ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Mailvox: the metaphysical straddle

This discussion with Asher concerning the utility and legitimacy of utilizing both practical and metaphysical arguments was too long for Blogger's comment system, so I'm giving it its own post.


I'm not sure what you mean by "that". Are you saying you never do the metaphysical/practical straddle or that the way you do it isn't a problem? IF you are offering both metaphysical and practical arguments THEN you are doing the straddle, and the straddle is the problem, in itself.

Earlier you noted that you effortlessly switched back and forth between metaphysical and practical considerations, which looks, to me, like an admission of a straddle. If so, then that is a problem and, if not, could you clarify that statement.

High IQ does not mean one is able to avoid the straddle problem by being smart, as the straddle IS the problem. Either one makes metaphysical arguments or one does not, and if one does than the entire argument is metaphysical.



No.  Your core assumption is wrong.  A metaphysical argument does not magically subsume a practical one.  They are two different arguments that happen to concern the same subject.  You are conflating "straddle" and "switch"; you've used the term "straddle" in two different ways.  What I do not do is what you correctly claimed many libertarians (and many others) do, switching back and forth between the practical and the metaphysical in order to avoid having their weakest arguments exposed and defeated.  I do not "switch" between the two for that reason.  I utilize both, following my opponent where he goes.

Where you are correct is that once one RETREATS to the metaphysical, one cannot legitimately return to the defeated practical argument.  But following another's retreat to the metaphysical in no way invalidates what has already been shown to be a successful practical argument.



The average ability of the ilk is considerably better than that of the average Joe, but most of the ilk do not capable of following you, at least in the way you lead the conversation. It's not that your reasoning is bad but that it's too demanding for most of your blog readers, both those that agree and those that disagree.  The ilk are considerably more advanced than the average guy but less advanced than they fancy themselves.

On average?  Of course.  That's precisely why I repeat myself over and over again.  That's why I provide illustrative examples.  Those who can, learn, and eventually demonstrate that they can utilize the tactics themselves, often in long debates here in which I don't involve myself.  Those who can't follow are at least usually able to appreciate the tactical aspects in both the aesthetic and entertainment senses.  And given that I have repeatedly stepped in and informed people when they were using various tactics improperly, why would you think you are informing me of anything I don't already know in this regard?

It's not difficult to see when someone is attempting to utilize a dialectical device in a rhetorical manner or asserting a nonexistent logical fallacy.  Sometimes people have to experiment and try things out before they get the hang of it.  Sometimes, it is eminently clear they will never be able to do more than bluster and posture.  So be it.  I don't always get things right myself, as readers like you are always, to your credit, pleased to point out.  However, the other day, I said this blog is not The Following, but it could be reasonably considered to be like that show in that I have helped develop a widespread collection of lethal serial killers in the intellectual sense.  When a member of the Dread Ilk eviscerates the arguments of a friend, or family member, or co-worker using the tactics he has learned here, I am with him in spirit.


I can use this metaphor. A trap is like a claymore mine. You are a parent and the ilk are your young children. You leave the mine lying around your house in the event of a home invasion and, instead, one of the ilk sets it off and it ruins his day. From where I'm sitting that is what we'd call an "own goal".

It's not an applicable metaphor.  The traps are, in almost all situations, triggered by the interlocutor.  It's more like planting a minefield on a battlefield and I am the only soldier on the one side, outnumbered though not outgunned.  The civilians are safe.  The other side, well, one of them will probably step on a mine.  And even if a civilian decides to come onto the field and inadvertently sets one off, well, hopefully it will be a learning experience for him and everyone who witnessed it.  The traps are only set to catch those who are determined to be blindly critical at all costs.


The only way that setting traps is always a good thing is when there is no audience or where you know the audience is on your level of intellect. Most of the ilk are likely to misuse most of your traps most of the time.

Totally disagree and would go so far to assert that your perspective is solely tactical and fails to even begin to take the strategic aspects into account.  The traps are set, in part, for the benefit of the audience, who tend to find them more than a little entertaining in operation.  For example, I suspect Allyn was at least mildly amused when she commented: Vox claims "For my next trick I will make the rabbits appear and then dance and hop on one foot".  On command the rabbits appear, raging at Vox for being a Nazi, homophobic, poopy head that is not smarter than them. What they seem to miss is they are doing this while dancing and hopping on one foot."

Now I agree that most people, including the many of the Dread Ilk, don't have the ability to effectively lay traps for critics.  The capacity for constructing them requires a psychological inclination as well as the ability to utilize a dialectical device with rhetorical ramifications.  That's all right, it is only one of many techniques and is primarily useful for someone like me, who has hundreds, if not thousands, of critics eager to attack him at every sign of weakness or error.  By displaying false signs, I can take out most of them and demonstrate that their criticism is both superficial and baseless with very little effort.  Your average person who is not a critical target has considerably less need of any such device.  As Allyn observes, I can come right out and announce that I am doing this, just as I am doing here, and it won't even slow down the speed with which the average rabbit will plunge his head into the shining wire.

Some may consider this to be sadistic, but my view is that if you are aware someone harbors a negative attitude towards you and is inclined to attack you at the earliest opportunity, they entirely merit whatever consequences result from their predictable behavior.


If they are harmonious then you only need to use one and the other is redundant. If anyone uses two the odds of them being harmonious is, to put it charitably, very thin. The entire reason that people do the straddle is that they use one set of arguments to cover for weaknesses in the other set and vice versa.

You're incorrect; you're again conflating straddle and switch.  I utilize both levels in order to expose that both levels of the critic's arguments are wrong and thereby render the switch useless.  You're completely failing to understand how the game is actually played in favor of some imaginary, metaphysical version of it.


Another metaphor I can use. If day after day an army takes the field, gets defeated and then retreats to higher ground then there is something wrong with the field officers. The obvious strategy would be to stick to where one can win and not continue sallying forth onto ground where one keeps being defeated.

Another bad metaphor.  First I defeat them on the lower ground.  They retreat.  Then I defeat them on the higher ground.  At which point they usually abandon the battlefield altogether.  You know perfectly well that is the usual pattern observed here.  With, of course, the exception of the anklebiters of the world, who sally forth to defeat again, and again, and again, much to the amusement of many.  I don't mind them most of the time.  It take absolutely no effort to keep swatting down their arguments.


That just doesn't make any sense. If one has already won on the field of battle then one doesn't *need* to retreat.

You're missing the point.  I'm not retreating.  I'm following up the successful defense with a counterattack.  Here is how it almost always works.  I post something.  My statements are attacked on factual grounds.  I defeat the factual argument.  The interlocutor retreats and attempts to justify his now-defeated practical argument with a metaphysical one.  I then launch an attack on his metaphysical argument.  That defeated, he runs away.  We've seen this process again, and again, and again, have we not?

I'm not switching anything.  I haven't given up one iota of my practical argument or the ground I am defending.  I'm simply moving onto the other side's ground and taking that away from him too.


If you find yourself doing the straddle that indicates that you are faced with an intractable foe, and many in the audience are also likely to be intractable foes.

Of course.  This is hardly news.  I've been getting death threats, having book contracts paid off, and seeing my job, my music, and my books attacked for 12 years now.  And yet, my audience keeps growing, the Dread Ilk continue to become more capable, and my abilities continue to develop.


There are two ways to take this observation. Either you already convinced a bunch of Bush Republicans to join Team Vox or you just admitted to an own goal. Chasing people away is likely to decrease the chances of their joining your team.

If you've been around here for as long as you said, you already know the answer to this question.  The people who are chased away tend to be the apparently intractable ones, and even some of them don't stay chased away.  Will they ever join the team of truth, reason, and freedom?  I have known a few who have.  But it is not for me to say if my actions have changed anyone's minds.  And it's not Team Vox, it is Team Truth.  I don't dictate anything, I simply follow the truth, and The Truth, as best I understand it and as well as my limitations will permit.

Labels: ,

368 Comments:

1 – 200 of 368 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Heuristics January 27, 2013 5:18 AM  

I'm confused, What does the word metaphysical mean here?

For me it means 'about physics', talking about things that is assumed by physics in order for physics to get off the ground. Things like cause/effect space and time, being and essence etc. If the word is used as in here then why the assumption that metaphysics is non-practical? Metaphysics can be illuminated with empirical data in order to ascertain what the essence of something is or how the principle of cause gives effect. It can be practical in that the application of concepts from metaphyics on the world gives tangible results: Example being the construction of the concept essence of womanhood applied to your own marriage or the pursuit of a woman.

Anonymous Idle Spectator is sad January 27, 2013 5:53 AM  

I really hate when Vox uses all those nasty big words and complicated concepts.

