Civil Libertarians?

[TrippyHippy]

Dedicated to CFM:

Can I ask a question without sounding like I'm attacking you?

Why does it seem like most active right-wing posters are on your ignore list? I could see a few like TDAK/God bless America, who are obvious trolls (possibly even socks). Yaya too. The rest might be annoying but not sure they warrant an ignore. I wouldn't even ignore CFM, though he can be a gigantic douche sometimes. And hell, a few like Bigdog and Sirthinksalot (despite disagreements I have with them) aren't really bad posters. They just have bad views sometimes. I also notice there are no left-wing posters on your ignore? Even though y'all have your fair share of trolls and less than adequate posters.

I feel like that's just creating an echo chamber and we are on a debate forum. Again, not going on the attack. But I have to point this out.

 

[CFM]

Can I ask a question without sounding like I'm attacking you?

Why does it seem like most active right-wing posters are on your ignore list? I could see a few like TDAK/God bless America, who are obvious trolls (possibly even socks). Yaya too. The rest might be annoying but not sure they warrant an ignore. I wouldn't even ignore CFM, though he can be a gigantic douche sometimes. And hell, a few like Bigdog and Sirthinksalot (despite disagreements I have with them) aren't really bad posters. They just have bad views sometimes. I also notice there are no left-wing posters on your ignore? Even though y'all have your fair share of trolls and less than adequate posters.

I feel like that's just creating an echo chamber and we are on a debate forum. Again, not going on the attack. But I have to point this out.

At least I'm not the only one that noticed it.

She thinks debate means putting those with which she disagrees on ignore, talking ABOUT them and what they believe in her posts to others, then not having to defend what she believes to those that disagree with her. Where I come from, what she does by only addressing like minded people is preaching to the choir.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Can I ask a question without sounding like I'm attacking you?
Why does it seem like most active right-wing posters are on your ignore list? I could see a few like TDAK/God bless America, who are obvious trolls (possibly even socks). Yaya too. The rest might be annoying but not sure they warrant an ignore. I wouldn't even ignore CFM, though he can be a gigantic douche sometimes. And hell, a few like Bigdog and Sirthinksalot (despite disagreements I have with them) aren't really bad posters. They just have bad views sometimes. I also notice there are no left-wing posters on your ignore? Even though y'all have your fair share of trolls and less than adequate posters.
I feel like that's just creating an echo chamber and we are on a debate forum. Again, not going on the attack. But I have to point this out.

That's fine, it's an opinion and not couched as an attack.

Every one of them is on there because they cannot discuss things in a civil manner w/o resorting to vulgar name-calling, personal attacks, and insults. CFM, GBA/Guest, and most of the rest also post offensive-to-me racial slurs. There are plenty of other right-wing-leaning ppl here who are capable of disagreeing without resorting to the ad hominem crap. A for instance: Yesterday Eagle Eye started a discussion asking whether there are any black posters on JPP who aren't racist. I asked him repeatedly to provide some examples of these racist posts. He claimed that I don't see them because they're my "buddies," so I pointed out that *his* buddy Toxic TOP is as racist as they come. So despite being asked multiple times to show the racist comments, he devolved into increasingly vicious personal attacks. *click* bye-bye.

Occasionally I will take someone off ignore to see if they've changed. Usually they have not.

Thanks for asking.

 

[TrippyHippy]

They aren't treated the same way. Someone committing a non-violent crime that warrants prison time doesn't get the same sentence as a violent offender.

But they're subject to the same shitty conditions.

There's no such thing as a victimless crime.

Um, yeah. There's alot of victimless crimes. Smoking cannabis doesn't create victims. Prostitution doesn't create victims. Gambling doesn't create victims. I could go on. Maybe you could argue these things hurt the people involved. But if they engaged in a consensual act, no real victim. The problem with these types of laws is the government is playing mommy and daddy and making sure we don't hurt ourselves. We're fucking adults, and we need to start acting like we are. Protecting us from others who seek to steal, rape, murder, and put our children in porn videos is one thing. But prohibition is absolute bullshit.

I've talked to him. Where do you think I got the information I provided you about his beliefs on drunk driving? He'll say he doesn't yet he's used an example of a family member being killed by a drunk driver as acceptable because to have addressed it prior by doing things designed to protect the rights of the innocent person would have been a violation of the driver's rights.

Ok? I don't see what that has to do with me.

I support many of the concepts Libertarians believe.

Ha!

However, I find that so many of them are night and day difference, just as this example, that I prefer not to be associated with them.

