In that short paragraph you have in my opinion painted yourself as a pompous egotistical crank, that sees yourself as the "light, the truth and the way" Your total philosophical outlook on life in general, it appears is all you can and ever will consider. The rest you just don't care about, to use your own words.
Like the Cocky on the biscuit tin, you aint in it.
This is simply an example of a personal attack. But, given that the discussion was anyway already about behaviour, it was not ad hominem. Simply a personal attack. As such, it is simply unbased. I have made a point that I know a little bit more about physics than what one expects from a book for laymen without math, given the evidence that I have several published papers, and one can criticize any such positive description of the own person as "pompous". But how does this justify "egotistical" or "crank" or seeing myself as "light, the truth and the way"? The last sentence is also completely unrelated to the text, thus, unbased. Moreover, to conclude from a few postings in a forum about life in general is - in general - extremely problematic. It is well-known that many people who behave in extremely aggressive ways online are in real life unproblematic nice guys.
Of course you have judged the book. You have judged the book to be below your pay grade. You have inferred that there is nothing you are able to learn.
No. I do not exclude at all that it may contain interesting things for me. As well as I do not exclude that rereading Winnie the Pooh may give me something.
And even if that was the case [which I doubt very much
] All you needed to do was politely acknowledge it. But no not you. You go into a contempuous childish sarcasm mode and offer a child's book in return.
Because I think, and continue to think, given all the answers, that this was the adequate, symmetric answer.
And rather ironic you finish off your preaching about "civilised society" when you propose another extreme form of society.
A libertarian society is a society which takes some basic moral principles, in particular the Golden Rule, and the Non-Aggression Principle, seriously. If you think it is extreme to require that every institution, even a state, has to accept them - ok, that would mean that it is an extreme form of society. I simply think that it makes no sense to exclude the state from the general rules of moral - it is an organization of people, not more, thus, the only point which may allow it to behave amorally would be the idea that the strongest group in a society does not have to care about morals.
I think this is an uncivilized idea. And I think a libertarian society, given that it is based on these moral principles, will be a quite civilized one.