It makes me feel all sad inside. =(

=( =(

=( =( =(

Anonymous TheExpat January 27, 2013 6:01 AM  

What does the word metaphysical mean here?

Theory (ideals, abstracts, etc.), as opposed to practice (empirical data, facts)

Anonymous zen0 January 27, 2013 6:57 AM  

Trying to read this post was like being engulfed in an explosion at a metaphor factory.

Blogger JACIII January 27, 2013 7:15 AM  

As it has been demonstrated time and again, your tactics are quite useful and effective, Vox, to the point of approaching implementation of a nuclear option when in conflict with the common purveyor of TV news/analysis or the newspaper. The advice to resist the urge to be the "Good Guy" in a disagreement is particularly apt. Most opponents will avoid further disagreement, especially in public, altogether.

Then there is the technically trained or technically educated midwit.... This group has such conviction of faith in the modern scientific consensus they only rarely entertain the possibility of its fallibility. You have seen this with engineers and the moon landing, doctors and vaccines.

Blogger tz January 27, 2013 7:56 AM  

It is not a straddle or a switch to fight a war on two distinct fronts simultaneously.

If truth is discernable through reason and can't at its end contradict (as I believe in Natural law, for example), then the practical cannot contradict the metaphysical.

What you see happen is someone will counter the practical argument, but at root is a bad assumption or metaphysic. Promiscuity isn't evil comes from moral relativism. A herd of amoral mortals have a very different telos, purpose, than a group of fallen images of and by God, and even in this Jesus changes everything.

When the contradiction is exposed, - the evil, for evil contradicts The Truth, so ultimately refutes itself and collapses when given a bit of a push - it is first exposed at the practical level, like a demoniac's head spinning and radiator fluid is hitting the ceiling. But that is theatrics - the real evil is the demon within. Once exposed, it fights at that level until exorcised.

Often though, people have a good internal understanding so get the metaphysics right, but emption can cause you to buy a practical argument which contradicts it for a while. Some are subtle, some obvious.

One recent example are a few who are libertarians on the drug war and note all the evils caused by trying to enforce it, yet after Sandy Hook want to treat certain arms like marijuana or heroin - but do you not enforce such laws, so why pass them, or do you want to have more Fed tyranny by adding them to terror, drugs, DUI, and mp3 sharing where the Constitution is shredded (e.g. Aaron Swartz - more tools for the DoJ inquisitors)?

You can get to the correct answer through faulty reasoning or assumptions, but that isn't stable, and for each lucky idea where the errors cancel there will be dozens which don't. So it is better to train your mind to argue, even with yourself. Much like a programmer trying to find bugs in his own code, it is difficult but possible and requires detachment. But it is easier to find a sparring partner.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 8:13 AM  

"Trying to read this post was like being engulfed in an explosion at a metaphor factory."

Except that apparently for all his brilliance Agent Asher doesn't know the difference between a metaphor and a simile.

Anonymous Rantor January 27, 2013 8:18 AM  

tz hit on it, as Asher admits many of the Ilk are of above average intellect, what Vox provides is the training to use that intellect more productively. I studied enough psychology/sociology in college to have been introduced to r/K but two decades later Vox makes a theory which I had ignored, if not nearly forgotten, into something real.

We can understand the theory, see that it has merit, see that it has practical application (therefore value) and be amused, all at the same time. I would argue Vox often takes the metaphysical and demonstrates its truth or failure practically.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 27, 2013 8:49 AM  

Nate:
Except that apparently for all his brilliance Agent Asher doesn't know the difference between a metaphor and a simile.

Like.

Anonymous tdm January 27, 2013 8:58 AM  

The reason I keep coming back to VD is to observe the sharks behavior and the Ilk's or VD's response when VD throws blood in the water. I come here to learn. I am a slow learner but I am persistent.

Anonymous Disposable Guitar Hero January 27, 2013 9:03 AM  

This type of blog post is what keeps me coming back day after day to this site. It's like an "Insanity" work out for the mind.

Anonymous Susan January 27, 2013 9:05 AM  

I'm thinking agent Asher's response here will involve a lot of stammering, sputtering and BUT, BUT...

Agree tdm. Watching the ilk play with the chew toys is always rewarding.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 9:14 AM  

Agent Asher would do well to attempt to discover how to know when he's being actually debated with... and when he's simply being used as a chew toy.

No doubt he still thinks he won the exchange about hell.

Anonymous toothy January 27, 2013 9:16 AM  

Either you already convinced a bunch of Bush Republicans to join Team Vox or you just admitted to an own goal. - AA

Former bush repug here - now proud Dread Ilk member. And I'm certainly not the only example.

And speaking of guns - Nate, what do you think about Para USA 1911's (not Para Ordnance)?

Anonymous Disposable Guitar Hero January 27, 2013 9:23 AM  

As best as I can remember, I started reading Voxs' column in 2000. I followed the link to Vox Popoli shortly thereafter, and have been reading ever since. I don't have a lot of time to spend on the internet so I have to make what little time I have count. I've never posted anything in here before today. The thread on the Rabbity Rabbits was so disturbing/entertaining I made it a point to stop what I was doing and check the comments thread as it developed. Disturbing in the sense that I kept saying to myself, "I know these people. I've been engaging these people in argument every day". Entertaining in the respect that Vox and the Ilk employ a solid strategy/ methodology for defeating them that is based on truth.
I wonder if I can enroll in a Jr. Dread Ilk training class or something like that. If there is an IQ test then I'm screwed.
God bless Vox and the Ilk. (there needs to be a latin phrase for that)

Anonymous jack January 27, 2013 9:24 AM  

@Vox
By displaying false signs, I can take out most of them and demonstrate that their criticism is both superficial and baseless with very little effort.

I knew it! Tad is one of Vox's straw men. I knew it. Early on it was apparent that Tad was just too convenient and too persistent on the blog. He exhibited, at times, too much intelligence for some of his positions. Even Vox, when setting up such an elaborate trap, can't always keep his own intellect in check. I imagine he must lust for a Tad like entity who is real. Though, to think of it, its probably more fun to build something like Tad over time and use the construct as part of the teaching tool.
Or, just for the fun of it all. Always remember Ilk, Mr. Day is a Game designer. This blog is just one more game. Would not surprise me to see this become something you buy at the store and run on your computer. All of you are pawns in this game. Could be VD is a super intelligent alien.

Now, I intend to copy off this post and reread it often just to remind me of what is happening here. At least what I think is happening here.

Blogger James Dixon January 27, 2013 9:25 AM  

> Agent Asher would do well to attempt to discover how to know when he's being actually debated with... and when he's simply being used as a chew toy.

Since Asher views every discussion as an opportunity for endless debate, whether anyone else is interested in debating or not, that seems unlikely.

Anonymous jack January 27, 2013 9:27 AM  

@Nate:
I once stepped on a simile. Took me all day to clean that stuff off the bottom of my shoes.

Anonymous Anonymous January 27, 2013 9:30 AM  

I would be the first to admit that I'm not on the intellectual level with Vox and some of you who post here regularly.

But, Agent Asher should understand that watching the methods Vox uses, and seeing the responses from the ankle biters, as well as the serious discussions that require deep thinking, has made me a far more dangerous adversary for those mid-wits that I encounter in every day life.

More and more I have people in positions of power asking for my input on serious issues in the political realm. My ability to see the logical and philosophical holes in my opponents thinking has greatly increased.

Just the other day, a friend, who I helped campaign to win a state wide office, said to me, "You see the holes and fallacies in the oppositions ideas far quicker than I do. What did you think of (so and so's) speech, I value your opinion?"

farmer Tom

Anonymous Stilicho January 27, 2013 9:34 AM  

Since Asher views every discussion as an opportunity for endless debate, whether anyone else is interested in debating or not, that seems unlikely.

The best ones are those where Asher "debates" Tad and Tad posts quasi-sensical "answers" that contradict each other or are simple non-sequiturs designed merely to keep the farce going. It quickly becomes repetitive and boring though.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 9:38 AM  

"And speaking of guns - Nate, what do you think about Para USA 1911's (not Para Ordnance)?"

Wait...

para USA is para ordnance. it was just a name change.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 9:43 AM  

On Para USA... I will say this.. the only one I have experience with is the Para Black Ops... and that trigger couldn't be a lick over 4 pounds. Its a good 1911. Like all para products.. I think they spend to much time obsessing over slide to frame fit... which in a 1911 actually doesn't effect accuracy a lick... and can actually negatively effect reliability. But then... I'm an avoid springfield guy... so...

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 9:47 AM  

that said mate... I am all for any 1911... provided one takes the time to drill properly with its use.

Except Kimber.

