-10 votes

Conflicting Principles: Sabotaging Potential with a Smile

NOTE: Your down-ratings don't make this any less true and your up-ratings with the willfully ignorant only show you're willfully ignorant as well.

We all have principles that we try to stick to. But something many people don't realize is that sometimes, principles that alone, sound great, can sometimes lead you to sabotaging the potential for good.

What I mean by this is an example I used in some comments on someone elses' post.

A German Christian man during World War 2 holds his integrity at the forefront of his being. It is a principle that defines him. Then, when the Jews were being persecuted and shipped off to camps, the man decided it was the right thing to do, to help protect those who sought shelter in his attic. Defending the less fortunate was also a principle he held in high esteem.

Now the conflicted principles...

A whole Jewish family is hiding in his attic. A full patrol of Nazi soldiers knock on his door and ask if there are any Jews in his apartment.

TWO major principles come into play:
A: Telling the truth...
B: Defending the less fortunate...

He can't choose both.
The key is that one has a much higher moral high ground while the other naturally becomes the more selfish of the two choices.

Which is which?

He can choose to weigh the consequences of both.

"If I lie and they find the Jewish family, I could be killed."
OR
"If I tell the truth, I have a much higher chance of not being killed, but the Jewish family will most certainly be put through hell if not to death."

Most would say that they would lie and justify this lying as not being the same as normal lying, because they're lying for the sake of principle. They hold integrity to them self through the principle of defending the defenseless from unjust treatment. We would see this as the moral high ground... risking oneself for the sake of others.

Some would never the less still say they would tell the truth... and yet again... sacrificing the lives of others for the sake of securing their own... they would tell themselves the same. "I'm sticking to my principles!". The person would even go as far as justifying it with "I did it so I could survive and help others in the future. This family was just unlucky that I couldn't take that risk now" or any other way to deal and live with their looming guilt. Most of us would see this as the selfish choice.

This kind of conflict, two very valid, admirable, and worth copying principles going head to head with each other, happens ALL THE TIME to ALL OF US.

We need to think with our heads, because sometimes our hearts don't always have the greatest intentions. Sometimes the negative feelings we have will influence our thinking in such a way that we justify choosing the "lesser of two saints".

And just like those that vote Obama to keep Romney out or those that vote Romney to get Obama out... they justify it with excuses... so they don't have to feel one ounce of guilt in their decision. They convinced themselves "I stuck to my principles!". That's exactly what both parties rely on.

I had never thought about the conflict of principles until I noticed a post by a user who voted in a CNN poll for "other" in order to signify their write-in vote for Paul, WHILE at the same time writing the post to let Johnson supporters know that Johnson was included in the polls. He told himself he was doing them a service by letting them know that Johnson was receiving more attention that could lead to him getting into the debates when he hits that 15% threshold.

I asked "Why couldn't someone who understood the importance of Johnson doing well in the polls have said they were 'leaning Johnson' instead of wasting their vote as 'other' when it didn't change his actual vote at all?"

Their response was something along the lines of "Because that's who I'm voting for and I'm honest."

"Why are you putting an answer to a poll that's part of a broken electoral process ahead of the positive affects of Johnson getting into the debates?"

Cue the excuses and then silence.

When is the last time you heard someone admit they were wrong on the internet about something they were extremely adamant about?

The answer to that shows our pattern of not being able to handle admitting when we're wrong. We consider being wrong, "failure". We become hurt because we've made the beliefs we fight for in argument part of our identity... so it becomes personal. We make our beliefs part of who we are to FEEL more sure of ourselves and our surrounding world. "I've got it all figured out and anyone that doesn't agree with me is wrong!" Even when we don't say that, the majority of us act that way.

We avoid the truth about ourselves, because most haven't even began to scratch at the surface of their real emotional flaws.

My whole life I've noticed willful ignorance... the pathological denial that people allow themselves to fall into for the sake of emotional security. It usually starts in childhood, but gets worse and worse. A deeper and deeper hole that we never realized we were in in the first place. That darkness is the number one cause of all of the world's problems on ALL scales... between nations, between lovers, between parents and their children, and between all of us that have let us become divided by our unmovable beliefs.

So which conflict of principles is going to let US, ourselves, sabotage our own movement?

A: The principle to vote for who I want to be president regardless of whether they can win or not...
B: The principle to promote the cause of liberty every chance I get and not allow myself to sabotage that potential...

