[ExI] retrainability of plebeians

[Lee Corbin]

Fred wrote

> On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 20:18 +0200, Dagon Gmail wrote:
> > Can the radical libertarian "your own f****g
 > > responsibility, don't bother me with your whining
 > > as you starve"-crowd please let me know at what
 > > levels of unemployment would they propose what kind of
> > egalitarian measures...? Or would "euthanasia for the
> > unemployable" be merciful?

As Rafal pointed out, very similar concerns in the
past over and over were found to be worries over nothing.

> An intelligent person will realize that the above quote
 > from your message is nonsense.

We need to rise above ad hominem, empty arguments, Fred.
Basically, all you've said here is that the poster is
stupid, and that anyone who resonates with his message
is too.

If his claim is nonsense, why didn't you attack *it*
directly instead of him and his ilk?

> Someone who was really interested in quality discourse
> discourse on this list would not have posted it in the
 > first place.

While I sympathize, I basically disagree with you
because it did provoke intelligent discussion of
what may  indeed (despite our experience, and despite
your and my judgments) prove to be a real problem.

Dagon persists:

> > I agree that the above is "prejudicial" and
 > > "opinionated" and "argumental [argumentative]"
 > > but I do not agree it is nonsense. I have
 > > become embittered about what I perceive to
> > a general lack of human compassion in libertarians,

It's not a lack of compassion, please rest assured
on that point. It's merely an attempt to take the
long view, and maximize well-being and minimize
misery in the long run. Sure, the government could
pass out $10,000 tomorrow to everyone (not that you
or anyone is suggesting that), but it would *not*
be compassionate as (I hope) you are able to see.

> > If you wish to wrestle my statement into discrediting
 > > the underlying message then shame on you.

So you *knew* that you'd be misunderstood. When
this happens, PLEASE try toning down the button-
pushing remarks and focus on presenting the
rational arguments (that I know you do have,
because it's not too hard to see them underneath
your overly provoking rhetoric).

> > I agree the accusatory content in the above may be
> > aggressive not wise,

Well---that's a signal to you, damn it, to rewrite!

> > but I maintain there are solid arguments for my 
> > expectations about above subset of people.

We shall see how "solid" are your judgments about
Libertarians. I provided a counter-argument to your
claims above, and so have several other people.

Lee