Piss on Kimber.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 9:48 AM  

"The best ones are those where Asher "debates" Tad and Tad posts quasi-sensical "answers" that contradict each other or are simple non-sequiturs designed merely to keep the farce going. "

but if you stay with it long enough... even Tad gets exasperated with him after a certain point. So... I conclude that Tad is in fact teachable.

Anonymous toothy January 27, 2013 10:02 AM  

@Nate

I thought they moved from Canada to the USA and changed the name, but they just opened a USA headquarters here, apparently. That's what I get for listening to gunshop cronies.

Thanks for the info.

You should blog a 1911 primer someday.
I think many of the Ilk would enjoy it.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2013 10:03 AM  

So... I conclude that Tad is in fact teachable.

I'm not so sure of that. I've yet to see him admit to changing his mind on anything, no matter of often he is shown to have been conclusively wrong. He appears to belong solidly in the audience Aristotle described as "people whom one cannot instruct".

Even a dog will eventually get tired of chasing a ball. That doesn't indicate it possesses any ability to utilize dialectic.

Anonymous Faust January 27, 2013 10:05 AM  

What is this, exactly?
A google search for "metaphysical straddle" turns up nothing but a link to this post. Is this something ashur made up?

Anonymous toothy January 27, 2013 10:05 AM  

Piss on Kimber.

Due to their spotty quality?

Anonymous Beau January 27, 2013 10:25 AM  

Asher strikes me as a man of above average intellect who sees through and rejects the cultural aspects of the Christianity in which he was raised. Hemmed in by adiaphora in his youth, presented as gospel truth, is it any wonder Asher has finely honed the skill of paring off balogna? His jaundiced eye is in my opinion is a healthy thing, a gift from the Creator to reveal himself behind - or above - the fluff. One can mistakenly hold the accretions of Christianity as essentials, or reject them, or enjoy them as the case my be. Asher has sorted them, but his knowledge of the scripture remains. Is this not something we have seen before in other interlocutors? JQP comes readily to mind. Blessing to all, especially Asher.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 10:28 AM  

"I'm not so sure of that. I've yet to see him admit to changing his mind on anything, no matter of often he is shown to have been conclusively wrong. He appears to belong solidly in the audience Aristotle described as "people whom one cannot instruct"."

Suffice it to say that I don't have much respect for Aristotle. As you have pointed out... we all have our rhetoric side that we must keep in check. I theorize that there are few people who can actually be lectured out of their core beliefs.

I could've (well I couldn't have but someone theoretically could have) logically walked you through the problems with free trade 20 years ago... and you simply wouldn't have followed along. Not because you are incapable... but because you were emotionally invested in your position on free trade... and thus would refuse. The rhetorical walls that Aristotle complains about are the result of emotional attachment.

When it comes to core beliefs...all we can ever do show them where to look and plant the seed of curiosity so that maybe one day they will look for themselves.

That's my theory anyway.

I will accept the criticism that my opinion could be colored by the fact that after reading The Republic I decided Aristotle was a total moron borderline incapable of learning from basic observation.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 10:34 AM  

"Due to their spotty quality?"

Not just spotty quality... but the total apathy of their customer service department. If you have a problem with a springfield... you send it back... they fix it... and they do something else like a trigger job for free just to make up for the inconvenience.

Kimber?

you're lucky if they even bother to answer the phone... and you can forget getting any help with your problem.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2013 10:35 AM  

The rhetorical walls that Aristotle complains about are the result of emotional attachment.

This is partially true. I think you are wrong, however, about my emotional attachment to free trade. No one ever even attempted to walk me through the logic, the only arguments I was ever presented were nonsensical union ones that mostly concerned jokes about scratching a Honda and finding Budweiser underneath.

I'm curious, though, to learn how reading Plato caused you to decide Aristotle was a moron....

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 10:36 AM  

"Asher has sorted them, but his knowledge of the scripture remains."

That's an awfully generous description. We're talking about someone that claimed that killing infants is ok because of the orders God gave about the Canaanites.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 10:37 AM  

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


I love being a moron sometimes... I really... really do...

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 10:44 AM  

" I think you are wrong, however, about my emotional attachment to free trade. No one ever even attempted to walk me through the logic, the only arguments I was ever presented were nonsensical union ones that mostly concerned jokes about scratching a Honda and finding Budweiser underneath."

Ok.. I am not going to debate that point on free trade. It is possible that you have always beaten your rhetorical side down and held an open logical mind about everything. I find it unlikely... but someone does in fact win the lottery. Even still, what we observe is, on the big things.. the foundational world view type issues... people change their own mind.

Look at the moon landing. I can show Astrosmith the physics all day long, and he simply will not see it. He can see the pictures of the caulk on the lander... and he still won't see the problem. But tell him you're putting caulk on your new rocket... and he'll laugh at you because you're a giant idiot that will die a spectacular death.

Astro isn't unteachable.

Astro is just emotionally attached.

Anonymous Anonymous January 27, 2013 10:50 AM  

OT, but related to an earlier discussion on equality,

Patrick J.

farmer Tom

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 10:53 AM  

Pfft, the rage of Caliban at seeing his face in a mirror, as somebody or other once said.

Except that Asher doesn't rage at his reflection, he's utterly enraptured by it. Is this an inverted equivalent of Wilde's "rage"? I'd say so. Asher is a supreme narcissist (Tad's one too, but at least there's a good reason for that), and you can't actually talk to a narcissist, as anyone knows, who's ever tried. He's so blatantly comical about it that sometimes I think it must be an act. But it probably isn't. And that's kinda sad, but what can ye do.



Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 11:02 AM  

Just so I know the limits of my idiocy... Aristotle was the one that tried to explain rambled about slavery being the result of one group of people's physical gifts vs another group's focus on intellectual type things?

I mean the moron really didn't realize that savages were took other savages as slaves.

Assuming it was Aristotle... apparently it could've been Galileo considering my recent mistake.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 11:04 AM  

"I'm curious, though, to learn how reading Plato caused you to decide Aristotle was a moron...."

Merely to disagree with Plato or Aristotle (from time to time I disagree with either or both, but to be more strict about it, it's possible to disagree with Plato, whereas Aristotle can simply be shown to be mistaken, which is not the same thing) does not mean you think either of them was a moron. They were sensei, they were there before us. We should therefore respect them, but the ancients made the serious mistake of conflating respect with reverence.

It's also the case, when you're talking about the humming of great minds, that their value lies more in the oscillation between them than in the center of gravity itself. Me, I tend to think Chuang Tzu is right about a lot of stuff, but it isn't really possible to understand his point of view until you've digested Confucius, Lao-tzu, Mo and Han Fei. At that point you realize that Chuang is sorta correct, but only in a world that has already made the other points of view redundant -- and we aren't in that world.

Die Welt ist Alles, was der Fall ist. -- Wittgenstein
(The world is EVERYTHING that is the case.)

One of the many things that this means is, there may be a temporary distinction, for purposes of convenience (as Husserl would say, put the world in brackets for a moment), between the metaphysical and the practical; but if the world in its full account accounts for EVERYTHING, then there is no true distinction between the practical and the metaphysical.

"A.: A violent order is disorder, and
B.: A great disorder is an order. These
Two things are one.
(Pages of illustrations.)"
-- Stevens

Anonymous VD January 27, 2013 11:10 AM  

Even still, what we observe is, on the big things.. the foundational world view type issues... people change their own mind.

Absolutely. I'm not a robot nor would I want to be. I merely wished to note that that free trade was never any sort of emotional attachment for me.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 11:11 AM  

"Merely to disagree with Plato or Aristotle (from time to time I disagree with either or both, but to be more strict about it, it's possible to disagree with Plato, whereas Aristotle can simply be shown to be mistaken, which is not the same thing) does not mean you think either of them was a moron."

I don't merely disagree with Aristotle. I do in fact think him an idiot. His explanation of slavery may be one of the dumbest things any "smart" person wrote... ever.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 11:13 AM  

"Absolutely. I'm not a robot nor would I want to be. I merely wished to note that that free trade was never any sort of emotional attachment for me."

And then thus we conclude that everyone is unteachable... and therefore... Aristotle was just jacking off.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2013 11:25 AM  

And then thus we conclude that everyone is unteachable... and therefore... Aristotle was just jacking off.

No, because you extended his set of unteachables to include those who are emotionally incapable. His assertion as presented remains correct, whereas your extension of it, however reasonable, can erroneously lead one to that conclusion. Especially since it really only means that everyone is potentially unteachable on any given subject.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 11:45 AM  

"I do in fact think [Aristotle] an idiot. His explanation of slavery may be one of the dumbest things any "smart" person wrote... ever."

