Due to time constraints, I did not focus on the libertarian sphere’s reaction to Brad Spangler’s confession of abusing his own daughter last night. I was tired and, to be quite honest, my jimmies were wrecked.
I mentioned in the previous article that Haidt would find this interesting, allow me to explain why. He posits that for libertarians in particular, they have only one moral axis: liberty/oppression. As is, such a truncated morality leads to bizarre and, for me, offensive rejections of sometimes common sense social ideas and norms.
Now, it is not fair or logical to try and suggest that all libertarian moralists are necessarily kid-touchers. I have no intention of even suggesting such a thing. That said, it’s interesting to note how easily people with no moral compass, that is, sociopaths and predators, can fit into such a milieu and pass as one of them. This is why I suggested that people within this movement should reflect on such a man seeking to associate with them in the first place.
Fellow contributor Ryan McMahon has compiled several screencaps of varying responses to Brad’s confession, as well as of Spangler discussions in the past. Let’s take a look, shall we?
Ryan is referencing times in the past where Spangler has attempted to drum up mobs against racists on his facebook page.
I have disagreed with Ryan Faulk several times in the past. I’m certain we do not see eye-to-eye on things now. That said, we absolutely agree on the ridiculousness of the priorities of several people in the thread supporting Spangler and defending him against “statist” condemnations.
The post above Faulk’s is top shelf as well. He should probably consider the value of being involved with people that seem incapable of condemning one of the most vile acts imaginable.
This was a decent enough reaction, I imagine they are wanting to keep the sordid details vague.
I look forward to their “more detailed” statement.
Blah blah blah, me me me.
He’s not going to let what others do influence his worldview, either.
This dismissal of brad’s behavior makes sense when you see this post for the boatload of crazy that it truly is.
To be honest, I’m not sure where this guy’s philosophy ends and his pathology begins. I actually sense this fellow is trying to equivocate “not getting enough attention from mommy and daddy” with “being sexually abused” or “being physically disabled.”
This explains why he literally sees nothing worthy of condemnation here. It doesn’t explain why people with butterfly nets haven’t taken this freak away.
Oh, later on this guy also makes an attempt to defend the possession of child pornography. Check out the equivocation to 9/11 footage.
Finally, let us check out a discussion from December of 2013. Recent events provide some context to the following screencap: