[wpietri]

We don't agree on much. But since you seem unwilling to even come to grips with what I'm saying, we can certainly agree on this:

> There's no sense in me repeating myself for a fourth time.

I certainly think there's no sense in arguing with a fundamentalist.

[CryptoPunk]

Your personal attacks are uncalled for and extremely uncivil. I have a right to disagree with you, and I expressed why I disagree with logic.

[wpietri]

Me critiquing the style of your argument and your apparent unwillingness to engage is not a personal attack. They are salient, material features of the discussion.

[CryptoPunk]

My style of argument is to disagree with you on the ethics of using the criminal justice system to dissuade entirely personal choices on one's use of their own resources. For my disagreement, you label me a fundamentalist. It's nothing more than you attempting to stigmatize me for holding social and political views you disagree with.

[wpietri]

No, it's because you're acting like a fundamentalist. Real-world society-level choices involve balancing competing concerns from many groups of people. When somebody optimizes for exactly one thing (e.g., the you're-not-my-dad kind of freedom) and refuses to acknowledge anybody else's concerns as legitimate, all the while spouting dogma that relates to their views, I call that fundamentalist. I'm all for minimum state intervention and wide devolution of power, but unless you balance that with other concerns it, like anything, leads to pathological results.