I'm not particularly interested in Aristotle's views on slavery, whatever they were. In fact I think that this persistent emphasis among present-day Americans on the idea, or rather the non-idea of slavery, like a dog returning unto his vomit, is one of the most intellectually and politically pernicious and impoverishing notions extant in America today. We should all put a strict 100-year moratorium on discussing 'de lebacy ub de slabery' as it pertains to our modern American polity, because IT DOES NOT PERTAIN AT ALL and yet we continue to let ourselves be browbeaten, for low political point-scoring and race-hustling, as if it did. /OT rant.

But I will note that your view of the facts in front of you, and Aristotle's view of the facts in front of him that he could ascertain, are not necessarily the same, nor even necessarily similar. So while I can certainly sympathize with any disagreement with Aristotle, even yours... I wouldn't call it grounds for thinking him an idiot.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 11:50 AM  

"No, because you extended his set of unteachables to include those who are emotionally incapable. His assertion as presented remains correct"

Why must I be extending that set? It appears to me the set would include them already. When one has an emotional attachment to a given subject...one resorts to rhetorical tools in the face of dialect. This is an established pattern.

It appears to me that this then is a matter of scope and those he calls "unteachable" are those who have emotionally invested in a broader range of topics... which may in fact be expanded to include virtually all topics.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 12:00 PM  

" In fact I think that this persistent emphasis among present-day Americans on the idea, or rather the non-idea of slavery, like a dog returning unto his vomit, is one of the most intellectually and politically pernicious and impoverishing notions extant in America today."

Mate... I taking issue with his view of it on moral grounds. I couldn't care less. I am talking about the conclusions he reached and how he reached them.

In The Politics he wrote that slavery was a natural occuring phenomenon that resulted from different people focusing on different things. Some peoples focused on intellectual things and other people focused on physical things so naturally they ended up being taken as slaves to the smart types.

This is all good and well... except of course... it could only possibly be the opinion of one blissfully ignorant of the world. Savages take other savages as slaves. Bright types... end up as slaves to savages sometimes.

Slavery is indeed a natural occurring phenomenon... but his explanation of it is stupid beyond words.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2013 12:02 PM  

Why must I be extending that set? It appears to me the set would include them already. When one has an emotional attachment to a given subject...one resorts to rhetorical tools in the face of dialect. This is an established pattern.

True, but logic dictates the obvious answer. Because everyone is POTENTIALLY unteachable due to the emotional attachment, but not everyone is ALWAYS unteachable, Aristotle could not possibly have been incorporating the emotional aspect into his statement concerning how some people are ALWAYS unteachable. He was clearly referring solely to the cognitive inability to comprehend dialectic.

The fact that you have grasped the concept well enough to extend it to incorporate the emotional aspects is to your credit, although it in no way renders what he said concerning the subset of the ALWAYS unteachable false. Especially since he never made any claims about anyone always being teachable.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 12:02 PM  

"Unteachable" must be differentiated from "unpersuadable [to my point of view]".

One constantly hears leftists moaning, in the face of conservative obstruction, that "the American people are ungovernable". The assertion is ridiculous on its face. When I left my house this morning, the electricity and hot water were running, the trains and buses were running on time, there wasn't any mayhem in the streets. The American people seemed pretty f#cking governable to me.

You know what's f#cking ungovernable? A swarm of full-grown male negroes on a streetcorner on a Saturday night in East New York.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 12:05 PM  

" He was clearly referring solely to the cognitive inability to comprehend dialectic."

Methinks you're giving the man far to much credit. But I readily admit I could be giving him to little.

To my eye, like slavery, he got the ball park correct... but totally missed the sport.

Anonymous bw January 27, 2013 12:35 PM  

And yet, my audience keeps growing, the Dread Ilk continue to become more capable, and my abilities continue to develop.

I love the sound of battle in the morning...

And it's not Team Vox, it is Team Truth.

I was going to say it if you didn't.
The Ironic and Paradoxical Collective. The Remnant. The Church.

"You will know the Truth and it will make you Free...and If I make you Free, you will be free indeed..."

Anonymous Mr Green Man January 27, 2013 12:59 PM  

What happened to the drink service in this establishment? I was told there would be grape juice!

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 1:05 PM  

Sorry mate.. only bourbon around here.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 1:08 PM  

@ VD

I do not "switch" between the two for that reason.

Your personal reasons are irrelevant. One you go metaphysical you can never go back. There is no switch, there is only the straddle, that is what it is.

If you call yourself a ham sandwich I'm not going to order you on rye with mayo. Your personal understanding of what you are doing is irrelevant; what you are actually doing is the only public concern.

Where you are correct is that once one RETREATS to the metaphysical,

No, every movement from the practical to the metaphysical IS the straddle. That IS what it is. Moving from the practical to the metaphysical means that one can never move back to the practical, as that IS the straddle. The metaphysical is prior to the practical, so there is no problem with moving from the practical to the metaphysical. However, one cannot move from the metaphysical back to the practical, and if one's opponent does that the only effective strategy is to withdraw from the argument.

A metaphysical argument does not magically subsume a practical one.

The issue is not magic it is one of logical priority. Metaphysical arguments ALWAYS and necessarily subsume practical ones. That is the very definition of the relation between metaphysical and practical categories.

By my judgement arguing metaphysics is always counterproductive. Why? Because metaphysics is not governed by human reason but by sentiment, instinct and passion. The evidence seems to suggest that human beings have a hardwired instinct, whether from God or evolution is irrelevant, to metaphysics, one that is not government be reason.

I utilize both, following my opponent where he goes.

With all due respect I consider this a grave strategic error. It's missing the forest for the trees. At the point that one's opponent begins making metaphysical claims with which one disagrees there are only two possible responses: submit or fight. Neither involve human reason or argument.



Very often the result of practical arguments is pretty inconclusive. Gun rights supporters aren't winning arguments on practical considerations precisely because the gun grabbers' claims are metaphysical, not practical. It's not that gun advocates are incorrect on the facts, it's that facts are irrelevant to the other side.

This is not quite as bad as it sounds, after all, Christain beliefs are based in faith, not facts.

If the underlying criterion for victory is metaphysical, not practical, then one cannot, by definition win on practical grounds. However, if the opponent is making metaphysical claims then the only effective strategy is warn those who agree with your prior assumptions that they are facing an intractable war and to gird for battle.

The lesson, here, is that arguing metaphysics is pointless, when facing an intractable foe. I never, EVER make metaphysical arguments, although I sometimes help others get their own metaphysics straight.

Anonymous The Man January 27, 2013 1:09 PM  

I like that last sentence. It reminds me of the movie The Great Debaters: "Who is your opponent? He doesn't exist. Why? He is a mere dissenting voice to the Truth I speak."

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 1:11 PM  

"Your personal reasons are irrelevant. One you go metaphysical you can never go back. There is no switch, there is only the straddle, that is what it is.

If you call yourself a ham sandwich I'm not going to order you on rye with mayo. Your personal understanding of what you are doing is irrelevant; what you are actually doing is the only public concern."

/facepalm

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2013 1:20 PM  

Prediction: 300+ comments, at least 50 of which will involve agent Asher arguing over the correct definition of a word, or the correct usage of that definition of the word.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 1:29 PM  

"Moving from the practical to the metaphysical means that one can never move back to the practical, as that IS the straddle. The metaphysical is prior to the practical..."

Well I can't put it better than the Wooster Group did in their LSD Manifesto, so my retort, like theirs, is essentially:

"NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!"

This is WRONG. If the world consists of EVERYTHING, (as it must; that is what we mean by "the world"), then the metaphysical is NOT prior; nothing is, (metaphysically speaking) except maybe temporally. Maybe. Because it's not even clear that we really "know" what Time is, yet. The metaphysical and the practical are interwoven, they are part of the same fabric of being, in fact if our perceptions were better ordered, we would realize that the metaphysical and the practical are simply THE SAME THING, differently observed with respect to our own minds.

"If you call yourself a ham sandwich I'm not going to order you on rye with mayo."

You see?!? This is the root of your problem! What sort of MONSTER would order a ham sandwich with MAYO?!? Have you lost your mind? Wait, don't answer that.

Please, for the love of pete, pull your nose out of your Kant and get into something a little trimmer. Here's a start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNpKjmNaJpQ

More later.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 1:32 PM  

@ VD

But following another's retreat to the metaphysical in no way invalidates what has already been shown to be a successful practical argument.

If the argument moves from the practical to the metaphysical then, by definition, the practical argument has not been one, since the entire argument was really, to begin with, a disagreement about prior metaphysical claims. Gun rights' supporters offering practical arguments are only winning the argument in their own heads, because the entire battle is not about practical considerations but about metaphysical claims.

demonstrate that they can utilize the tactics themselves

Using metaphysics is a strategy and using particular metaphysical arguments are its constituent tactics. The vast majority of people are incapable of using metaphysics and the majority of the ilk fall into this category. If someone isn't equipped with the intellect required to navigate metaphysics then engaging in metaphysical arguments is just going to blow up in their face.