You can do both and STILL tell yourself your sticking to your principles... so... which one is the more morally obligatory and which is the more selfish of the two?

Let's look at them in detail.

The principle to vote for who you want regardless of whether they can win or not is usually fueled by many emotions:
---The feeling of not wanting to feel as though you quit, in the same way a captain goes down with his ship.
---The feeling of making it more than just a "vote", but part of who you are, a representation of you and everything you stand for.
---The feeling of anger towards a broken system and those that cheated the person you wanted to win from the start.

It could be one or any combination of those and more that I haven't listed. The important part to realize is that you have this principle because of your emotions when you self-reflect on what your vote says about you.

The principle to promote liberty every chance you get and not let yourself sabotage positive change's potential is more complicated than that:
---It requires critical thinking and time to do so. It's not as simple as following your heart.
---It requires considering everything in order to be careful of not making the wrong move.
---It requires looking at every possible result honestly in order to choose the best result for the liberty movement versus making yourself feel good.

The first principle only requires your heart, while this one requires your head, is fueled by your heart, and ends up feeding back into it... because following this principle and seeing that you did will make you feel good like with following any other.

Now... why do these two principles conflict with each other?

What if voting for someone other than you want ends up promoting the cause of liberty the most? What if voting for who you want ends up sabotaging the potential for the liberty movement?

Let me explain.
(Please realize that I'm a die-hard Ron Paul supporter who was originally going to write-in Paul until I put A LOT of consideration into it http://www.dailypaul.com/251148/should-we-write-in-dr-paul-i...)

-=Support for Gary Johnson will help get him 15% to enter the national debates.=-
1. Him being in the debates shows the entire country how similar, in the worst ways, both Obama and Romney are.
2. Him being in the debates will get people to be interested in looking up Ron Paul and the meaning of "Liberty" for themselves.
3. Him being in the debates in a time where we have the same tool that helped us more than double Paul's supporters in 4 years time, the internet, INCREASES his chance of garnering the votes of the 46% of Americans who consider BOTH, Obama and Romney, one of "two evils"... to either get the dramatically largest vote that any 3rd party candidate has ever received, or even win the presidency.

(Even though I don't think he is a true libertarian personally, I don't consider him an "evil". To those who dislike him for various reasons... would you rather have the "least evil" or the 2nd worst?)

-=Our votes unified behind Johnson will make a huge impact for the country and our bid for the GOP nomination with a TRUE libertarian in 2016 during our takeover of the Republican party.=-
1. If the GOP loses or only wins by a small margin, and they see a large amount of support behind the supposed "Libertarian", they know exactly who they lost their votes to.
2. If the GOP realizes how many votes they lost because they cheated, pushed aside, and alienated libertarians, for the sake of winning or winning by an even larger margin for the sake of less risk of losing, they not only won't cheat us, but may even promote a libertarian nominee for the sake of getting our vote.
3. Winning the GOP nomination with a true libertarian in 2016 would be the apex of our takeover. The Republican party would almost be synonymous with libertarianism. No more RINOs. Just classic liberty loving Republicans that are the end result of hundreds of years of learning and appreciating what liberty and our constitution are all about.

So now you can see the most positive potential there is for promoting liberty, improving our country and its culture, and furthering the liberty movement and it's Ron Paul inspired agenda for GOP takeover.

So THIS is the conflict...

Do you promote liberty for the sake of these great things with support and a vote for Johnson?

OR

Do you sabotage that potential with a vote for who you want to be president regardless of whether they can win or not?

Which principle is more important to you...

Promoting liberty to your best ability for all of the things listed... or... a write-in vote that only you will remember?

You can tell yourself you stuck to your principles either way... but which way is the moral high ground?

Are you really going to intentionally ignore the fact that you're sacrificing one principle for the other... just because it's easier to?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You assume government has the right to demand.

Then you create a false dilemma about the need to aid and abet your enemies.

Let's not hide the original question. Is a man a sovereign?

If so judging any comment made a lie is false. Under the Fifth Amendment no one need testify against oneself. But this Right is self=evident.

If a foreign sovereign uses carrots and sticks, what authority but their willingness to use force do they have.

You seem angry that too few will vote with you.

Free includes debt-free!

"Right" in your usage is subjective.

I never assumed the government had the right to demand anything.

I never created a false dilemma. The dilemma was the conflict of two internal principles... honesty regardless of the situation versus defending the defenseless.

You're intentionally misconstruing what was said in order to feel like you made a valid counter-argument when in reality you're countering an argument that was never made.

