Lifetime movies, it is not reality. The overwhelming majority of homeless street people suffer from mental problems and from substance abuse issues. Their presence in contemporary society is, in part, the legacy of the mental health diaspora in the last two or three decades, when group homes were shut down, larger mental health facilities were closed, and thousands of people who really cannot function as individuals in a free society were turned loose onto that society.
While you will always be able to find exceptions and you will always be able to compose tear-jerking stories of human tragedy, this
does not alter the individual threat posed by street people, nor does it change the conditions in which so many people must live every day. I have a friend who works in a public facility downtown, and he and his coworkers must every day endure the threats and the aggressive panhandling and the inhuman stench of the small army of homeless people through whom he walks to work every day. He and his coworkers are on a first-name basis with these people -- and not because they'd like to be. Not a week goes by when there is not an "incident" in his workplace; just recently, one of these poor, misfortunate, misunderstood human beings started raving at the staff and threatening everyone with death after getting into a near-fistfight with one of the other customers. My friend and his coworkers live under constant threat of violence from these people and, because theirs is a public facility, they cannot remove any of the street people from the premises until it is too late to prevent the worst.
If I were to ask
him about his lack of compassion for the people who threaten his life every week and who make his existence a living hell as he does his best to serve the public, his opinion will be greatly different from the false moral superiority of those who believe we just need to
care more. His opinion will be based on the violence and the fear and the misery with which he must deal every day --
for no other reason than that he works in a public place that is overrun with homeless parasites.
Does this sound terribly cruel, terribly uncaring? I suppose it might -- to anyone who has not lived through it.
What religion do you practice? I have seen some indications of socialist type thinking in your arguements this does not make you a horrible person just trying to understand.
How on Earth could you accuse me of being a
socialist when I spend most of time arguing
against the collective and
for the individual? That is truly amazing.
I certianly don't mind yapping on about myself, but I think a separate thread would be more appropriate so as not to divert this one to that. You could start it in my Martialist hosted forum at this site, if you want.
I would be interested in what type of work you do. I am curious as to your daily interactions with people in general?
I'm a professional writer. Most of my day is spent dealing with freelance clients long-distance and with engineers in person. I am fluent in that language that is not quite English called "Engineering-ese."
Bob Hubbard runs this board out of his own pocket, so other people, including you, will have a place to come and discuss the martial arts in a friendly atmosphere. We all as members benefit from his action.
He certainly does. I do the same at
Pax Baculum. I also publish, despite the extensive amount of work required, a monthly magazine that, while it offers subscriber content, provides an extensive body of work for
free to anyone who cares to read it. These could be seen as acts of altruism.
However, (and I can't speak for Bob, but I'll speculate), neither he nor I do what we do simply to "give back" to the community. We do it because we love the martial arts and because we derive much personal satisfaction from creating work in that field, from having online communities to which we can go (and which we can run as we see fit), and from furthering our beliefs about martial arts and self-defense.
Please correct me if i'm wrong, but your profile doesn't suggest you're a supporting member (and of course, doesnt indicate whether or not you've made a donation). So i guess if you don't like people taking what they haven't earned, etc etc, and you haven't made some donation already (kudos if you have), you'll be ponying up for the new server, right??
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do indeed seem to be a supporting member with access to all the features of MartialTalk -- and I distinctly remember seeing my own hosted forum at this site. Of course, there's also the free content that I previously mentioned, and the forum that I myself run elsewhere. If were' going to make this an argument about who's more generous, I suppose we could, but the fact remains that I don't expect anyone to give me their earnings without their consent and I would resent very much anyone presuming to believe such a thing.
I think i've seen some advertising for The Martialist around here somewhere, but given that you are getting some benefit from that, i dont think you can claim it as a credit towards the net benefit you've gained from your participation on MT.
Most people do things for "mutual benefit" rather than some altruistic need to sacrifice of themselves. Most people who become supporting members at any forum do so because to be a supporting member provides certain benefits -- the most abstact of which is the sustenance of the site they enjoy for their own reasons.
Nobody is truly altruistic, when you come right down to it; we all get something in return for what we do, even if that something is just the satisfaction of having done it.
Search engine games don't prove anything. If you truly want something approaching statistical results from news reporting (and forgetting for a moment how much of these types of things go unreported) you'll have to start doing Nexus searches. I hear they're expensive.
See you out there, big boy.
See you around, little boy.