My suggestion is to never argue metaphysics; that is the real lesson.

readers like you are always, to your credit, pleased to point out.

No. I get no pleasure from pointing out where I think someone on my side engages in strategic error or tactical mistakes. The only reason I bring it up is because I consider them dangerous to me and my own.

I understand that the vast majority of people are emotionally invested in their particular intellectual positions, but I am not. The only reason I engage people is to get them to change their behavior for practical purposes. By my consideration, when our side argues metaphysics it will always blow up in their faces, mine included, and is counterproductive.

the Dread Ilk eviscerates the arguments of a friend, or family member, or co-worker

Have they convinced anyone to change behavior or positions? Not likely, in which case the only place the argument has been won is in their own head. That's not winning.

The traps are, in almost all situations, triggered by the interlocutor.

Metaphysics IS the trap. The language of metaphysics is always controlled by those with real world, political power. What "is" and "is not", metaphysically speaking, is a function of power.

Let's take the term "evil" for example. Leftists daily and publicly refer to very mundane positions by libertarians and conservatives as "evil" or its various synonyms, "evil" being a metaphysical concept. Every time libertarians and conservatives utilize the concept of "evil" they solidify the power of the left through the use of language.

For a libertarian or conservative to solidify the power of the left is always scoring an own goal, and that is what they do every time they use the concept of "evil".

And even if a civilian decides to come onto the field and inadvertently sets it off, well, hopefully it will be a learning experience for him and everyone who witnessed it.

No, it makes him look like an idiot and undecideds are going to regard the conservative/libertarian side as one comprised of idiots and losers. No one wants to be on the losing side of a war.

They there, in part, for the benefit of the audience.

As entertainment? Sure. Are the ilk going to take those rhetorical traps and go out and change minds and behaviors with them? Not likely. And that is why they may be emotionally satisfying but are not going to win the war. The result is that they are going to distract from winning that war.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 1:46 PM  

oh dear God...

Lets go back to talking about 1911s... or boobs...

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 1:48 PM  

@ VD

the average rabbit will stick his head into the shining wire.

Those rabbits, the leftist breed, hold the reins of power. You can lay whatever intellectual traps you like and at the end of the day those rabbits falling into your traps is not going to change the political realities of power.

I would also point out that, in my judgement, the majority of the ilk exhibit rabbit-like characteristics - no, I'm not attributing that to you.

you're conflating straddle and switch

There is no switch, there is only straddle. Almost invariably, if an argument moves from practical grounds to metaphysical ones then the fundamental disagreement was, from the start, a metaphysical one. Practical arguments are incapable of changing metaphysical assumptions, therefore, moving from the metaphysical to the practical is never a switch, only a straddle.

You're completely failing to understand how the game is actually played in favor of some imaginary, metaphysical version of it.

The only real measure of whether or not an argument has been won is whether or not it has advanced one's ability to exert influence on the positions and behavior of others. The criterion for winning an argument is governed not by intellectual criteria but by power.

It's is the whole "I won on intellectual grounds" notion that is the imaginary and metaphysical one. You may have "better" argumentsFirst I defeat them on the lower ground. They retreat. Then I defeat them on the higher ground. than your opponent, intellectually speaking, but if the encounter ends and your ability to affect others' behavior and positions has been enhanced then you haven't "won" anywhere, except in your head.

First I defeat them on the lower ground. They retreat. Then I defeat them on the higher ground.

No. This is where the metaphor begins to go awry. Arguing metaphysics is always inconclusive, as metaphysics is not governed by human reason but by passion and sentiment. Further, if the argument moves from the practical to the metaphysical then you haven't won on practical grounds either, as the entire difference was metaphysical from the beginning.

The correct strategy is to avoid metaphysical arguments from the beginning.

It take absolutely no effort to keep swatting down their arguments.

You can swat away effortlessly to your heart's content, but if it doesn't have the effect of changing anyone's behavior or positions it is pointless.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2013 1:52 PM  

Like boobs, is it best for 1911's to come in pairs?

Anonymous Scintan January 27, 2013 1:54 PM  

Your personal reasons are irrelevant. One you go metaphysical you can never go back. There is no switch, there is only the straddle, that is what it is.

Saying really stupid things over and over again isn't going to make them seem any smarter.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 1:57 PM  

"Like boobs, is it best for 1911's to come in pairs?"

Very few people will ever put in the time to be able to shoot two handguns at the same time. But there is definitely something to be said for a New York reload.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2013 1:58 PM  

Saying really stupid things over and over again isn't going to make them seem any smarter.

Dude...he can typing!

Anonymous VD January 27, 2013 1:59 PM  

Your personal reasons are irrelevant. One you go metaphysical you can never go back. There is no switch, there is only the straddle, that is what it is.

You're wrong.

With all due respect I consider this a grave strategic error. It's missing the forest for the trees. At the point that one's opponent begins making metaphysical claims with which one disagrees there are only two possible responses: submit or fight. Neither involve human reason or argument.

That's fine. You go ahead and fight everyone you like. I'll keep doing what I'm doing.

If the argument moves from the practical to the metaphysical then, by definition, the practical argument has not been one, since the entire argument was really, to begin with, a disagreement about prior metaphysical claims.

Not necessarily. You're making the same mistake the rational expectations crowd does in economics.

The vast majority of people are incapable of using metaphysics and the majority of the ilk fall into this category. If someone isn't equipped with the intellect required to navigate metaphysics then engaging in metaphysical arguments is just going to blow up in their face.

You just blew a logical hole in your own position. Also, I note that your irrelevant and unnecessary passive-aggressive shot at people who aren't directly involved in the discourse is more than a little illuminating concerning your socio-sexual status.

The only real measure of whether or not an argument has been won is whether or not it has advanced one's ability to exert influence on the positions and behavior of others. The criterion for winning an argument is governed not by intellectual criteria but by power.

You're wrong by your own metric. My arguments and my tactics have materially advanced my ability to exert influence on the positions and behavior of others. And I have utilized nothing but sheer intellectual persuasion.

The correct strategy is to avoid metaphysical arguments from the beginning.

Then feel free to do so. I note that you haven't even tried to persuade me on practical grounds, in fact, by the metric you have suggested, I should continue as I am doing because your argument is self-defeating.

Do you admit that I have materially advanced my ability to exert influence on the positions and behavior of others since this blog began in 2003?

Anonymous VD January 27, 2013 2:03 PM  

There is no switch, there is only the straddle, that is what it is.

Saying really stupid things over and over again isn't going to make them seem any smarter.


Note that I was correct and he was conflating them, by his own admission now.

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 2:08 PM  

Responding to the previous thread:

If your practical arguments are so compelling then you shouldn't need metaphysical ones or vice versa.

The problem is often with the psychology of human beings, not with the argument. Appealing to the instinct of self-preservation is often more compelling in practice than appealing to some metaphysical reality that they agree with in principle, but that is far removed from their everyday life.

Um, if they already agree with your metaphysical assumptions then arguing practical considerations is redundant, unnecessary.

a) There's the psychological aspect mentioned above (agreement is not a binary thing, there is also the issue of how high they place something in their hierarchy of concerns), and
b) that's why I said "wide audience", so that there are going to be readers that disagree with the metaphysical assumptions.

Metaphysical assumptions have priority to practical arguments.

For Spock maybe. Not for the average Joe.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 2:10 PM  

@ VD

I then launch an attack on his metaphysical argument.

It is pointless to launch an intellectual attack on a metaphysical position, as metaphysics is not governed by human reason. The correct strategy is to demonstrate that it IS metaphysical and that it is a set of metaphysical assumptions that is foreign and alien.

Most people have no interest considering metaphysical arguments and are solely interested in practical considerations. When they hear leftists, like Tad, offer political positions they just assume that they are making practical arguments.

The way to win is to show that leftism is a structure of metaphysical assumptions and one that is at odds with what most believe. Metaphysics can never be *wrong*, only *different*; this is Max Weber's "war of the gods".

I haven't given up one iota of my practical argument or the ground I am defending. I'm moving onto the other side's ground and taking that away from him too.

If an argument moves from the practical to the metaphysical then that demonstrates that you haven't won on practical grounds, that IS what that means. It's not that your practical arguments and positions where bad but that the entire disagreement was a metaphysical one.

And if an disagreement is a metaphysical one then it is pointless to continue arguing because it is impossible to demonstrate that metaphysical assumptions are "incorrect", that is a category mistake.

You don't win a metaphysical argument; you demonstrate to the audience that the disagreement is metaphysical and that your opponent adheres to a foreign and alien set of metaphysical assumptions. You "otherize" him. "Otherizing" your opponent is the only criterion for winning in a metaphysical disagreement.