I assume the vast majority of the human race is stupid before I come in contact with them... so why should I be angry of what I've already accepted?

I think the correct and more accurate observation would be "dissapointed". Maybe more so than usual with the human race, because I had thought I could hold the liberty movement to a higher standard.

Boy, was I wrong.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Parkman? Is that you?

.

It's a hypothetical.

Not worth the time.

Free includes debt-free!

The first part is

The first part is hypothetical to explain what happens when someone has a conflict of principles and how people will lie to themselves to convince themselves that they don't conflict.

If possibly learning something isn't worth the time... then that's your choice.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I learned that lesson in 9th grade.

The lesson is "don't play pointless games over hypotheticals."

I won't play God for you. I can't.

Lead me not into temptation but deliver me from evil.

Free includes debt-free!

The "hypothetical" is for the

The "hypothetical" is for the sake of teaching a lesson.

You misconstruing it into something else in an attempt to discredit and avoid the lesson all together by convincing yourself it's something it's not IS "evil". It's sabotaging potential... and the world has enough of that as it is.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I would rather say that I found the Sabo in the works.

Pendanticly there is no issue in using hypothetical to teach a lesson.

But a lesson is not yet an argument.

I do not consent to today's Office of President. Many Presidents have failed their Constitutional Oaths. Often resting their un-Constitutional acts on the precedence of previous un-Constitutional actors.

None of the Candidates in this year's Beauty Contest have a fundamental understanding that the main purpose of the Constitution is to protect the people from the established government.

They see to become Commander=in= Chief but ha no knowledge of the "Law of Nations"

Article I Section 9 para.10

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations

Law of Nations 1858
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/

Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act

This created a bloated Executive branch, that was beyond the reach of Executive power.

I don't see how any figurehead elected to the Presidency will be much different than any since Woodrow Wilson. and the start of the Fascist Reserve System.

Free includes debt-free!

Keywords...

"I don't see how..."

You won't see how when you're already emotionally biased towards seeing things a way that agree with your beliefs.

If you had your choice... we wouldn't have a president.

Unfortunately... that's not the choice and responsibility you were given with that ability to make a difference.

The argument stands. You explaining how biased you are in your opinion doesn't invalidate it. Maybe it does for you... but for anyone open-minded enough to allow their mind to change... it doesn't.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Emotionally based opinion.

"Unfortunately... that's not the choice and responsibility you were given with that ability to make a difference."

I guess you support what the modern Presidency has become. You wish to select someone to hold that office, as is.

Free includes debt-free!

Your words = assumptions :]

"I guess you support what the modern Presidency has become. You wish to select someone to hold that office, as is."

Assumptions are all you have... and hasn't invalidated anything I've said.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I didn't read the whole

post but consider the question about the German and the Jewish family in his attic. You asked if he should tell the truth and possibly save his life or lie.

I think if he told the truth the Nazis would send him with the family to his death anyway.

As far as voting, I don't anymore, I focus on other things, politics is busy work.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

If your first choice was to

If your first choice was to tell the truth to survive, but then decided to lie because you thought telling the truth wouldn't work to survive... not for the sake of the family... then risking your life for the family to start by having them in your attic was never a principle from the start. It would show that you had put them in the attic because of guilt and nothing else. That wouldn't be a conflict of interest because the first one wouldn't be there.

As for voting, if people stopped using voting as a means of protest against the 2 parties and started using it as a unified tool, they would actually achieve positive results.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Not sure I understand

what you wrote but anyone who would go to the trouble to hide innocent people in their attic to save their lives is ok in my book.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

People very often do the

People very often do the right thing out of guilt of knowing they wouldn't be able to live with them self after than simply knowing it's the right thing to do.

That's not a principle... that's a person fearing their own judgement.

I don't commend that just because some others wouldn't do it at all.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

xRegards,I was going to

xRegards,

I was going to write a big long post about your topic, but after reading the responses to your post, and to your poll, I am thinking, "What's the point?"

A lot of the Ron Paul supporters are plain pushing me away from this movement, and from politics in general. I got to watch their classless booing of a college professor trying to get them to think. I see them on this site being too stupid and stubborn to consider Gary Johnson. I see the conspiracy theory posts. I see them begging for censorship. I see them whining that Ron's picture has been removed. I make perfectly reasoned posts and get downvoted into oblivion. After this election cycle, I am done. People are too stupid and illogical for me to waste my time.

