I've already noted several of the problems I've encountered (non-intellectual motivations / tactical stupidity). The other is the sheer volume of crap most Libertarian's I've run into believe (or at least profess). As I said, I may (and likely will) address it in written form. But it's akin to dealing with climate denialists, creationists, flat-earthers, and others who are vested in an illogical and counterfactual belief system. Very simply not worth the effort.
I'm not asking you to argue; I'm asking you not to call people names, especially when they're wrong. It's not just unproductive, it's counterproductive.
Counterproductive as compared with what? Repeatedly and deliberately ignoring and / or misrepresenting facts and reason?
Trust me: in cases where this gets used it's already a lost cause.
Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" showed that sometimes ridicule is precisely the right tool for the job. No, he didn't change the minds of those he was portraying, but he clearly demonstrated to everyone else the reality. Stewart and Colbert continue his tradition.
Counterproductive in the sense of making it harder for people in general to get closer to the truth, and so increasing the chances of basing our policy decisions on something other than the truth, resulting in outcomes we don't want - individually or collectively (in so far as a collective can be said to want).
Counterproductive in the sense of making it harder for people in general to get closer to the truth
I disagree. In noting that a doctrine has no foundation, bearing, or interest in the truth or verifiability, you're saving a lot of wasted time and breath.
As for collectives, last I checked most humans were collectives of a few trillion or so individual cells, comprising multiple gene lines and species.
"As for collectives, last I checked most humans were collectives of a few trillion or so individual cells, comprising multiple gene lines and species.
Do you want?"
When we say "want" we are, when not speaking metaphorically, speaking at the level of the individual. Call this want1. Want1 is not constructed from a collection of want0s of my individual cells, but follows from specific constructions of cells designed to want1. The existence of a want2 was something I wanted to limit my stipulation of - I make no strong claim of its absence. Constructing it from collected want1s often leads to things like circular preferences, though, so there are clearly at least some caveats.
"I disagree. In noting that a doctrine has no foundation, bearing, or interest in the truth or verifiability, you're saving a lot of wasted time and breath."
You are forgetting that you're dealing with actual people.
I've already noted several of the problems I've encountered (non-intellectual motivations / tactical stupidity). The other is the sheer volume of crap most Libertarian's I've run into believe (or at least profess). As I said, I may (and likely will) address it in written form. But it's akin to dealing with climate denialists, creationists, flat-earthers, and others who are vested in an illogical and counterfactual belief system. Very simply not worth the effort.