TreeHugger has decided to ban me - I guess I ask embarrasing questions - Granite Grok

TreeHugger has decided to ban me – I guess I ask embarrasing questions

Good thing I have the ‘Grok’ to report on – I’d feel so bad over being banned.  Or, at least I think I’ve been banned – dunno why as I never use four letter words or sexual innuendos when leaving comments there (see, I’m consistent: I follow Rule#1 there just like I enforce it here).  Such a down morning when I went to leave what I thought was a rather innocuous comment on Lloyd Alter’s post named “Just what we needed Dept: The 3D printed gun” and immediately got an alert that my comment would be moderated.  I then left a reply to someone else’s comment and that got moderated.  That was early this morning before work – and neither has appeared.  Now Lloyd actually works there full time (Managing Editor is his full title), so it seems.  It also seems that his post’s title sends the message that, unlike Grokster Tim (here and most of us Groksters would agree it is “wicked pissah good”), he is not all that enamoured with the idea that making the printing of a gun possible is a goodness in democratizing the value of self-defense.

Sigh, my little feelings got hurt (ok, perhaps just “lightly bumped” like a couple of the NASCAR cars yesterday). Hey wait a dang minute, isn’t it part of the the Liberal mantra, their Political Correctness way of life, that someone’s feelings are never to be hurt or even scratched?  I guess I just don’t count; I suppose that the TreeHugger tolerance for conservatives takes on a different slant than for other Progressively blessed identity groups. Remember, Progressivism means you never have to say you’re Consistent. Anyways, back to the post:

Compared to many 3D printed objects, this thing is pretty crude. There is also a reason guns are made out of metal and not ABS plastic; It isn’t very safe, and eventually exploded, although not in Wilson’s hands. But hey, freedom is more important than safety; according to Forbes,

Really, Lloyd?  At least his snideness is Consistent in the wording of the title to this line.  So, I decided to ask him a question about freedom vs safety.

Sidenote:  I think the “Just what we needed Dept” springs from his bio:  In the course of his work developing small residential units and prefabs, Lloyd became convinced that we just use too much of everything- too much space, too much land, too much food, too much fuel, too much money, and that the key to sustainability is to simply use less.  I guess he looks at this as being a waste – and lets people know of his ire of “irresponsible consumption.

But back to what I asked about his thoughts on “But hey, freedom is more important than safety“; a simple question of “which is more important”?  I actually was very polite, short – and said that it was a serious question and not a throwaway challenge.

Why?  I believe that we are losing that sense of what it means to be Free?  Yes, we sing of the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” – but are we losing sight of what it really means to be Free?  With the Marathon Bombing barely in our rearview mirror, are we back to the opposite tack of Safety and Security, as we did after 9/11?  The problem is that pursuing the latter generally means a loss in the former.  It is a continuum that has to be constantly examined and re-examined and should, naturally, be adjusted to fit the time.  The problem, with an overly big and intrusive government, that reset never seems to happen – the ratchet always moves away from from Freedom.

And some are fine with that – they’d rather feel safe and secure, taken care of by others, rather than having the Freedom (and accompanying greater responsibility to “secure themselves”) to choose what is best for themselves in any situation.  They are content to say – I am willing to give up my Rights and my Freedom to “feel” safe, like that fourth grader that came home from a class in school to a horrified parent when he found his son’s writing “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.”

And Government proceeds apace to preach that message, as NH State Rep Kris Roberts said “Government has to protect us from our own stupidity.“.  In that one line, Roberts sums up the Progressive message: you are not able to comprehend today’s world, so you make dumb mistakes.  It is up to us in Government to put things into place to keep you from hurting yourself – and to keep you from hurting others.  In fact, it MUST take precedence over your Freedom for just that purpose – how else can it save you from yourself?  And so we see choices taken away EVEN if we are willing to take the accompanying risk(s).  Freedom dies a teeny tiny slice at a time.  And Tyranny, if defined as the removal of choice and freedom, increases.  Regardless of the “good intentions” of those increasing Tyranny.  Sorry, but “it’s for your own good” is a poor excuse by those that would insist that they are not Tyrannists – simply they are doing “a job to make things better”.

But I guess I’ll never know Lloyd’s answer – never unlocking my comment / question means never having to answer a sobering fundamental question.

Which, I’ve found, Liberals don’t like to answer because it puts them on record – and contrary to the Founders highest value – that of Individual Liberty.

 ******************************

Bonus – this from a comment that reflects well of what somebody thinks about the “Freedom to try”:

In the long run, I expect that misuse of plastic done by people printing a lot of useless things just because they can (consumerism step 3) will be a worst effect of 3d printers than cheap guns.

Misuse?  Really?  What a killjoy – and what a sense of condescension about the Freedom for others to try new things, perhaps to win the brass ring – or fail. Or create something absolutely wonderful!  Freedom does mean failure – the opportunity to succeed MUST mean having the opportunity to fail as well.  And we see, once again, that the “Safety and Security” crowd can stand the idea of failure by anyone – so her comment fits well as a “down your nose” haughtiness of “see, told you so” control of others.

>