For a long time, I couldn't understand it. All these Ron Paul supporters not supporting liberty. All these "awakened" Ron Paul supporters acting like intolerant children. It just didn't make sense.
Then, it dawned on me.

Those supporters who say Ron Paul or none at all are actually NOT libertarians. They say they are, and they think they are, but they are not. I thought the same thing about the Tea Party: "Oh awesome, people who strongly want to cut the size of government and decrease taxes. Surely, they are intelligent and realize the ramifications of their desires." But, when I talked with Tea Party groups, I was utterly dismayed. They said that they wanted to shrink government and balance the budget. But, when asked, they wouldn't decrease the military, stop the wars, end entitlements, or make any significant cuts. In fact, they wanted the government to do more - only, more of what they wanted (like kicking out immigrants and ending welfare for blacks.) They still want government to block certain people's liberties.

What I am coming to realize about the "Liberty movement" is that many of the people are not libertarians, and don't really understand the broad scope of libertarianism. They see each issue independently of each other. Some of them are single issue voters. It's like the Paul movement picked up some of the Santorum supporters who think abortion is the only issue that is important. Somehow, the government monitoring pregnancy to ensure no one has an abortion is intelligent. Those supporters like Paul's ideas, and especially like his pandering stance on abortion but don't understand that actually blocking abortion would require pregnancy police. It would create another black market. Those people are not libertarians who want small government, but are normal big government advocates who just want government to do what they tell it to. They are probably more liberty minded than the tea party people since they are mostly against foreign aggression, but they are still not all the way there.
If there were a scale between Republican (10), and Libertarian (1), the Tea Party was a 9, and some of the current Paul Supporters are more like a 5. So, the libertarians (1s), Tea Partiers (9s), and Gary Johnson haters (5s or Unknown)are all fighting each other.

Because of that infighting, the liberty movement will not be able to put up any type of unified front against the duopoly. Everyone says liberty, but some mean it and some don't and this will be the source of the marginalization of the movement. The constitution party is somewhere between the republicans and libertarians, and will capture that vote.

Getting to your post, they all have different beliefs. When people are challenged with new beliefs, they either shun them (willful ignorance), or find a way to integrate them while disturbing their previous beliefs as little as possible. That's how all these conflicting principles come about. Showing people their contradictions is generally useless. You can't tell people what the moral high ground is - they need to decide it for themselves.

You write:
Do you promote liberty for the sake of these great things with support and a vote for Johnson?

OR

Do you sabotage that potential with a vote for who you want to be president regardless of whether they can win or not?

(Since Johnson can't win either, this would be more clearly stated as:
Do you promote the growth of liberty for the sake of liberty itself by boosting the prominence of the libertarian party? (the primary principle here is liberty)

Or do you promote your one man while contributing zero measurable growth in the liberty movement in the eyes of the voting masses to boost your own sense of steadfastness? (the primary principle here is
perceived personal character)

Be well. I guess that ended up being long...

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

Good points and I agree with

Good points and I agree with you 100%.

I'm not going to go edit the post only because I feel like I would be wasting even more time on these people.

It's funny you say that about self-proclaimed libertarians. I wrote this only days after actually conversing with the users of this site after being the most outspoken and idealistic libertarian anyone that knows me has known.

http://www.dailypaul.com/252951/linos-in-our-midst-those-tha...

But of course... like this post... major hate from all the people that knew I was referring to them and not a single person who could invalidate my arguments.

I treasure when I admit I'm wrong, because I'm proud of it. I asked another user on here who pointed out me making an ass out of myself... him even doing it with an attitude... and I replied...

"You're right, I'm sorry. I assumed like a completely idiot. When's the last time you heard someone say that on the internet? ;P"

"Two months ago. +1 for my faith in the human race."

Depending on whether the LINO's sabotage the movement or not... I'll stay in trying or get out. Going to write a book on willful ignorance and how it's the number one unofficial mental disorder in the world... and it being it's own reason why people aren't treated for it. It's impossible to treat. It's the human race's greatest flaw and sabotages our potential on every level... between governments and countries, to between lovers and parents and their children.

The human race will continue to keep making the same mistakes unless this comes to the attention of all of those still capable of acknowledging it.

If that doesn't work, the book doesn't make me famous and rich, and I end up coming back to the realization that regardless of how much those I know that are capable and I try our best... we'll never see a world that we deserve... just like Ron Paul won't.

