Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Really? Those newsletters written decades ago with little actual connection to the candidate himself are your example?

"Little actual connection"? I can tell you haven't read this thread. They were signed by him. They carried his name. They were often written from his perspective. Yet somehow, they were both not written by him, not supported by him, and went unnoticed by him for at least a decade? How can you possibly find this reasonable?

[Nadaka]

GreatJustice: read this thread. I already have links here for my assertions.

[Capntastic]

It is unethical to allow children, who are demonstrably not rational actors, the 'right' to 'enter the labor force'.

We can't allow people to make decisions for themselves, they might do something wrong!

I'm glad you agree.

You should form a counter-argument if you disagree, rather than being a cool sarcasm dude.  Are you seriously trying to assert that a ten year old child is intelligent enough to understand the risks they are taking on, and should be allowed to 'fire' their parents and become a free agent, quit school, and work to support themselves?  Because yes, in many cases, it's wrong to allow people to make decisions that can lead to their utter poverty, illness, harm, or death.  This is why we often lock up medicine cabinets and chemical cupboards in homes with children in them- because giving your children the choice to make those decisions (drink the bleach) on their own is pretty abhorrent.

Are you going to prove that a child whose brain isn't fully developed, much less educated with any sort of context about the world, should be allowed to run away from home?
Are you going to ignore that puberty alone floods the brains with hormones that cause mood swings and irrational behavior?

Please address these issues, I'm curious as to your views on them!

Humans in general are provably not rational actors.  Given perfect information (which, again, does not really exist in the wild!), there's no guarantee that a person will make a rational choice.  If this were not the case, we wouldn't really need a social contract at all.

So, as with PTTG, I'm inclined to believe you are merely trying to be humorous rather than mounting an argument that a pre-teens rights unto themselves are unassailable. 

[G-Flex]

Are you seriously trying to assert that a ten year old child is intelligent enough to understand the risks they are taking on, and should be allowed to 'fire' their parents and become a free agent, quit school, and work to support themselves?

What are you talking about? Things worked out great when we allowed five-year-olds to work in coal mines.

[kaijyuu]

I'd like to jump in, being a huge advocator of children's rights, but this is a pretty egregious tangent. Another thread?

[Nadaka]

Are you seriously trying to assert that a ten year old child is intelligent enough to understand the risks they are taking on, and should be allowed to 'fire' their parents and become a free agent, quit school, and work to support themselves?

What are you talking about? Things worked out great when we allowed five-year-olds to work in coal mines.

And when they would spend 14 hours a day inside an operational loom with an oil, only stopping to remove the occasional severed body part gumming up the works.

[Capntastic]

I'd like to jump in, being a huge advocator of children's rights, but this is a pretty egregious tangent. Another thread?

Go ahead and start one.  I really only want to know ECrown's response in relation to how he's defending Rothbard, which relates to the discussion about Austrian school free market economics, etc.

[kaijyuu]

Ah well I don't care enough~

The original quote does give a pretty damn terrible reason for allowing it again, though.

[GreatJustice]

Really? Those newsletters written decades ago with little actual connection to the candidate himself are your example?

"Little actual connection"? I can tell you haven't read this thread. They were signed by him.

Autopen, a feature that many such magazines, etc feature.

They carried his name.

Indeed they do. Maclean's carries Maclean's name too, but that doesn't mean Maclean (who is, I recall, very much dead) personally wrote every article, or even supervised. Again, bad management, but not proof of racism by any means.

They were often written from his perspective.

So? I can write from the perspective of Chuck Norris. That doesn't constitute much in the way of proof.

But while on the subject, I can see you haven't read any of his other articles, or heard him speak or write at literally any other point. The newsletters in question weren't even remotely written in his style, which would be rather obvious were you actually comparing them to the thousands of non-racist ones from the past.

Yet somehow, they were both not written by him, not supported by him, and went unnoticed by him for at least a decade? How can you possibly find this reasonable?

It was a small time newsletter that he'd mostly lost interest in and effectively abandoned, seeing as how he was running his practice at the time. Again, bad management, and on its own it doesn't make much sense logically that he'd suddenly run a spate of about eight racist newsletters after previously showing no particular signs of being a racist and then stops them outright not much longer afterwards.

GreatJustice: read this thread. I already have links here for my assertions.

