Just in case he tries to come to Keene

""""the worst part is, apart from the theft, the continuous lies to cover his arse, and all around shady behavior, is the fact that (anyone who has ever talked to ryan will confirm this) he lectures and belittles people, even those who agree with him, cause he believes he alone knows what ‘the principles of freedom’ are.""""

———————————————-

I can attest to this. He loves to argue with people.

I knew Ryan as Rev. Ryan on the web and did some favors for him design wise. I thought he was an OK guy and never really thought to much about him asking me to do little design projects every once and a while; never offering any compensation.

Now it all makes sense.

I guess folks should be wary of strangers regardless of what they call themselves; be it libertarian or friend.

why no vid like this for ivy? she gets a pass because she bilked masses?

I applaud you, Jim, too bad it's so hard to make the Chuck Hardass standard.

Charley,

I guess Ryan will need to show he's willing to "change his ways". That is only accomplished by DOING. You have to demonstrate why you should be accepted/trusted again. I do like the fact that your tone is one of asking the question now. Look, we may never accept Ryan again, but that's the breaks of ostracism. Used to be a man's word was his bond, you break that, you've betrayed yourself and should expect the worst. I'm rambling, Ryan will need to make restitution to those he has harmed to their individual satisfaction. And also go beyond that for trust to return.

, Ryan will need to make restitution to those he has harmed to their individual satisfaction.

back to exactly what i noted here, and have noted before regarding the alleged restitution of mark edgington for his youthful criminal idiocy (which i raise here only as reference, not to restart that argument). re ivy and similar, restitution becomes conveniently nigh-impossible when the victims were a mass victimized by many others, for larger wealth, during the period.

if one must make restitution to the victims, how is this done?

please don't say "community service".

do you note the dual standard, or do you assume i'm speaking gibberish?

i just read your later comment, and assert that things are not so clear as "tax" in/out accounting, but that gets into areas for too complex for this evening.

I choose forgiveness and understanding, for my own part

oh my.

lp, thanks for your input.

You're awesome!

I choose forgiveness and understanding, for my own part

oh my

Charley, I don't understand why the above quote from LP bothers you. What is wrong with an individual choosing a code of ethics that doesn't harm anyone? I find LP's stance very consistent with a non collectivist view. MLK said he envisioned a world where his kids would be judged not, on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character. The appropriate way to redemption (in the eyes of your peers) is as different as each individual. What you seem to fail to grasp, is it is up to you, LP and me to decide for ourselves individually whether Ivy has accomplished that. If you feel she hasn't, continue the ostracism. However, you said you don't know her, so to be consistent you should at least try to know her so you can make an informed decision. You yourself have to weigh whether presenting a constant contrary point of view for the apparent sake of it, that you may become ostracized yourself. Ivy has proven to me that she is on the right track. What little she may have inadvertently stolen from me in the past is forgiven as I hope others forgive me my past taking of money from the state.

I do appreciate the conversation.

As I explained the “state” owes me more than I ever took. How would you suggest that they pay ME back?

not with wealth stolen from new victims.

I’ll make an exception here: until you wake up. Once you know it’s wrong support the force that is government from stealing from your neighbors, you must stop.

that's an "exception"? WTF.

Charley, I don’t understand why the above quote from LP bothers you. What is wrong with an individual choosing a code of ethics that doesn’t harm anyone?

your problem, like most here, is one of assumption. check the supposed link between the two sentences quoted.

I find LP’s stance very consistent with a non collectivist view. MLK said [...]

i'm, frankly, baffled by your invocation of a rat socialist, and the apparent total irrelevancy of the quote. don't give a flying fuck what martin king said, especially when it it contains useless poser fluff such as "content of their character".

What you seem to fail to grasp, is it is up to you, LP and me to decide for ourselves individually whether Ivy has accomplished that.

more non sequitur hash, which you of course follow with this cultspeak collectivist tripe:

You yourself have to weigh whether presenting a constant contrary point of view for the apparent sake of it, that you may become ostracized yourself.

try truth, asshole. wake up.

you get quickly enough to the core of it though, however mistaken the intention. the ostracism you assert is purely individual in source usually devolves into the collectivist "community" horse shit this vid borders.

for the comment above:

this was a clip from the "soapbox idol" event at porcfest (like american idol, but for ranting instead of singing). the guys were second to last and at that point, everyone was a bit drunk…

especially one of the judges*

*rolls eyes*

I find it interesting that even Ivy’s defenders have essentially marked her as “guilty”.

remove the quotes and it's the same as you've marked her:

went on some kind of state assistance program (a bad choice to be sure).

to be sure? get your head out of your ass. you're confusing the state's bullshit definition of guilt with the real one.

I haven’t heard anything about her “bilking the masses”

un. fucking. real.

This video looked like an out-take from some sort of bizarre, back-woods “Wayne’s World” enthusiast’s convention.

Excellent! As a Wayne's World enthusiast, I'm brought great pleasure by your complement. Party on, dude!