Give them technology, science, advanced psychology... and people are still too god damn stupid.

Hit me up if you want on facebook.

www.facebook.com/regards

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

again

i'm a johnson-voting ron paul supporter.

and i'm modding this topic down.

it doesn't contribute positively to this site.

d

Educating people on the

Educating people on the things they and others do that sabotage potential... you're right. That doesn't contribute at all.

I guess we should all respect each other's liberty AND the things we do with it.

Someone sabotaging the liberty movement isn't impeding on my liberty at all. /sarcasm

People take this post negatively because THEY CHOOSE to take it negatively. Why do they choose to? Because THEY can't handle facing the truth about themselves and taking responsibility for their actions... they can't even acknowledge the destructive things they do in order to know that they should stop. So they intentionally choose to hear what they want rather than what is said to create ammo to use in attempting to discredit me and the truth they don't want to acknowledge.

So please... how does educating others on their own human behavior on a topic they probably never thought about and could end up falling into doing themselves otherwise NOT "contribute positively"?

You CHOSE to look at it in an inaccurate way which then gave you an inaccurate perception of what it was. That then let you feel like you had a point to make and as though you were standing up for whatever was right... like "down-rating negative posts" even when they're not negative... just the responses to it are.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

So... by your logic

Ron Paul should endorse Gary Johnson?

And while in Congress, Ron should have voted for bills when they had 'some good' in them?

And, if he were to become president... same applies? Sign bills because they contain some good?

Haha... of course, a line might have to be drawn sometimes. Rand Paul is more willing to draw a line (Ron doesn't even draw the line). While I make the argument that we can't compromise - I'd be very happy to have Rand in office (so - I'm just admitting my hypocrisy).

1. Paul has only endorse 3

1. Paul has only endorsed 3 candidates in his entire 3 decade long career. Even Gary Johnson doesn't expect him to endorse him.

Given how highly Paul considers his own endorsement... we then have to consider what he's said for more guidance if we really want his input.

He's said he didn't trust Romney.
He's said Obama was worse, but only slightly.
He's said that Gary Johnson was wonderful, doing a good job, and we should take a look at him for ourselves for those reasons.

He puts the idea that he doesn't want anyone to think that he has political influence in people's lives or that he would try manipulating it if he happened to have it, before anything else. Hence why he himself even says he doesn't understand why so many people support him. The most accurate acknowledgement he's made is "People are waking up!"

2. Paul himself has said that it's those bills that have the very little good in them, but people still vote to get their part of the bill through, that is a huge party of the problems in congress. He wouldn't vote for them for THAT reason. Those bills were a conflict of his own and someone else's principles, NOT of two or more of HIS OWN principles by them self. That makes a big difference and shows how it's a different circumstance.

This is the choice between a write-in that only you will remember and benefit from on an emotional level OR a long list of positive things that are the full potential for the country and liberty movement... both including yourself.

3. Gary Johnson, like Ron Paul and his "Dr. No" nickname, has a nickname of his own from his 8 years as governor... "Governor Veto". Both vetoing more bills than all the other states combined and an extensive use of his line-item veto power. If he didn't have the ability to line-item veto... he wouldn't pass the bill. Only two bills that he's vetoed out of almost a thousand have actually passed with 2/3 vote from state senate.

4. Damn you hypocrite! :P

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I do not want to hide Gary Johnson in my attic.

Someone else can have him.

You have the promotion of

You have the promotion of liberty on a national level, gaining the upper hand with the GOP for 2016, and helping end the 2 party duopoly in the attic... and you're choosing to sell all of that out because YOU don't like the fact that Johnson isn't a libertarian when the pollsters and ballot box knock on the door.

Choosing the principle that's easier for you rather than the moral high ground... isn't sticking to principle at all.

You chose to ignore the point completely so you could create a fallacy that's a good enough justification for you to keep believing what you want, rather than acknowledge the reality.

You're choosing emotional thinking over critical thinking.

Just because you can rationalize something doesn't make it logical.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

One Principle, No Conflict.

The Non-Aggression Principle.

I will not vote for anyone that does not accept and adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

You convincing yourself it's

You convincing yourself it's only one principle is exactly the same justification used as an excuse that I mentioned.

Your TWO Principles
Principle A: Vote for only people that don't violate NAP
OR
Principle B: Promote liberty, the movement, positive things for the country, and all the potential good that could happen as listed in the post.

