Eric, "New Alliance Party" and "Pledge" were introduced by YOU, as ignorant responses to my original questions about your philosophy on the "NAP" (Non Aggression Principle). Now you mischaracterize my repetition of my questions as a distraction because it does not refocus on your ignorant responses. What this makes more apparent is that your original responses to my questions were worse than mere ignorance; they were overt attempts at distraction.
Since both the distractions / compound-fallacies were your babies, no matter how you try to spin them, and do not qualify as "the main issues" or legitimate answers to my repeated questions, no matter how you try to spin them, the same questions to you still stand unanswered. At this point, as a result of your replies, I imagine most reasonable readers assume that you reject the core libertarian principle: "NAP". This is your opportunity to set the record straight; surely it's a simple misunderstanding. -Mark ++++++++++++++++++++ [ModeratorNote: Eric is repeating (2nd time in this thread now) the stupid stunt of pretending that the issue originally raised is this strawman. The question asked of Eric is does he understand AND agree with libertarianism's core principle. See: What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling? at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419 -TLP ] --------------------- Funny how both of you deflect from the real issue: the use of the acronym NAP with the Pledge and not the New Alliance Party, and the confusion that creates for voters. -Eric ------------------------- --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kid, > > I know what you mean, but I don't mind helping Eric make it even > more obvious. Regarding "obvious": stated is always better than > implied. OTOH, maybe we are not being fair. Maybe he truly has > somehow missed the core message of universal libertarianism. I'm > sure he is catching up on the lesson right now as we speak. Let's > just let him decide how to respond. Whether we educate him in the > process, or he educates us about his precise position, we > shouldn't waste such an opportunity. > > -Mark > > ++++++++++++++++ > > --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <statonberg@> > wrote: > > > > Eric, > > > > I'm not sure of your point, but in this context "NAP" implies > > neither "New Alliance Party" nor a "pledge". Again, it is the > > libertarian principle: "Non Aggression Principle". I was never > > asking whether you believed in "pledging" to it (if that's what > > you mean), only whether you agreed with its philosophy. Do you? > > > > > -Mark > _________________________________________________________________ > _____ > > Mark, you really don't need to keep demanding an answer from > Eric. It > is obvious that he believes in (one might even say "worships") > non- > provoked preemptive agressive violence by the state, both against > > foreign nations and ideologies and against citizens of the state > at > home. He has even posted messages here urging us to venerate the > government bureaucrats who perpetuate the violence - the > soldiers, > policemen and presumably the IRS agents and tax assessors who > make > them possible. > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
