Carl Phillips: Big Lies and Reconciliation

[Fulgurant]

In Germany, we have a saying "put them all in a sack and hit it with a stick. And you will always be hitting the right person".

Haha, too perfect. Thanks, Anja.

We're back to the 'me quote' above, so I'm outta here on this subject. Thanks for keeping it civil. [/COLOR]

Likewise, Kent C. It was an enjoyable discussion.

 

[Kent C]

I'm assuming you are a libertarian, which is all fine and good. It's a nice idea aside from the fact that it is a theory that doesn't work in the real world. It sounds nice though and makes for some good sound bites.

<snip>

Libertarians have a basic misunderstanding of the role of government and the tensions that are inherent in a democracy.

Funny you say that because many of the 'sound bites' and articles posted here are from libertarian sources or from libertarian concepts.

And not so funny when you consider that 'democracy' is the form of our gov't. A common mistake made by liberals (either intended for their own purposes or out of sheer ignorance). The driving idea for most vapers is that they have the right to consume, inhale whatever they wish so long as it doesn't harm others. That's a libertarian principle - one whose basic concepts were the ideas behind our government. Pure democracy didn't work and still doesn't.

The true tin foil hat people are the ones who think there is some utopia where they can change the nature of man from rationally self-interested, to some slaves who give their lives others at the dictates of some philosopher kings who know what's best for us. That is truly an illusion/delusion. Forget about me... Libertarians are our closest allies. Dismissing them in the manner you have isn't that "pragmatic".

And thanks for being uncivil....

 

[kristin]

I actually cringed when I read Carl's blog post, because I knew his examples would distract from the overall great points of his post. Had I played editor this time I would have recommended he take them out. Something about the lie of the Earth being the center of the universe or the right to own other people would have been more universally accepted.

Carl definitely leans pretty far to the left, but his politics are not representative of CASAA. The board is pretty balanced politically, including at least 2 libertarians (including myself.) I can guarantee that there is no political majority controlling CASAA policies and actions. To not support CASAA because of the political leanings of one director ignores the fact that there are 8 other directors on the board and there are at least two of them who share your political ideology.

And as a libertarian, I disagree that we have a "basic misunderstanding of the role of government." We just disagree with what some others think the government's role should be.

 

[AgentAnia]

If a person supports vaping and THR, I don't care if he/she is liberal, conservative, vegan, omnivore, green, purple, human, or otherwise sentient being. If that person starts to play politics with ecig policy (are you listening, members of Congress?), then I'll pay attention, but until then, lean left, lean right, eat veggies or meat or don't, I don't give a flying frak. And that, I swear, is the *very* last thing I'll say on this subject.

 

[Kent C]

If a person supports vaping and THR, I don't care if he/she is liberal, conservative, vegan, omnivore, green, purple, human, or otherwise sentient being. If that person starts to play politics with ecig policy....

That was my problem with parts of Carl's piece. And I wasn't the only one bothered by it.

 

[Uma]

I'm blissfully unaware of political stances, left it's, right it's, liberals, all that jazz. I took from the article a contentment in knowing that we are winning the war against anti-THR by using science, honesty, & dedication to standing up for human rights. Truth vs lies. Honesty vs deception. We might never see "justice" served against those who promoted death rather than life, but we will win.

 

[BuGlen]

I actually cringed when I read Carl's blog post, because I knew his examples would distract from the overall great points of his post. Had I played editor this time I would have recommended he take them out. Something about the lie of the Earth being the center of the universe or the right to own other people would have been more universally accepted.

I disagree with your editing recommendations in this particular case. I feel that if Carl, as a card-carrying liberal, can speak directly to the left and tell them that they need to rethink their position on THR, then it may have a greater impact. Everyday, we see the political tensions (even here on ECF) and how when the "opposition" says "you're wrong!", people just tend to dig in their heels and close their eyes. When a "friendly" tells you that you might be wrong and you need to reassess, then it tends to hit home a little better and chips away at the walls.

I see people on this forum every day complaining about the "politically correct" way of thinking, so why should Carl be held to a different standard?

Carl definitely leans pretty far to the left, but his politics are not representative of CASAA. The board is pretty balanced politically, including at least 2 libertarians (including myself.) I can guarantee that there is no political majority controlling CASAA policies and actions. To not support CASAA because of the political leanings of one director ignores the fact that there are 8 other directors on the board and there are at least two of them who share your political ideology.

I would also add that to not support CASAA because of the political leanings of one director, who completely and fully supports the cause of THR and e-cigs, is like voting against your own interest. For those who haven't yet joined yet (it's free), please add your name to the member list so our numbers can grow to a point where we cannot be ignored. The membership is current ~7,400 people, but we need tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of members to show that we really mean business when it comes to THR.

And as a libertarian, I disagree that we have a "basic misunderstanding of the role of government." We just disagree with what some others think the government's role should be.

Yes and no. While the conversation of each of the distinct party ideologies can (and should) be approached as a disagreement, it often is not presented in a civil manner. I also believe that many of us have forgotten the power of words and that each word or phrase has a distinct meaning, which is the basis of language. I will agree that the phrase "basic misunderstanding" is far too broad a statement to assign to a diverse group of individuals within any given party, but to be fair and to keep it in context, it was in response to a poster who often uses very broad brush strokes to paint their own opposition view in a given conversation. That doesn't make it right, and it is a bit reactionary, but it's also a very human response.

 

[Anjaffm]

If a person supports vaping and THR, I don't care if he/she is liberal, conservative, vegan, omnivore, green, purple, human, or otherwise sentient being. If that person starts to play politics with ecig policy (are you listening, members of Congress?), then I'll pay attention, but until then, lean left, lean right, eat veggies or meat or don't, I don't give a flying frak. And that, I swear, is the *very* last thing I'll say on this subject.

Precisely

 

[kristin]

..........changed my mind.

 

[rothenbj]

Being a political agnostic, I can view how truly obsessive these political religions have become over the decades, all to the detriment of society.