morality_play (morality_play) wrote,
morality_play
morality_play

The big justice of the great lj abuse sky magnet is swift.

"This account has been either temporarily or permanently suspended. If you are livejournal user puckish please refer to the livejournal faq..."

It must be a conspiracy concocted by your livejournal "stalker." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that you routinely behave like an abominable child, violate the livejournal tos, and react like a drag queen whose wig has been ripped off every time someone makes a public spectacle of how poor your reasoning is.

When I finally get around to responding to your slander in my journal, you'll be free to respond anonymously if you'd like. Of course, you've _always_ been free to do that! I've _never needed_ to hide my journal or restrict who can comment in it like you do.

I'm going to need to take my lunch in more often. Th internet gives you prizes!
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 10 comments

Deleted comment

I hadn't noticed you had done me the courtesy of your introduction until now. I don't make the most consistent use of this journal. I'm here mostly when I'm avoiding doing actual work. I left a message in your journal recently though. I still wouldn't mind knowing what your interest in my journal is, since I barely post to it anymore.

Deleted comment

Every time some gibbering livejournal fuckwit runs afoul of me exposing their errors, I start fielding comments about my "formalism." I have never seen such drama inspired by anyone else's use of the word 'conciliatory.' You'd think I had called the accused a fucking infidel.

This is consistently a distraction though. Nothing more. Basically, if your position is getting dismantled, and you're too mentally simple to construct a meaningful defense, you need to say _something_ to fill the silent void left over where you're not responding to criticism. Pretending that what's really very ordinary use of the English language is something worth remarking upon usually suffices. And that's what it is. _Ordinary_ use of English. Casual enough that I end sentences in prepositions as a matter of style. There's nothing remarkable about using 'shall' in a casual exchange you idiot. You mistook it for exceptional because you're less comfortable with the language than I am! It also might have occurred to you that 'slander' is perfectly suited to the context I put it. It _doesn't matter_ if it's at variance with some sort of legal nomenclature because I'm not using it in a legal document.

This pretend critique is usually the tactic of 16 year old girls, who make up 99% of the internet but are too stupid to defend their position. You stand apart acorn, as the first person reduced to this by intellectual failures not associated with your vagina.

Or am I wrong about the vagina?

What in the hell are _you_ even doing maligning someone's writing? What I've seen of yours makes your inferiority plain. You make lots of statements but they all seem to be very thin on actual _content_. Usually they're no more than a few words, and they never actually form an argument for any position when taken together. It's all just aggressive posturing. You write the way other people take a good hard shit.

Take that fetal alcohol syndrome line for instance. Clever. The way that a ten year old boy thinks the word 'fart' is clever.

"You'll either read those, in which case you'll be better off for it, or you won't, in which case you'll just be talking out your ass some more."

You wouldn't be able to distinguish a reading for it's critical content _or_ what I had to say for it's merit because you're incompetent. Look, you blustered a great deal on that GOPvDEM thread, but the reason you didn't participate in the debate is because you _couldn't_. Hhallahh demanded sources for pertinent historical matters of dispute and I provided an abundance of them casually, revealing his reading to be deficient. My argument with eeidswci departed from nothing but hard data, that he clearly had a little trouble with. This is what you were describing as "pomp and bombast." Data and relevant literature. My entire criticism was uncontroversial matters in the public record. Hhallahh can participate at that level, but all you can do is puff. That's your level.

That's why you're here, appealing to privileged knowledge you don't possess, instead of responding to the original criticism. Why would you have a problem with the content of part of my criticism being hyperlinked, for instance? No reason. You just needed an excuse to not respond to it. And it's funny, isn't it, that for as unreasonable as it was for you to treat it as some sort of _chore_ to read that hyperlinked argument, the only content you've submitted is a single reference to someone else's book. I imagine it's the single book you've read, so you're eager to redirect any argument to it's content. How else can you participate?

"if you're serious about critiquing what is referred to as "small-l libertarianism," take a look at Hans Herman Hoppe's argumentation ethics"

Not much of a book either. I mean if I were serious about critiquing libertarianism, Hoppe wouldn't be the best place to start because he's not really treated as a serious scholar by libertarians, is he? Any critique of him would end up being a distraction from the real critique. It would be like a critique of the western philosophical tradition that concentrated upon dianetics.
But what's one more distraction? Sure! I'll read Hoppe! And since I have you to be my guide on that journey, maybe you can help me absorb his thesis more effectively. Tell me acorn, if Hoppe embraces the sort of cognitive pessimism that Hayek does, how does his model of argumentation ethics get around the false consciousness dilemma?

Also, I'm fucking your wife.
This shit right here totally made me hard.

How did you happen upon that lolbertarian circle-jerk?
Around the end of August taudiophile made some comments I took issue with in this thread. This inspired me to share with him, some critical reviews I've made of libertarianism. Here for instance. And here.

This frustrated him. And he balled up his little fists and became quite red. Shortly afterwards, to save face, he started a new thread... here. Unfortunately I brought along the same criticism he had evaded responding to in the first thread! So he got to thinking that he didn't really want to have this argument _that he demanded to have_ anymore. Hence, in an episode of _spectacular_ libertarian dumbfaggotry, he went here, where he implored the lj libertarian community to save him from me...

leading to hhallahh, eeidswci and ikilled007 rushing to the GOPvsDEM thread to "rough me up."

The battle, I think you'll agree, did not go well for them...

The only real contender was hhallahh. He's not completely illiterate, but the quality of his thinking has been greatly abused by libertarianism. He was never enthusiastic about participating though, so I relented after a couple of parries. Recently I had to think twice about how much of that coutesy I should have shown him, Since he wasn't exactly innocent, and I discovered ikilled007 had the temerity to actually come back to my journal after being handed his hat in the GOPvsDEM thread. You can see my response to him in this thread, above. I spent the last week trying to goad him into a confrontation in his journal, but he wouldn't respond. I think the realization that I'm able to take apart the only book he ever read must have set in after I made that inquiry about Hoppe's argumentation ethics. Unfortunately, Livejournal seems to have suspended his account again, and I don't even know if he can get it back. So he may evade responding.

I regret not having pressed hhallahh upon his errors at this point, because I think their refutation would illuminate some of libertarianisms failures. So now I'm stalking taudiophile. Maybe we'll get to have that critical appraisal yet.

And that's our story so far.
I wish I had your intelligence to match my enthusiasm.
Well as near as I can tell, you know what you're talking about. What I said stands. You can usually distinguish the alphas from the betas (to borrow Hoppe's charming nomenclature) by the content. If it's posting nothing but easily verifiable data and scholarly sources, it's usually a scientist. If it's posting nothing but vague aphorisms and appeals to privelaged knowledge, chances are good it's a libertarian.

The latest chapter:
http://community.livejournal.com/libertarianism/1885267.html#comments

I'm already bored. They won't do anything interesting.
"Privileged," I mean.
I knew I should have archived that last post :(
Hey - about your whack at Noah on 5e - would you drop me an e-mail at sam@lullabypit.com?