Freedomain Radio

There is something I don't understand. The idea that the most reasonable person is attacked is something that resonates with me (youtube response chatroom debate). Back in my statists days I used it as an explanation that most criticism after 9/11 went to the USA and not to Muslim religious fanatics. I later read it is a well known effect in psychology that the rape victim is blamed more than the rapist. The explanation given there was that people are so scared of the idea that they themselves also could be a victim of attack, that they prefer to blame the victim and come up with an arbitrary cause consequence relation to blame the victim and give the victim control. That way they can imagine this attack would never happen to them, because they would have controlled it differently.

The question I have is this: Of all the political candidates for the upcoming US election the one attacked most by Stef is Ron Paul. Now I understand all the objections against RP, but I could imagine him mounting a defense against these attacks by saying: Of all the candidates in this election, why do you attack the most rational ? Why not attack Hillary Clinton, Obama or any of the other jokers ?

 

Of course, Paul is not the most rational. To be so close to the truth and yet miss it so completely is worse than being a goose-stepping nazi.

The arguments promoting candidates like Hillary et al. are so ludicrous they don't need commentary from a site like FDR. Ron Paul is lethally dangerous because he lures those people uncertain that it's not ok to shoot people in order to solve problems and turns them back into full-fledged Statists.

Dave 

pcrs:

Of all the candidates in this election, why do you attack the most rational ?

You talk about blaming the rape victim instead of the rapist and then you question the government victim because of which head gangster candidate he singles out for criticism ?  Really ?

Mr. C:

pcrs:

Of all the candidates in this election, why do you attack the most rational ?

You talk about blaming the rape victim instead of the rapist and then you question the government victim because of which head gangster candidate he singles out for criticism ?  Really ?

Man I wish I had the kind of eye you do for this.

Mr. C:

You talk about blaming the rape victim instead of the rapist and then you question the government victim because of which head gangster candidate he singles out for criticism ?  Really ?

well, you could go either way, stop attacking the most rational gangster or stop blaming others if they attack you because you are the most rational. Or is the moral rule only valid for victims, but not for perpetrators ? So a victim can attack any perpetrator he or she wants (including starting with the most rational), but a perpetrator has to start his attacks with the most rational. But then there is a problem no one sees themselves as perpetrators.

So if RP said  to you:"hey, you complain about being attacked while being the most virtuous, but you yourself attack me, while I am being the most rational candidate", the answer would be:there are different standards for victims and perpetrators; all presidential candidates are gangsters I can choose whomever I like, but I am virtuous and therefor would only want to be attacked by more virtuous people.

Is that it ? 

pcrs:

Or is the moral rule only valid for victims, but not for perpetrators ?

I don't think it's a moral rule.  I think it's an indicator of motive.

Thanks, that is an excellent question, I certainly understand your concerns. This is what I see, let me know what you think.

First of all, I have savagely attacked other politicians - from the ancient Greeks and Romans to Chamberlain to Churchill to Bush to to Delay to Reagan to Wilson to Roosevelt et al - so I don't think it is fair to say that I have "singled out" Ron Paul.

In fact, I have always said that Ron Paul seems like quite a nice guy, which is something I've never said about these other thugs.

Secondly, I have - until yesterday's show - never been savage at all towards Ron Paul. In my youtube vids, all I did was talk about why I thought his positions were flawed, and provide criteria by which I could be disproved.

Thirdly, no one is telling me that Obama is a libertarian who will end the war, so I don't have as much to disagree with general opinion on that. People are saying Obama will provide free health care and help the poor and win the war on terror, but I've already done podcasts disproving those possibilities, so there's not much point reiterating the arguments.

Fourthly, as a fundamentalist Christian cult member - who "rejects evolution" - are you so sure that Ron Paul is the most rational candidate? Sure, I'd rather discuss economics with him, but I'd rather chat about religion with Hillary...

It certainly is true that we tend to get more angry at "principled" hypocrites than amoral hacks - and in this way I think we can hold Ron Paul to a slightly higher standard - but that was not what was happening with me in the circumstances I describe in the vid.

What do you think?

I consider people like Ron Paul to be amongst the most poisonous of all.  It's people like him who shush and stroke the slaves who are closest to breaking free of the master.  He sings softly to them of happiness and freedom as he re-fastens the chains around their necks.  Moral hypocrisy -- the counterfeiting of virtue --  is no minor evil.

Have you seen this video? A few minutes in, people are jumping around with their hands in the air like he's a rock star.

I remember having this kind of emotional response. Still do from time to time.

[YouTube:MRTDynbHVYQ]

DanielOR:

Have you seen this video? A few minutes in, people are jumping around with their hands in the air like he's a rock star.

I remember having this kind of emotional response. Still do from time to time.

 

Damn it, I'm such a sucker for emotion filled music.

"He is the first presidential candidate to have a blimp."

A blimp!?!  That's it, guys.  I'm voting Ron Paul!   LOL

 

On a more serious note, this image is pretty disturbing...

 

One more example of the metaphor of the state as our "parents". They're everywhere, yet we never really consciously notice them...

 

See that bulge under the swaddling flag?  That's the precious little tyke's nuclear arsenal.  Isn't he just so cuuuuute?

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to use the American flag in that manner.

Off with his head!

Either one, baby or Paul. I'm flexible.