It's called grey area. People with libertarian-leaning beliefs tend to like to think for themselves, rather than following a hive-minded ideology. It exists on a spectrum.

Wikipedia, a source you referenced, says " Civil libertarianism is not a complete ideology".

And it's correct in that. Civil libertarianism only addresses matters of civil liberty. It does not involve budgets, business regulation, foreign policy and such.

Many things in the world are black and white, far more than those of you that want to make them gray want to believe.

No, the world is definitely far more gray. I know you have a simplistic worldview, and I will give you credit for at least admitting to that. Most don't.

What I meant specifically by you thinking in black & white terms is that you assumed, just because STY and I both identify with a sort of civil libertarian mindset, that we must believe all of the exact same things. I see you do the same thing to those that identify as liberals. That's frankly ignorant.

 

[CFM]

That's fine, it's an opinion and not couched as an attack.

Every one of them is on there because they cannot discuss things in a civil manner w/o resorting to vulgar name-calling, personal attacks, and insults. CFM, GBA/Guest, and most of the rest also post offensive-to-me racial slurs. There are plenty of other right-wing-leaning ppl here who are capable of disagreeing without resorting to the ad hominem crap. A for instance: Yesterday Eagle Eye started a discussion asking whether there are any black posters on JPP who aren't racist. I asked him repeatedly to provide some examples of these racist posts. He claimed that I don't see them because they're my "buddies," so I pointed out that *his* buddy Toxic TOP is as racist as they come. So despite being asked multiple times to show the racist comments, he devolved into increasingly vicious personal attacks. *click* bye-bye.

Occasionally I will take someone off ignore to see if they've changed. Usually they have not.

Thanks for asking.

If you're offended, the problem is yours not mine.

Keep hiding and making excuses. Two things that prove everything I've said about you that you get your panties in a wad over are absolutely true.

 

[TrippyHippy]

That's fine, it's an opinion and not couched as an attack.

Every one of them is on there because they cannot discuss things in a civil manner w/o resorting to vulgar name-calling, personal attacks, and insults. CFM, GBA/Guest, and most of the rest also post offensive-to-me racial slurs. There are plenty of other right-wing-leaning ppl here who are capable of disagreeing without resorting to the ad hominem crap. A for instance: Yesterday Eagle Eye started a discussion asking whether there are any black posters on JPP who aren't racist. I asked him repeatedly to provide some examples of these racist posts. He claimed that I don't see them because they're my "buddies," so I pointed out that *his* buddy Toxic TOP is as racist as they come. So despite being asked multiple times to show the racist comments, he devolved into increasingly vicious personal attacks. *click* bye-bye.

Occasionally I will take someone off ignore to see if they've changed. Usually they have not.

Thanks for asking.

That's fair, if true. I am still new to the forum, that's why I wasn't intending to go on the attack about it. I realize there's much about this forum and it's members I don't know yet.

How does the ignore function even work, out of curiosity? I don't have anyone ignored yet. Are you unable to see their posts and they can't see yours?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, that is pretty vague.

As I understand it, civil libertarians believe in rehabilitation and harm reduction over hard line criminal punishment. Abolishing mandatory minimums, improving prison conditions, higher wages for prison work, offering legitimate drug rehab programs, GED and college classes, etc. Also de-privatizing the prison system is a major cause, as we believe this creates a financial incentive to imprison people where there often wouldn't be.

Many civil libertarians think prison should be more than simply warehousing criminals. There is some merit to that ideal. If you are going to send people to prison, you need to help them prepare for a productive life when they get out. Or don't let them out. When they come out with a felony on their record, finding work will be extremely difficult. Many times they cannot draw any state assistance. So unless we have given them a viable option, they will be back to their criminal behavior very soon.

And people in prison for nonviolent marijuana law violations should be dealt with in other ways.

 

[CFM]

But they're subject to the same shitty conditions.



Um, yeah. There's alot of victimless crimes. Smoking cannabis doesn't create victims. Prostitution doesn't create victims. Gambling doesn't create victims. I could go on. Maybe you could argue these things hurt the people involved. But if they engaged in a consensual act, no real victim. The problem with these types of laws is the government is playing mommy and daddy and making sure we don't hurt ourselves. We're fucking adults, and we need to start acting like we are. Protecting us from others who seek to steal, rape, murder, and put our children in porn videos is one thing. But prohibition is absolute bullshit.



Ok? I don't see what that has to do with me.



Ha!



It's called grey area. People with libertarian-leaning beliefs tend to like to think for themselves, rather than following a hive-minded ideology. It exists on a spectrum.