You choose to stick to your extremely high standard (only accepting people as good as Ron Paul)
OVER
all of the good things that would happen for every one, including yourself, with getting behind Johnson.

One is the moral high ground and one is easier for you to do and in turn selfish instead of principled.

Unless promoting liberty to its full potential (as explained) isn't one of your principles... you have two and they conflict... whether you want to admit it or not.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I Only Have One Principle: Non-Aggression

What you refer to as "Principle B" isn't even a principle it is actions.

You can very easily promote liberty without violating the Non-Aggression Principle.

Just because you think supporting a "Fair Taxing", "Humanitarian War" supporting, "Pragmatic" candidate, will promote the cause of liberty, doesn't mean others see it that way.

Others might say that pushing someone like that could set us back.

Let me get this straight, because I don't want to violate humanities most important principle, not using violence against others or endorsing the use of violence against others, I am being selfish?

Strange, I thought promoting voluntary interaction and refusing to use or promote aggression against others, was good for other people.

Also you say "One is the moral high ground and one is easier for you to do and in turn selfish instead of principled."

Do you realize how incoherent that sounds, you are saying that because I am sticking to principle and taking the moral high ground, I am therefore being unprincipled?

I think any sane person reading your post would come to the conclusion, that you were the one actually abandoning principle for perceived positive consequences.

You are saying abandon the Non-Aggression Principle because supporting this Non NAP adherent candidate might have a positive consequence.

That is consequentialism, and the rejection of principle.

I think you are very confused.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

What's funny... just as I

What's funny... just as I noted at the beginning of the post... all those that rate this and my comments down and rate your comments up... are just as willfully ignorant as you are. Except they weren't even capable of putting their self-deceit into words.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

reedr3v's picture

Three suggestions to you which those of us

who've been around longer have learned: 1. insults do not strengthen your argument. 2. In this internet age, information overload is everyone's burden; shorten your OPs if you want more readers. 3. Preaching works for those who kneel to Authority. If you want to discuss an issue with rational people, you need to be open to learning too.

1. Reporting reality isn't

1. Reporting reality isn't insulting someone. Someone FEELING "insulted" is THEIR CHOICE to be upset over a truth that they are forced to create fallacies to believe in order to avoid facing.

2. You IMPLYING that I've attempted to "insult" anyone for the sake of strengthening an already SOLID argument is you putting words and actions in my mouth. Why would I need to insult someone in order to show their failed fallacies for what they are?

3. In any "age" critical thinking is too much of a hassle for the vast majority of people... especially when critical thinking conflicts with their emotional thinking. Look at all the up votes on these people that I've shown to be wrong in their very simplistic flawed reasoning and all the down-votes from people that didn't even understand what I was saying. I've been studying this phenomenon in the willfully ignorant for years... the loyalty to a shared belief over integrity to themselves and each other. It's a "Bros before ho's" mentality.

4. You IMPLYING that I'm not open to learning even though I haven't said or implied that myself is you again, putting words and actions in my mouth.

Thank you for your 2 assuming claims and your 2 vague and inaccurate observations that misses the real problems at the heart of "what 'burdens' people" and what's an "insult" and what isn't..

I'll learn something when someone finally has something to say that isn't a fallacy or just completely inaccurate.

Do you CHOOSE to take this response as an insult too?

There is no reasoning with the type of people I outline in the post. I respond over and over again publicly for the sake of the few non willfully ignorant among us that don't only want to believe they're honest when themselves, but actually want to be.

Sadly, ignorance spreads because the willfully ignorant spread it.

I don't think I'll change the minds of anyone that is intentionally staying the dark. You can't force someone to open their eyes. I'm more in the preventive measures business to make sure they don't convince others to close their eyes as well.

Just read the list at the bottom of my other comment to him of the many ways in which he's lied to himself. People that agree with him also lie to themselves. And they down-rate anyone that threatens their pathological lies.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

reedr3v's picture

No, I don't take your reply as a personal insult;

I take it as a sad example of your inability to accept that you may not be accurate in your assessment of people based on a response to your own posts.

While it is true that some hotheads on this forum do not offer sound reasoning, for a public forum the DP attracts a high percentage of reasonable truth seekers.

Either you haven't been here long enough to appreciate that fact, or you simply approach discussions with a rigid position and then get angry at the community if you don't receive an immediately favorable response.

If your approach is not working, it is childish to assume the fault is everyone else's. Look for growth and a better way to express your ideas if you don't want to be ignored or down voted.