Will they ever join the team of reason and freedom?

"Reason", expansively understood, and "Freedom" are metaphysical concepts. There is a multitude of conflicting metaphysical assumptions regarding what they really mean. Tad, no less than you, considers his party the one of reason and freedom and, by his understanding of those terms, he is not incorrect. Neither of you is "incorrect", but what that means is that you are at war and the only arbiter for that is power.

nd it's not Team Vox, it is Team Truth.

No, it's Team Vox, there is no Team Truth. Only God has access to Truth and human minds only have access to truths - no one hath known the mind of God, no human has that capacity. FWIW, I'm on Team Vox, but that's all it is, Team Vox.

I don't dictate anything, I simply follow the truth

Like all human beings, including myself, you follow your instinct, sentiment and passion. The mistake is to impute truth to those sentiments.

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 2:18 PM  

Waaait a minute... Now that I've read the tread, I have a nagging feeling that this guy's first name is Matthew.

Anonymous Noah B. January 27, 2013 2:25 PM  

"Tad, no less than you, considers his party the one of reason and freedom and, by his understanding of those terms, he is not incorrect."

No, you've run off the rails here. Tad and his team are liars. They begin with a concept of freedom similar to ours and whittle away at it until nothing remains, and you are left only with the "freedom" to do as you're told by the state. They do not openly and boldly proclaim their intentions. If they did, no one would follow them.

"Only God has access to Truth and human minds only have access to truths..."

Vox clearly meant that we are interested in the pursuit of truth. He is not so arrogant as to believe that we here have some special means of knowing Truth that all others lack.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 27, 2013 2:28 PM  

One recent example are a few who are libertarians on the drug war and note all the evils caused by trying to enforce it, yet after Sandy Hook want to treat certain arms like marijuana or heroin

Of course some people want to leagalize drugs because they are libertarians, and other people are libertarians because they want to leagalize drugs. I doubt the first type of libertarian are calling for much in the way of additional gun control laws. It's the second type, who are really just liberals disillusioned with liberal politicians, who want to ban those scary, no-good, guns. They're an example of letting your methaphysics dance to the tune of your desires.

Then again, there are the intellecutal titans who argue for more gun control based on the volume of gun mayhem in the US without realizing that the vast bulk of that mayhem is vibrant drug dealers from a different culture than the average citizen shooting each other.

And finally there's the question of the very real harm that drug abuse does to a person, his family, and his community, but is that harm made better or worse through drug prohibition? If we legalized opium, would we still have the far more devastating effects of meth and bath salts?

The intersection of drugs, guns and immigration is a great place to see the practical need of tying the metaphysical to the real world.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 2:35 PM  

@ tz

but at root is a bad assumption or metaphysic

There are no "bad" assumptions, just different ones.

Promiscuity isn't evil comes from moral relativism

Why argue that promiscuity is "evil" when one can just demonstrate the consequences? That's redundant. The problem with using metaphysical terms like "evil" is that the left controls the discourse and they get to use that term and you do not. That's how power works.

Leftists publicly get to call conservatives "evil" on a daily basis with little opposition. In response, conservatives consider it a triumph to call abstractions like promiscuity or twerps like Adam Lanza "evil".

For a conservative to *ever* use the term "evil" is a political blunder.

evil contradicts The Truth, so ultimately refutes itself and collapses

Then don't vote. All you have to do is expose "evil" and the world will exist as it ought to.

You want to declare something "evil"? First, get political power, then, implement it, but calling something "evil" from a position of weakness is putting the cart before the horse.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 2:37 PM  

@ Nate

No doubt he still thinks he won the exchange about hell.

The very concept of "winning" in that exchange is silly. Signe's entire position was incoherent. That's okay, most people have a very poor understanding of what they think and why. I don't think I "won" anything as there was no definite "thing" being debated, as what Signe was saying was irretrievably incoherent.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 2:40 PM  

@ James Dixon

an opportunity for endless debate, whether anyone else is interested in debating or not, that seems unlikely.

Human understanding and knowledge improves via competition between various ideas, and nothing more. If everyone thought like you human understanding would never improve.

Competition is the engine that drives human improvement, as a conservative I'd think would understand that.

Vox, it is pretty obvious your comment section is populated by a bunch of rabbits who think they're wolves.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 2:42 PM  

@ Anonymous

dangerous adversary for those mid-wits that I encounter in every day life.

Dangerous? In what way? Have you changed scores of minds? If not, then you're not dangerous to anyone except, maybe, yourself.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 2:46 PM  

@ Stilicho

The best ones are those where Asher "debates" Tad and Tad posts quasi-sensical "answers" that contradict each other or are simple non-sequiturs

Shhh, don't tell the ilk. They think all my comments here are nonsense and babble. Your admission is likely to get you branded a heretic in these parts.

Newsflash. I have only seen two people pin down Tad into giving sophisticated quasi-sensical answers: myself and Vox. Everyone else simply rants on about the right-ness of their opinions. There should be a lesson there ... somewhere ...

Anonymous Jack Amok January 27, 2013 2:46 PM  

oh dear God...

Lets go back to talking about 1911s... or boobs...


Or both - a woman with big boobs shouldn't wear a low-cut top when shooting a 1911. Seriously, Laura Croft should've switched to revolvers when she went to the tanktop.

BTW Nate, I just picked up a Sig Sauer 1911 last week. Sure, sure, I know, would've preferred a Springfield or Ruger myself, but the marketing firm of Obama, Feinstein and Cuomo has done a bang-up job, and pickin's are a bit thin.

And ammo prices. Sheesh, emptying a full mag is costs me almost $4.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 2:49 PM  

@ Nate

but if you stay with it long enough... even Tad gets exasperated with him after a certain point. So... I conclude that Tad is in fact teachable.

D'oh. This is what's called an "own goal".

Politically speaking, I'm on your side, and somehow you manage to conclude that my cornering Tad means ... he's teachable. No Tad is your enemy; he doesn't want to "learn" from you, only defeat you.

I keep asking conservatives and libertarians whether or not they even want to win because they seem hell-bent on losing to the Tad's of this world.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 2:52 PM  

@ VD

He appears to belong solidly in the audience Aristotle described as "people whom one cannot instruct".

That is because your disagreement with Tad is a metaphysical one. Metaphysics cannot be taught via human reason, as it is a product of instinct and sentiment. Metaphysical assumptions are what one acquires during the formative years, they are a product of what we call culture.

Different cultures and peoples, therefore, different metaphysical assumptions. None "better", only different.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 2:55 PM  

@ Faust

for "metaphysical straddle"

I am dealing with two young children and a very sick wife. "the straddle" is bolstering metaphysical arguments with practical ones and vice versa. I just hurriedly typed "metaphysical straddle" for shorthand.

If you'll google "jeffrey friedman libertarian straddle" I think you can get the full essay online. I found it several years ago online, at any rate.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 2:59 PM  

@ Nate

we all have our rhetoric side that we must keep in check

Rhetoric is simply about the use of words in apprehending and discussing the world. It's neither good nor bad, just usful, an instrument. Like any instrument it can be misused.

Anonymous Scintan January 27, 2013 3:08 PM  

Note that I was correct and he was conflating them, by his own admission now.

True, but I can't give you a lot of credit for it. You're essentially beating up a cripple.

Anonymous Scintan January 27, 2013 3:10 PM  

but if you stay with it long enough... even Tad gets exasperated with him after a certain point. So... I conclude that Tad is in fact teachable.

In the end, Asher v. Tad is still just this site's current version of Jimmy v. Timmy.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 3:11 PM  

"Politically speaking, I'm on your side, and somehow you manage to conclude that my cornering Tad means ... he's teachable. No Tad is your enemy; he doesn't want to "learn" from you, only defeat you."

The amusing thing... is you think this is relevant.

Anonymous realmatt January 27, 2013 3:13 PM  

Nate, I remember those debates years ago. Could you post the pictures of the caulked sections? I can't find any.

Thanks

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 3:13 PM  

"BTW Nate, I just picked up a Sig Sauer 1911 last week. Sure, sure, I know, would've preferred a Springfield or Ruger myself, but the marketing firm of Obama, Feinstein and Cuomo has done a bang-up job, and pickin's are a bit thin. "


hey now... I actually like the sig's quite a bit. I'm not a huge fan of the external extractor but that's picking nits. The fact is... they are accurate reliable weapons... and therefore interesting. Which one did you get? Scorpian?

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 3:15 PM  

"Nate, I remember those debates years ago. Could you post the pictures of the caulked sections? I can't find any."

Sure... there are pictures on my blog.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 3:20 PM  

"Competition is the engine that drives human improvement, as a conservative I'd think would understand that."