And it's correct in that. Civil libertarianism only addresses matters of civil liberty. It does not involve budgets, business regulation, foreign policy and such.



No, the world is definitely far more gray. I know you have a simplistic worldview, and I will give you credit for at least admitting to that. Most don't.

What I meant specifically by you thinking in black & white terms is that you assumed, just because STY and I both identify with a sort of civil libertarian mindset, that we must believe all of the exact same things. I see you do the same thing to those that identify as liberals. That's frankly ignorant.

I'd say the more violent ones that are more highly restricted in their actions have it worse.


All three of those create victims. How many of those actions you say are victimless have split up families, etc and negatively affected children that had nothing to do with the actions? Does the wife consent to the husband getting a prostitute or the children consent to daddy/mommy not being able to provide food clothing because they spent the money on something other than meeting their responsibilities. No one is prohibiting you from doing something. However, there are no victimless crimes.

You said talk to him. Now you run from what he said. Both of you have the same I should be able to do anything I want as long as I believe it only affects me attitude.

Thanks for admitting that the wide spectrum of those calling themselves Libertarians means they're wishy washy. I prefer to be around those I can trust not those that I wonder what they're going to do next. People calling themselves Libertarians don't think for themselves. They believe that doing whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it is all that matters regardless of how it effects others then convincing themselves a husband getting a prostitute doesn't harm the wife.

Anyone that says the world is gray, gray, gray is doing nothing more than trying to justify how they're unable to make up their mind and go with whatever direction the wind blows at the time.

 

[CFM]

That's fair, if true. I am still new to the forum, that's why I wasn't intending to go on the attack about it. I realize there's much about this forum and it's members I don't know yet.

How does the ignore function even work, out of curiosity? I don't have anyone ignored yet. Are you unable to see their posts and they can't see yours?

It's OK. If she can't defend what she believe, she's much like you with your wishy washy outlook.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Many civil libertarians think prison should be more than simply warehousing criminals. There is some merit to that ideal. If you are going to send people to prison, you need to help them prepare for a productive life when they get out. Or don't let them out. When they come out with a felony on their record, finding work will be extremely difficult. Many times they cannot draw any state assistance. So unless we have given them a viable option, they will be back to their criminal behavior very soon.

And people in prison for nonviolent marijuana law violations should be dealt with in other ways.

How do you believe marijuana offenders should be dealt with? Out of curiosity.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

That's fair, if true. I am still new to the forum, that's why I wasn't intending to go on the attack about it. I realize there's much about this forum and it's members I don't know yet.
How does the ignore function even work, out of curiosity? I don't have anyone ignored yet. Are you unable to see their posts and they can't see yours?

They can see yours unless they've put you on ignore as well. You can still see in the notifications tab if they've responded to something you posted, but you don't see the post itself. You just see this:

The ignore function makes the forum much more pleasant. Instead of responding in kind to the personal attacks, you can just continue to discuss things in a more civil fashion.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'd say the more violent ones that are more highly restricted in their actions have it worse.

True. To a point. But they still suffer from bad conditions, and like WinterBorn said they will have difficulty being productive in society upon getting out because of that.

All three of those create victims. How many of those actions you say are victimless have split up families, etc and negatively affected children that had nothing to do with the actions?

They do not. Actions done while doing them may, but they themselves do not.

Does the wife consent to the husband getting a prostitute

It's not the wife's decision, she does not own her husband. And prostitution laws won't change the fact she has an unfaithful husband anyway. It's a shitty thing to do while married, sure. But should not be illegal. Do you believe cheating in general should be illegal? And what about single people getting prostitutes? Who does that supposedly hurt?

or the children consent to daddy/mommy not being able to provide food clothing because they spent the money on something other than meeting their responsibilities.

There's already a crime for that. Child neglect. And you can get your kids taken for it. There are many, in fact I'd say most, people that use cannabis that are still perfectly capable of taking care of their families. And, that aside, much like the prostitution case, what if you are single and have no kids? What then?

No one is prohibiting you from doing something.

The law is.

You said talk to him. Now you run from what he said. Both of you have the same I should be able to do anything I want as long as I believe it only affects me attitude.

Driving under the influence is reckless endangerment, it does not only affect you. Private drug use, like inside your own home, does not affect anybody but you.

Thanks for admitting that the wide spectrum of those calling themselves Libertarians means they're wishy washy. I prefer to be around those I can trust not those that I wonder what they're going to do next. People calling themselves Libertarians don't think for themselves. They believe that doing whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it is all that matters regardless of how it effects others then convincing themselves a husband getting a prostitute doesn't harm the wife.
Anyone that says the world is gray, gray, gray is doing nothing more than trying to justify how they're unable to make up their mind and go with whatever direction the wind blows at the time.

