Gary Johnson is a Complete Idiot

[Cubo de Sangre]

They're not "stereotypical labels' or any of the above nonsense.
Words have meanings. Sometimes we know those meanings, sometimes we're ignorant of them (e.g. I was ignorant of the more precise legalese distinction between constructionists and textualists; now I'm not).

There usually are pretty clear connotations and dennotations of words and phrases, the oddity I mention has been when you've used phrases with well accepted connotations and then claimed you weren't using either the accepted connotations or dennotations.

Also, I wasn't getting upset, I just wasn't sure if you were serious. The idea of a "right to privacy" and whether that is an "imagined right" has been a central issue of discussion for decades. Honestly it is odd for someone to have an interest in constitutional issues and ask what it means.


Yeah, not at all.

Funny how you got corrected on a term you scolded me over not knowing and then doubled-down here with more smugness. Classy.

Don't care if you were mad or not. Just noting you're a smug douche and on any given day could be the gold medal winner in the WR. I get along great with plenty of posters. You're the last guy to be handing out tips or critiques on that subject.

I'm sorry you're not smart enough to dumb down your communication such that either I or Greoric know what you're saying. I guess that's to be expected when you have somebody representing arguments they don't agree with. It's not like you have the integrity to present an unbiased version, or even source anyone actually making the argument you claim some group of people are making. lol.

Have a good one.

 

[ncordless]

Sure as long as what someone wants done is on a smaller scale and to a smaller degree. That's precisely what you want to limit.

Perhaps. On the other hand, I could probably buy influence in 10 interstate cities for less than it would cost me to buy Congress, so scale and degree can still be a problem.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'm sorry you're not smart enough to dumb down your communication such that either I or Greoric know what you're saying.

Except he did know what I was saying. So did ncordless even though I wasn't perfectly precise in my usage.



I'll say this again, and I've said it in past conversations both in PM and in threads, many of the conflicts you have with people do indeed stem from your misuse of common terms. That's not me being smug or condescending, though I certainly can be both, it's me giving a frank assessment. I actually like you, I'm just explaining why we sometimes get in flame wars.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Perhaps. On the other hand, I could probably buy influence in 10 interstate cities for less than it would cost me to buy Congress, so scale and degree can still be a problem.

Moreover, once you've removed higher level oversight you also remove the ability to effectively address externalities.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

As flawed as he is, I think he's considerably better than Hillary or Trump. Trump says dumber things on an almost daily basis. And while Hillary is intellectually adequate, she's shown poor judgment and is severely compromised by her corruption and special interests influence. So Johnson is still the better choice, IMHO.

 

[Greoric]

Moreover, once you've removed higher level oversight you also remove the ability to effectively address externalities.

Well you remove government's monopoly over address of those externalities... a good thing for arriving at the most effective solution.

 

[Greoric]

Perhaps. On the other hand, I could probably buy influence in 10 interstate cities for less than it would cost me to buy Congress, so scale and degree can still be a problem.

Agreed! The solution is to not give anyone a monopoly of force with the power to be dolling out any favors!

 

[UpaLoompa]

Well you remove government's monopoly over address of those externalities... a good thing for arriving at the most effective solution.

Lol, I'd point at historical examples (e.g. effects of the clean air and clean water acts) but we've already been down that road and I know your opinion on data and the caveats you place on it ever being informative.

 

[Greoric]

Lol, I'd point at historical examples (e.g. effects of the clean air and clean water acts) but we've already been down that road and I know your opinion on data and the caveats you place on it ever being informative.

Yeah fuck those counterfacutals and falseifiable conclusions!

 

[UpaLoompa]

Yeah fuck those counterfacutals and falseifiable conclusions!

Too bad we only have one planet, right? Can't do the proper experiments.

 

[Greoric]

Too bad we only have one planet, right? Can't do the proper experiments.

Precisely, so therefore the answer is to just declare the present policy was the correct one and then also ignore the the existence of any other solutions?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Precisely, so therefore the answer is to just declare the present policy was the correct one and then also ignore the the existence of any other solutions?

