Susan Hogarth wrote: BH) The question here obviously is what decision you would hope you would make or would advocate that others make in such a situation. (BH
SH) Not so obvious because that's not what you asked. (SH It's bizarre for you to deny that a discussion about morality is about the decisions one hopes one would make or would advocate that others make. It's untenable to claim that in a discussion about morality, a what-would-you-do question doesn't ask one to clarify one's ethics, but instead is some kind of a request for a prophecy. Just who do you think would fall for that? Your blatant evasiveness makes it clear which of us is responsible for the pattern of communication here for which you offer your crocodile tears. I have a nearly-two-decade track record of engaging in fruitful and civil discussions on a broad array of topics with a wide variety of intellectuals and academics. The behavior you're exhibiting is typical of the most extreme (and thus rare) cases of a correspondent's polemical reach vastly exceeding his grasp. This small set of cases have mostly been fundamentalist evangelical Christians, but you're not the first fundamentalist evangelical anarchist to put himself on the list. SH) My belief: It's wrong to sacrifice one person (other than yourself) for another - or for two others. Or for a million others. I hope that's clear. (SH It's not at all "clear" what you mean by "it's wrong", since you've fled headlong from the opportunity to certify that wrongness for you denotes (as it does for pretty much everybody else) all and only those decisions that one would deplore in others and hope not to make oneself. I don't understand why you can't just bring yourself to say "Yes, I would let the million innocents die, rather than kill one other innocent to save them." Why should an observer not conclude that you lack the courage of your convictions -- or at least confidence in their generality? SH) I find that communications between us rapidly deteriorate to insult-swapping. (SH I've never used an epithet (like "dork") to describe you or the things you say, and I've never simply dismissed your position or argument with an expletive like "bullshit". The one time I invoked the I call <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I+call+bullshit> bullshit colloquialism on you, I gave a 26-point explanation of why your lame canard that LP reformers "offer a timid promise of 'less government' which they *already have* from at least one of the major parties" satisfies the colloquial definition of "to call one out on a complete falsehood". By contrast, you used "bullshit" to announce that you're going to continue to blatantly decline to engage my position. Cruder people than you have tried to get me to descend to their level. None have succeeded. SH) You've made it clear that you will largely just continue to repeat the things you've already said when asked for clarification (SH If something I've already said gives the requested clarification, then I of course reserve the right to repeat it. I defy you to give a single example of me simply repeating the very statement that you've asked me to clarify. I confidently predict you won't even try. And don't try to claim it's a request for "clarification" when you e.g. simply denied that I had offered an empirical analysis of the case for anarcholibertarianism. I then repeated three paragraphs of such empirical argument, and you didn't respond to a single word of it. It's just ludicrous that you can ignore my arguments or deny that I've made them, and then complain when I repeat them. SH) and I have made it clear that I'm more interested in understanding your thinking than sharing mine with you or staging a public 'debate' (via your personal list). Sounds like an impasse. (SH Sounds like business as usual. I'm going to continue to answer your every question about the platform reform efforts I support, to rebut your every criticism of those efforts, and to point it out when you simply parrot your own earlier criticisms that have already received an unanswered rebuttal. I'll also point out the hypocrisy of your refusal to explain or defend your positions while leading a caucus that claims to be dedicated to "educating LP members about the Party's core principles".