I'm sorry that people don't fit into your neat little boxes, but that's not wishy washy. Wishy washy is changing your position on issues constantly. Not ceasing to identify fully with labels. It is thinking for yourself, rather than letting political leans or labels or parties color your opinion on issues you take it case by case and make up your own damn mind about the issues.

 

[WinterBorn]

How do you believe marijuana offenders should be dealt with? Out of curiosity.

A fine, at best. Legalization is my preferred option.

 

[CFM]

True. To a point. But they still suffer from bad conditions, and like WinterBorn said they will have difficulty being productive in society upon getting out because of that.



They do not. Actions done while doing them may, but they themselves do not.



It's not the wife's decision, she does not own her husband. And prostitution laws won't change the fact she has an unfaithful husband anyway. It's a shitty thing to do while married, sure. But should not be illegal. Do you believe cheating in general should be illegal? And what about single people getting prostitutes? Who does that supposedly hurt?



There's already a crime for that. Child neglect. And you can get your kids taken for it. There are many, in fact I'd say most, people that use cannabis that are still perfectly capable of taking care of their families. And, that aside, much like the prostitution case, what if you are single and have no kids? What then?



The law is.



Driving under the influence is reckless endangerment, it does not only affect you. Private drug use, like inside your own home, does not affect anybody but you.



I'm sorry that people don't fit into your neat little boxes, but that's not wishy washy. Wishy washy is changing your position on issues constantly. Not ceasing to identify fully with labels. It is thinking for yourself, rather than letting political leans or labels or parties color your opinion on issues you take it case by case and make up your own damn mind about the issues.

I'm sorry you're so insecure and weak on your beliefs that you have to try and justify how the do anything I want because I want attitude is nothing but the sign of a untrustworthy individual.

When you believe that no matter what you do that it only affects you, you're an untrustworthy individual.

 

[CFM]

A fine, at best. Legalization is my preferred option.

Another pothead.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'm sorry you're so insecure and weak on your beliefs that you have to try and justify how the do anything I want because I want attitude is nothing but the sign of a untrustworthy individual.

When you believe that no matter what you do that it only affects you, you're an untrustworthy individual.

I'm sorry you're so insecure that you feel the need to control other people. I'm sorry you never got the chance to grow up and learn that the government isn't here to play our parents and institute victimless laws to protect us from ourselves. I do believe in laws restricting legitimate harm or endangerment of others. But lighting up a joint in your home or paying a woman to fuck you does no legitimate harm to nor endangers anybody but the people consensually involved.

Mind your own fucking business. Maybe the reason you have such a simplistic, ignorant worldview is because you spend more time worrying about what other people are doing rather than educating yourself.

p.s Don't think I didn't notice how you used personal attacks to deflect from my questions. Nice.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Another pothead.

Many people who do not use cannabis happen to support legalization. Some people actually get the concept of respecting personal liberties that they themselves don't indulge in. Get your head out of your ass.

 

[CFM]

I'm sorry you're so insecure that you feel the need to control other people, when they are not harming you in any way. I do believe in laws restricting legitimate harm or endangerment of others. But lighting up a joint in your home or paying a woman to fuck you does no legitimate harm to nor endangers anybody but the people consensually involved.

Mind your own fucking business. Maybe the reason you have such a simplistic, ignorant worldview is because you spend more time worrying about what other people are doing rather than educating yourself.

p.s Don't think I didn't notice how you used personal attacks to deflect from my questions. Nice.

I'm not stopping you from doing anything. No one is like you claim they are. The laws aren't stopping you from doing anything. If that were true, there would be no murders, rapes, robberies, etc. If you don't do something, it's YOUR choice not to do it. Maybe you want to blame others because you simply don't have the guts to do what you want to do and accept the consequences of doing so.

I mind my own business until it becomes mine. If you smoke pot only in your home, no one will ever know. If they know, it's because it's not a private as you believe it to be. If you make it my business and I say something about it, what the fuck are you going to do about it?

 

[CFM]

Many people who do not use cannabis happen to support legalization. Some people actually get the concept of respecting personal liberties that they themselves don't indulge in. Get your head out of your ass.

Supporting being a pothead or being one. There is no difference.

 

[WinterBorn]

Another pothead.

Another realist. I don't smoke pot.

But the realities of legalization are clear.