Sigh, no. The reasonable approach is to look at available data and compare it to the predictions of different hypotheses. It isn't perfect but it is better than ignoring available data.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Except he did know what I was saying. So did ncordless even though I wasn't perfectly precise in my usage.



I'll say this again, and I've said it in past conversations both in PM and in threads, many of the conflicts you have with people do indeed stem from your misuse of common terms. That's not me being smug or condescending, though I certainly can be both, it's me giving a frank assessment. I actually like you, I'm just explaining why we sometimes get in flame wars.

When I asked, Greoric said he wasn't sure either and commented on you hopefully clarifying. You chose to make very little effort to do so. So whatever. Personally when someone doesn't catch my drift I tend to consider that my failure and rephrase accordingly. Maybe they're legitimately stupid, maybe I misspoke, maybe other shit. I understand the urge to take shots at others when things seem crystal clear in my head, and sometimes do. But mostly I try to remain constructive and maintain a bit of humility. Basically the opposite of your approach here.

Thanks for saying you like me. That's quite shocking. I respect that you're fairly intelligent and would like you substantially more if you tried to communicate without all the condescension. I really don't respond positively to it. Being a humorous dick is fine though, when it's all in good fun.

 

[UpaLoompa]

When I asked, Greoric said he wasn't sure either and commented on you hopefully clarifying.

Okay bub. It's clear from his full response to you and our subsequent exchange that he understood what I meant but was confused because he himself recognized the implications of the fourth. His interpretation of the fourth was subsequently discussed and the point that Scalia disagreed with him made. If you're still confused about any of what was said, let me know.

 

[UpaLoompa]

if you tried to communicate without all the condescension.

I honestly thought you were playing dumb. I don't think I know anyone that gives a shit about constitutional issues that isn't familiar with at least the generalities of "right to privacy".

 

[Greoric]

Sigh, no. The reasonable approach is to look at available data and compare it to the predictions of different hypotheses. It isn't perfect but it is better than ignoring available data.

But you're not doing that. You're taking the present policy, declaring it as the best option, and then ignoring the possibility of any other hypotheses in the same statement. That's worse than ignoring data. That's ignoring logic.

It's just like pointing to a group of people that a government program, "helped" by saying "Just look at the data! They have this much more X". You see the program the government funded, but you ignore the programs and ventures those resources were diverted from, and what could have been accomplished absent the compulsion.

 

[Greoric]

I honestly thought you were playing dumb. I don't think I know anyone that gives a shit about constitutional issues that isn't familiar with at least the generalities of "right to privacy".

It didn't read like you were referring to the generalities of the right to privacy. It read like you were referring it to something specific... abortion.

 

[UpaLoompa]

But you're not doing that. You're taking the present policy, declaring it as the best option, and then ignoring the possibility of any other hypotheses in the same statement. That's worse than ignoring data.

No. I'm not. I was a libertarian long before I was a raging liberal.

Who are you going to sue over climate change?

 

[UpaLoompa]

It didn't read like you were referring to the generalities of the right to privacy. It read like you were referring it to something specific... abortion.

This is what I read that made me think he was playing dumb:

"By "imagined rights" you mean something like having the state provide medical care? "Right to privacy" mean something like being secure in your effects from searches without a warrant?"

Have you ever met anyone that hasn't at least generally heard of a "right to privacy" and gave two shits about constitutional issues? The abortion context would be fine. Like I said, I honestly thought he was playing dumb. Shit, now I feel like my continual stating that I thought he was playing dumb actually is condescending. Then again, he seems to have interpreted "playing dumb" as me calling him dumb, which again gets back to my earlier point about his odd usage of language.

 

[Greoric]

No. I'm not. I was a libertarian long before I was a raging liberal.

This made me legit LOL. Well played.

Doesn't seem like I could sue anyone, does it? That also doesn't mean if litigation of any given LLC isn't the solution then there's no other solution not involving a monopoly over violence, right?