Son... you lack perspective. You're like a chew toy with its guts ripped out and its squeaker long gone... complaining that the dog is to weak to continue to battle you.

Anonymous Anonymous January 27, 2013 3:34 PM  

The first thing I did before reading the post was Google " metaphysical " there is no excuse for not not understanding the definition of a term in the internet age!

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 3:44 PM  

"The first thing I did before reading the post was Google " metaphysical " there is no excuse for not not understanding the definition of a term in the internet age!"

That's smart... because Agent Mongoloid is bound to try to change that definition about 27 times in the next couple hundred comments.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2013 3:48 PM  

Different cultures and peoples, therefore, different metaphysical assumptions. None "better", only different.

(laughs) Even Spengler would disagree with you. Different, yes. Equal? No.

That is because your disagreement with Tad is a metaphysical one.

No, it's more than that. He has shown that he literally can't follow the practical arguments as well.

I have only seen two people pin down Tad into giving sophisticated quasi-sensical answers: myself and Vox. Everyone else simply rants on about the right-ness of their opinions. There should be a lesson there ... somewhere ...

That may be all you've seen, but a number of people here have torn Tad's arguments into pieces. You're mistaking the patience to use the Socratic method to discredit the interlocutor with the ability to argue effectively.

Vox, it is pretty obvious your comment section is populated by a bunch of rabbits who think they're wolves.

There are some, to be sure. On the other hand, it's also obvious that you are passive-aggressive and have some hierarchy issues. There are a number of commenters here who outclass you, you simply haven't engaged with them. Moreover, you have to admit that you've been showing some rabbity signs yourself, as you blithely skip past the holes I've been punching in your arguments in favor of repeating your previous assertions.

You haven't answered this question yet: "Do you admit that I have materially advanced my ability to exert influence on the positions and behavior of others since this blog began in 2003?"

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 4:04 PM  

"The very concept of "winning" in that exchange is silly. Signe's entire position was incoherent. That's okay, most people have a very poor understanding of what they think and why"

While I realize it is borderline insanity to bother explaining this to you.... out of charity I will.

"Send him to hell" is a metaphor for "kill him". its a figure of speach and everyone knew what she meant... except you.

When she expressed a reluctance to end someone's life before they had the chance to repent she was talking about a calculated assumption that if someone put themselves in a position to be shot and killed by her... they probably were not on the best of terms with the Lord.

The concept of "not wanting to do something, but having to do it anyway" is only inconsistent to mentally defective. it is something with which sane people every day, and thus, the concept is something they can very easily relate to.

Being mentally defective... you missed all of this.

Anonymous Mr Green Man January 27, 2013 4:22 PM  

I have a friend from an African tribal culture that I met in grad school. He explained to me once that, when they have a metaphysical disagreement with one of the other tribes, they otherize them with 7.62x39.

Anonymous Koanic January 27, 2013 4:23 PM  

"There are a number of commenters here who outclass you, you simply haven't engaged with them."

I have a section of Asher's intestine on my wall that begs to differ.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 4:33 PM  

"I have a section of Asher's intestine on my wall that begs to differ."

how can that be? Asher assures us he won the exchange... and we just didn't notice because we're to ignorant to follow along.

Anonymous kh123 January 27, 2013 4:44 PM  

Pretty sure Summa Theologica covers this within the first chapter or collection of arguments. Sacred scripture covers both the practical and spiritual; physical and metaphysical; God and creation as it relates to God; disparate subjects as they relate to one power or habit, etc.

Blogger James Dixon January 27, 2013 4:48 PM  

> Have they convinced anyone to change behavior or positions? Not likely, in which case the only place the argument has been won is in their own head. That's not winning.

You know, this statement has illustrate one of the most profound misunderstandings I've ever encountered.

> Human understanding and knowledge improves via competition between various ideas, and nothing more.

Nothing more, Junior? I guess that explains your extreme preoccupation with debating.

Why don't you run over to PZ's blog and explain to them that the scientific method is a waste of time?

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 4:55 PM  

@ Nate

That's an awfully generous description. We're talking about someone that claimed that killing infants is ok because of the orders God gave about the Canaanites.

At this point, the only possible explanation for this comment is that you are willfully distorting what I've repeatedly stated.

God is a God who directly states of himself in his word that he is unchanging. that means that when he gives a command it is absolute and has no exceptions. It's a simple if/then:

IF God commanded the Israelites to kill Canaanite infants THEN God has no absolute command to avoid all killing of infants

This is not permission to kill whenever we like but it does establish that there is simply no absolute commandment to avoid killing It does not take immense intellect to comprehend this reason, so the logical implication is that your sentiment in this area is not something at which you've arrived by reason.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 5:07 PM  

@ scoobius doobius

Asher is a supreme narcissist (Tad's one too

You lack any warrant for such claims. It is impossible to diagnose things like narcissism, Asperger's, antisocial personality, etc. in such an arena as a comment thread.

I've never seen Vox engage in such buffoonish posturing, and I've not done so, either. I suggest you follow his example. People who use such tactics do so as a rhetorical fiat to avoid having to contend with their opponent's positions and arguments.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 5:09 PM  

@ scoobius doobius

He's so blatantly comical about it

Then you have a bizarre understanding of comical. People who hold the reins of power think like Tad and impose their will on people like us. How you find that comical is beyond me.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 5:12 PM  

@ VD

because you extended his set of unteachables to include those who are emotionally incapable.

A majority of the ilk are emotionally unteachable, Nate and Josh being two excellent examples. They are like five year olds who insist on getting ice cream before dinner, no amount of rational argumentation will alter that sentiment.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 5:14 PM  

@ Nate

When one has an emotional attachment to a given subject...one resorts to rhetorical tools in the face of dialect. This is an established pattern

You are a blatant example of such things. Almost every comment you made is loaded with bombast and emotional appeal.

Anonymous Noah B. January 27, 2013 5:15 PM  

"A majority of the ilk are emotionally unteachable, Nate and Josh being two excellent examples. They are like five year olds who insist on getting ice cream before dinner, no amount of rational argumentation will alter that sentiment."

They're emotionally unteachable because they don't want to murder infants? OK.

Anonymous Koanic January 27, 2013 5:35 PM  

Being married, it is probably too late for Asher to finish the red pill. There's a good chance, therefore, that his son will discover his father's shortcomings. As impervious as he is, he will feel that one.

Anonymous jaciii January 27, 2013 5:44 PM  

Can someone be banned for being ridiculously tiresome and willfully obtuse?

Please?

Anonymous toothy January 27, 2013 5:57 PM  

I like my Sigs. My wife bought me a Platinum Elite 1911 2 Chrismases (sp?) ago. I love that gun. It's gorgeous and shoots every bit as good as it looks.

Now the Performance Center Smith 1911 she bought me this Christmas has unfortunately not been exercised yet. :( I have fondled it a couple of time, though. That has an external extractor, too.

And yes, I have a great wife.
And yes, she has boobs.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2013 6:04 PM  

A majority of the ilk are emotionally unteachable, Nate and Josh being two excellent examples. They are like five year olds who insist on getting ice cream before dinner, no amount of rational argumentation will alter that sentiment.

Let me get this straight, Asher. You're going to engage in passive-aggressive attacks on other commenters, call them names, and label nearly everyone else rabbits... while refusing to answer the question that I've addressed to you twice?

Seriously?

For the third time, do you admit that I have materially advanced my ability to exert influence on the positions and behavior of others since this blog began in 2003?

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 6:21 PM  

Asher: "I've never seen Vox engage in such buffoonish posturing, and I've not done so, either."

Like I keep saying... The gods of Irony will not be mocked. But you don't know what I mean by that, do you. I'm sure Kant can explain it somewhere.

"You lack any warrant for such claims. It is impossible to diagnose things like narcissism... in such an arena as a comment thread."

I'm not diagnosing you. I'm not a medical professional. I'm simply calling you a narcissist. Regular people have recourse to plain words in the English language too, ya know. And "narcissist" is part of a class of words which signify both within and without a clinical perspective. I seem to recall that Narcissus himself, as a figure, handily pre-dates Dr. Freud and his chums. A vote for Asher in '68 brings Dionysus in '69.

You really have no idea at all what you sound like to sane people, do you?

But you keep right on at it, m'lud. Pixels are cheaper than ink, after all.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 27, 2013 6:41 PM  

hey now... I actually like the sig's quite a bit. I'm not a huge fan of the external extractor but that's picking nits. The fact is... they are accurate reliable weapons... and therefore interesting. Which one did you get? Scorpian?

Yeah, I'm pretty happy with it. It's not the Scoprion, it's the full size Stainless (ummmmm, shiny...). So far I haven't tinkered at all, just field stripped it, cleaned off the factory lube, relubed it, and shot. Trigger feels perfect, the whole thing feels like an extention of my arm. Makes me think of the scene from The Mote in God's Eye where the motie engineers customize firearms to fit the owner's hands.