I have seen one source already, with incredibly weak connections and extremely long leaps of logic, which are about as long as the "Obama associated with a Communist" article (which you notably haven't even looked at, even though it isn't much more silly). I've been reading since page 80 and haven't seen much since then, and unless you can find a better source I don't think its very worthwhile to go all the way back to look for what amount to Daily Mail articles.

[kaijyuu]

I'd like to point out there are things I said 5 days ago that I regret and have changed my opinion on.

Assuming these letters were written by Ron Paul, what evidence is there that he still holds these opinions? And no, golfing buddies don't count; statements or actions by the man himself, please.



(I don't like Ron Paul for other reasons and would never vote for him, but when people bring up this ancient stuff I raise an eyebrow.)

[Capntastic]

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

[GreatJustice]

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

Not well known by any means. Do you know who Kelso is?

The only time I've heard of him before was when he was tossed out of CPAC by Paul supporters. He has a massive ego and very little relevance, bragging about "connections" that he obviously doesn't have and never backs up (those "top men" in Illinois and SoCal quite literally are unknown to any of the actual activists or campaigners in those states, etc). If you want I can provide a rather detailed wall of text covering most of this, but that isn't really necessary.

I could just as easily claim to have personally met with Evgeny Murov too, but were I someone with as silly a resume as Kelso I don't think anyone would take my claims seriously, even if emails were hacked showing that I made such claims.

[Capntastic]

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

Not well known by any means. Do you know who Kelso is?

If I were a white supremacist, I probably would.   Which is why I said "figureheads in white supremacist circles".

[GreatJustice]

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

Not well known by any means. Do you know who Kelso is?

If I were a white supremacist, I probably would.   Which is why I said "figureheads in white supremacist circles".

There are any number of wrong things with this statement, but two major ones:

(A) Seeing as how you say that it would only be in white supremacist circles that he's known, you imply that Ron Paul already knows him, therefore he's a white supremacist, therefore he associated with him making him a white supremacist. If he isn't known outside of such circles then any association Paul has with him (and it is extremely limited, basically Kelso posing with him for a photo) is irrelevant. I recall Paul also did something similar with a San Francisco pedophile without knowing who he was (Paul has rather poor luck with associations, but that's beside the point), and not many people claim it proves he's part of the worldwide pedophile conspiracy.

(B) You imply that "Kelso is a well known figure" is a proven statement. It most certainly isn't. Can you prove that he is? Maybe some previous exposure? I wouldn't know, but otherwise this article is about as worthwhile as one of those "RON PAUL SUPPORTERS ON THE INTERNET SAY ELECTION WAS RIGGED" articles you find every once in a while.

Here's something for you in the meantime:

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/politicaljunkie/2012/02/02/lynching-ron-paul?page=0,0

[G-Flex]

I'd like to point out there are things I said 5 days ago that I regret and have changed my opinion on.

Assuming these letters were written by Ron Paul, what evidence is there that he still holds these opinions? And no, golfing buddies don't count; statements or actions by the man himself, please.

Assuming those letters were written by Ron Paul, he's lying out his ass by saying they weren't, which is bad in itself, and they still wouldn't speak well for his character. Yes, people can change their minds on plenty of issues, but if he did write them, it doesn't bode well that he'd lie about it.

Either they weren't written by him, making him monumentally ignorant and disorganized at best or monumentally willing to capitalism on racism, homophobia, and paranoia at worst... or he did write them, is lying his ass off about it now, and was, at some point at least, a homophobic paranoid racist, which doesn't speak well for his ability to form rational judgments about things in general.

So? I can write from the perspective of Chuck Norris. That doesn't constitute much in the way of proof.

Sure, but it's slightly different if Chuck Norris himself gives you authorization to do so.

But while on the subject, I can see you haven't read any of his other articles, or heard him speak or write at literally any other point. The newsletters in question weren't even remotely written in his style, which would be rather obvious were you actually comparing them to the thousands of non-racist ones from the past.

You don't need those letters to call Ron Paul a homophobe. There's plenty of other sources for that, at least!

It was a small time newsletter that he'd mostly lost interest in and effectively abandoned, seeing as how he was running his practice at the time. Again, bad management, and on its own it doesn't make much sense logically that he'd suddenly run a spate of about eight racist newsletters after previously showing no particular signs of being a racist and then stops them outright not much longer afterwards.

It's bad enough management that it still reflects very poorly on his character and ability to... well, manage anything. Qualities a president should have.