Is this entire (non-)issue as stupid as it seems at first glance ?

To an extent, yes.

To an extent, I'm annoyed at the tendency of certain people to makes slights of others--generally religious people--without expressing an iota of understanding about them. Having seen a lot of it about lately, it's beginning to grate on my nerves.

I understand that grating feeling. Acutely.

Spencer:

If the above is meant to imply you've been misquoted or misinterpreted, you're welcome to explain. I'm happy to amend the quotation I've used from you in any manner you please consistent with your original argument.

What the hell does Edmund Burke have to do with anything?

Simon:

My error. I meant Hayek--not completely libertarian, but closer to the mark--and said Burke. I'll correct it when I log in tomorrow.

Well, let me say first, Anthony, that I'm not a libertarian. Which makes my perspective on the issue not one of self-congratulation but one of good-natured, & light-hearted, agreement. And also makes me a less-than-valid reason for abandoning the Libertarian party. (I can certainly give you better ones.)

If you're arguing that ideology/politics aren't defining with regard to sex, well, of course you're correct. Jack Ryan certainly proves that imagination isn't the sole domain of the left or the libertarian.

My issue is that you've picked up on the issue of 'ideologizing the bedroom' without noting the absurdity inherent in the argument -- no one was taking it all that seriously. Will, for instance, is interning in D.C. for the summer -- his enthusiasm isn't unlike that of someone who vacations somewhere & comes back believing that the women there are the finest he's ever been around (the claims are all qualified by 'in my experience'.) I can say the "women of Boulder, Colorado are the finest, sexiest, most interesting women" when I get back from visiting my cousin & no one's going to truly believe that I think that Coloradans are absolutely better than, say, women from Georgia.

The whole discussion was tongue-in-cheek. A chance to argue the irrational & unprovable. None of us involved thought we were truly defining anyone. And most were simply taken with the game/exercise of 'politicizing' passion.

Perhaps, in the end, the opportunity costs of sleeping with libertarians is simply lower than that of sleeping with members of the Moral Majority. Perhaps (certainly, in fact) all ideologies have the potential to get 'super freaky' in the bedroom... but many of us will never know because we aren't willing to go to the proper lengths to find out. Who knows? But more importantly, why the Speakers' Corner-like indignation over something so insignificant?

(And, too, I prefer not to be accused - even by association - of denigrating religion or the religious when there's not a shred of evidence that I ever have.)

Spencer:

If you remember, this all started when Amber decided I had been 'too vague' when I merely echoed Baude's use of the term 'passion.' That annoyed me.

Now of course, you were all being quite flip. But if you recall, I hate flippancy for exactly this reason: one doesn't have to make an argument, one then weasels because the incomplete argument can be--as it was meant to be--subject to multiple interpretations, and essentially tries to have one's cake and eat it too. And of course, if the levity is at someone else's expense--as Amber's was at mine--oh well, who cares, eh? It's 'humor.'

And as for accusing you of denegrating religion: are you content to apply the same standards to me that you do to Will? Because if you are, you have to admit that I've merely made a comment about my own personal experiences, and I think we can both agree that you and I have never had a relationship. (Though that would cause some scandal, surely.) And certainly you're not going to argue that the Libertarian Party doesn't have its lot of rather hard-core agnostics, many of whom are--arguably--quite intolerant of religion.

But, for the record, no such accusation intended, and retracted if anyone drew it.

No harm done, certainly. And I'm willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt -- I truly don't know many libertarians & wouldn't be surprised if many showed the same disdain for religion that many liberals do. That being said...

there was an undercurrent of nastiness that began to creep into the dialogue. It didn't seem necessary. I am aware that you were responding to a perceived slight. However, the tone of your response -- sharp, acidic, serious -- was likely the reason for any backpeddling. Who wants to strike back when they don't really care about the issue at hand? How do you defend with your life something said in off-handed jest?

Any way -- there are arguments & conflicts here that are more the domain of those involved than mine...I'll step back into the shadows.

Best...

Wow. Just ... wow.

The title of your post annoyed me. So who started it now?

Now that we've established that we annoy each other, let's just agree never to do this again. It hasn't been fun. I am frequently flippant, so I you might wish to avoid my blog. No future posts will address you.

Perhaps it did. Then again, one might think it wise to have mentioned that sooner?

Nevertheless, the discussion is now... closed.