One thing I find extremely curious about this site is the tendency for posters to lapse into childish pissing matches about who is most ideologically "pure" (and I use the term "childish" because some of the developmental hallmarks of children are 1) a narcissistic inability to see possibilities beyond their own experience; 2) "black and white" thinking; 3) a need for absolutes). If you simply want to argue, it would be the easiest thing in the world to prove that every person posting on this site has behaved and continues to behave in ways that are contrary to the belief system they espouse. The mere use of this web site, which exists on an entity (i.e. the Internet) that was created primarily by the military wing of the US government with billions of tax dollars "confiscated" from citizens, makes you complicit in the State's process for building infrastructure and the belief system that informs it. Since using the internet is not a life or death necessity (somehow, millions of people around the world survive without being online), it is absolutely possible to act on the belief that the creation of the Internet was immoral because it was accomplished with "stolen" funds, and simply not use it. People do it all the time with material entities; for instance (and there are many), they decide not to wear fur because it is obtained by what they perceive to be cruelty.

My point is that if you are going to demand purity, don't hold your breath (come to think of it, that's something little kids do when throwing a tantrum) expecting it to actually appear. I've never encountered anyone whose life wasn't marked to an extent by provable contradictions and (to use a less diplomatic term) hypocrisies, both small and not-so-small. And the history books are certainly replete with examples of such. But that doesn't necessarily invalidate their lives and works.

In terms of Charley's original question, I do think there is a human tendency to apply different standards of behavior to people we "like" as opposed to those we "don't like" (for whatever reason). I don't know if that's the case in this discussion regarding the actions of Ryan versus Ivy's, but it's a notion to at least consider, for objectivity's sake. The tribalistic impulse is a strong one.

Cheers,

Ann

I speak only for myself, Ann, but I don't care how the internet was created, and I don't care about the sordid details of everyone's past. I try to look at the person I'm looking at, not the person that person was some years ago. As far as your definition of childishness, I think the world would be a better place if there were more of that '(2) “black and white” thinking; 3) a need for absolutes)'.

The 'tendency of posters not to be able to see possibilities past their own experience' thing is an opinion, and is grouping people. I don't agree with that.

Most of my experience in this world is as a nationalistic, bigoted, white supremacist border closing nut. I decided I wanted more for myself than that and I discovered Free Talk Live. Now I am here. If I couldnt 'see past my own experience', I would still be a scumbag homophobic bigot. But I'm not any of that. I use my brain to process what goes on around me. MY brain, not some hive mind or automatic response like the government people would like.

This site is not an 'entity', it is electrons zooming through wires and such.

Do you really think the free market could never have invented the internet without the government? Or could it be that the brain drain that has been siphoned off into government for so many years means that the best scientists we had were paid by the government, because they have no competition?

Why should I sit on my high horse and not use this internet because of the way it was paid for? I didn't have any say in that, and refuse to be punished for what others have done.

Why don't we follow your line of reasoning all the way back and give the whole continent back to the native americans? Or at least the parts that were stolen, not purchased.

The evils of the past cannot all be solved by boycotting their results in the present.

"I do think there is a human tendency to apply different standards of behavior to people we “like” as opposed to those we “don’t like” (for whatever reason). I don’t know if that’s the case in this discussion regarding the actions of Ryan versus Ivy’s, but it’s a notion to at least consider, for objectivity’s sake. The tribalistic impulse is a strong one."

Here's my take. Don't know either of these people. So, I don't 'like' either of them. Now, one is a dirtbag who steals directly from his friends. The other is a person who signed up for a welfare program because she most likely didn't know any better. I know I didn't. So there is no 'tribalsim' from my seat, Ann. Simply a different set of circumstances for each person, and I am certain that those individual merits weigh more heavily than any sort of 'tribalism'. If the dude whose dishonesty inspired the creation of this post paid back everybody he owed, apologized, and didn't do it any more, then he'd be fine. At the very least the public ostracism would stop.

Dear LP,

I appreciate your post. I'll briefly point out that not only was the Internet created primarily by the U.S. Government with funds taken via tax collection, said Government is still significantly involved in its administration (ICANN being one example). And millions of dollars of tax money fund that activity. There are all sorts of things we might consider truly awful that are on the Internet, and their online distribution is facilitated with money "taken" from us. Why would any of us participate in such a circumstance (i.e. "theft" of personal money to pay for things we actually don't want to fund) by continuing to use the Internet? And of course this is just one example of many. This is why I find many of these arguments about ideological purity to be a bit silly; it's often no more than ego-puffery, a sort of rhetorical cock-waving exercise that actually betrays a certain inner fear and insecurity.

I agree that principles and beliefs are potentially wonderful and necessary; I just think that because the human animal's capacity for self-delusion is so vast, it's helpful to consistently examine those concepts we hold dear. It not only helps keep us honest (and hopefully modest), it's a process that can lead to growth and evolution.

That's how I see it; thanks again for your post.

Cheers,

Ann

Ann, I think you're being incredibly disingenuous in saying that by having inner-debate within the movement reveals a lack in conviction– to me, the opposite would seem to be true, in that any debate internally would indicate a movement towards self-correction. These "petty debates" are extensions of the larger debates being argued by the intellectual forebearers and flagstaffs of our movement.

Moreover, if what you say is true, than all of statism must be afflicted with this malady of inner-debate, rending it from the seams. Don't we often see the black, crushing boot of Big Brother and the loving, benevolent hand of the World Leader vying over who gets to destroy our face.