John Browning did that for me a century ago. Genius.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 27, 2013 6:46 PM  

Er, I suppose I should say sidearms instead of firearms for the Moties. I can't recall at the moment whether the CoDom used slugthrowers or some sort of beam weapon.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 6:47 PM  

@ scoobius doobius

One constantly hears leftists moaning, in the face of conservative obstruction, that "the American people are ungovernable". The assertion is ridiculous on its face.

There is an element of reality, albeit distorted, to that claim made by leftists. The distortion is that there is any such thing as the "american people", as the current American imperial state rules over a vast array of divergent and distinct peoples. These peoples are held together by the power of the ruling class of the imperial state.

Conservatives can bluster all they like about the way things "ought to be", but the reality is that the America that exists is an empire and not a constitutional republic. When conservatives and libertarians make the claim that the US is a constitutional republic they are engaging in the "moralistic fallacy" of trying to infer "is" from "ought".

It is pointless to try and retrench to an "American identity". The reasonable course of action is to break up the American empire and allow the various constituent peoples to govern themselves.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 6:56 PM  

@ Vox

You're going to engage in passive-aggressive attacks

I am about as far from passive-aggressive a person as you'll encounter. This is not passive-aggression, it is aggression, purely and simply.

In your previous "rabbits gonna be rabbits" post you laid out a description of rabbits and I pointed out that by YOUR CRITERIA most of your commenters are rabbits. One identifier of rabbits is that they cannot distinguish between non-rabbits, i.e. scary things. There is a difference between a bear that growls as it hunts them and a truck that growls as it drives down the highway, but rabbits are incapable of distinguishing between the two.

Most of your commenters lump Tad and myself together, despite us being radically dissimilar. So, by the standards you set up most of your commenters are rabbits. I am not name-calling, at all. If you dislike my applying your definition of rabbit to your commenters then you are welcome to change your criteria and I will abide by it.

while refusing to answer the question that I've addressed to you twice?

I have a wife with a flaring up autoimmune disorder and two young children, one of whom has a very rambunctious personality. We just found out, at 14 weeks, that he is completely lactose intolerant so I am having to do all the feeding so he loses his emotional attachment to comfort nursing.

If I don't answer a direct question it is because I missed it or because I haven't formulated a response to my satisfaction.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:01 PM  

@ VD

do you admit that I have materially advanced my ability to exert influence on the positions and behavior of others since this blog began in 2003?

Not to any meaningful extent, no. It's not that your arguments aren't well-though or that you have bad positions it's that the types of positions you argue and the arguments you make are of the kind that will only appeal to the types of people that already, generally, agree with you.

There is one very specific reason for this:

Metaphysics.

Arguing metaphysics is like a dog chasing its tail. It doesn't go anywhere. Either you are talking with people who already share yours or with people who don't. If the former, then you're just cofirming theirs and, if the latter, you're not going to convince anyone.

The reason for this is that metaphysics is a product of human desire sentiment, not human reason.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:03 PM  

oops

human desire and sentiment

That said, there is one exception to discussing metaphysics and that exception is showing people logical contradictions in their metaphysical assumptions, ie. you can't hold both "A" and "non A".

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 7:07 PM  

"The reasonable course of action is to break up the American empire and allow the various constituent peoples to govern themselves."

On this we can agree.

As an aside, and not as part of that particular argument, I'd add that the subtext of my initial remark was that: of _course_ the American people (yes, notions to the contrary, there still is "an American people" which has particular characteristics and which can be distinctly identified, it is simply drowned for the moment in a shit-storm of vibrant diversity; it does not consist of the sum total of people with current US citizenship or unauthorized US presence, but is rather an actual distinct people) are "ungovernable", and that is because they are self-governing.

The leftist perception that they are "ungovernable" (meaning they won't submit consistently to leftist suzerainty) comes about because a) leftists wish to actively rule over others*, rather than merely being an honest part of a self-governing people, b) they hate and fear the self-governing goyim sorry I meant the American people, and c) they do not see themselves as part of the people, but rather as part of an elite priesthood/vanguard class, who claim the right to sit above the people, eat their spoils, and guide them with their superior wisdom. The people can work and produce; the leftists will sit above them and eat, and dispute arcane points of abstruse intellectual doctrinal doctrine, and also eat. That's work, too, dontchaknow. And only smart people like leftists are able to do it!

It once again becomes interesting to ask: which particular ethne does this just happen to sound like? And which ethne has done more to advance the cause of leftism? Hmmm. Nope, I can't think of anybody, I'm drawing a blank, no one comes to mind at the moment.

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 7:07 PM  

That said, there is one exception to discussing metaphysics and that exception is showing people logical contradictions in their metaphysical assumptions, ie. you can't hold both "A" and "non A".

Which means that it would make sense to say that the right to own firearms follows from, say, the right to freedom; a metaphysical right. Now, some people perhaps don't really believe in any right to freedom, but most of them wouldn't like others to know it.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:14 PM  

@ VD

passive-aggressive and have some hierarchy issues

Well, so much for not diagnosing over the internet. From my understanding, people with hierarchy issues act out in ways that land them in trouble. I have never even had a traffic ticket, and the one time I've been stopped by a cop was for having a headlight out, and I've been driving for 23 years.

There are few people alive more respectful of hierarchy than I.

An example, was involving myself in a discussion at Crooked Timber where I brought up the issue of genetic differences between racial groups. A bunch of commenters started howling like banshees and asking the owners to ban me. I directly asked the owners if they wished me to leave and I did so on their request. Since then, I have not posted even one comment on Crooked Timber - nor do I read it.

I will abide by whatever rules you set, and I will leave if asked. But whatever rules you decide on I will follow to the letter. For example, if you set up a description of what you consider a "rabbit" and that description applies to your commenters then I will call your commenters "rabbits". That IS me respecting hierarchy and playing by the rules.

Your game, your rules. But if you wish to rule by whim and diktat then I will go elsewhere. It's your call.

BTW, using the metaphorical description of "rabbit" was a metaphorical expression of direct aggression, not passive-aggression.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2013 7:17 PM  

Not to any meaningful extent, no. It's not that your arguments aren't well-though or that you have bad positions it's that the types of positions you argue and the arguments you make are of the kind that will only appeal to the types of people that already, generally, agree with you.

I note, with no little amusement, that you have retreated to a metaphysical argument, precisely as I have said people who are losing the practical argument do. Your very behavior here has shown the false nature of your argument.

Your answer also shows that you are arguing in bad faith as well as being about as factually incorrect as one can be. The others can kick you around as they like, if they wish, but I have no need to further respond to you.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:17 PM  

@ Markku

it would make sense to say that the right to own firearms follows from, say, the right to freedom

This is just kicking the can down the road. Now we're just arguing over the metaphysical definition of "freedom". It means one thing to one group, another to another and just ends up with people shouting each other down.

The reasonable course is to let the various groups govern themselves, what we call political self-determination.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:21 PM  

@ VD



Where? What is that purported metaphysical argument? Be specific. I doubt I've made even one metaphysical argument in the past ten years. Sure, I analyze other people's metaphysical positions and examine them for consistency, but I don't think I've actually taken a metaphysical position for as long as I can remember, at least ten years.

Anonymous Koanic January 27, 2013 7:21 PM  

Lol Asher threatened to leave.

I will say that he's not socially sophisticated enough to deliberately use passive aggression, or want to. If you call him on his inadvertent uses, he'll just be offended at the implication that he was being indirect, and double down.

But Asher, you can't have it both ways. I asked you if you were socially awkward, and you eagerly proclaimed that everyone was comfortable around you. Which means, not a sociosexual threat, and therefore we are not rabbits trembling before you. There must be some other reason for the negative reaction - o Asperger's, enlighten him!

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:21 PM  

oops

@ VD

you have retreated to a metaphysical argument

I was responding to that assertion.

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 7:22 PM  

Now we're just arguing over the metaphysical definition of "freedom".

No, we're not. The argument hasn't actually been made yet. It was merely an example of the kind of argument, in which you show that the opponent's position is in contradiction with some metaphysical position that he probably doesn't want to admit contradicting. He'll either have to bite the bullet (which few of them do) or dance amusingly.

Anonymous Anonymous January 27, 2013 7:22 PM  

"The metaphysical is prior to the practical, so there is no problem with moving from the practical to the metaphysical."

The metaphysical is logically prior to the practical but the practical is experientially prior to metaphysics. Naive experience forms the basis for reflection and speculation.

Since no man can claim his personal experience to be definitive, you can not safely move from the existential to the universal.

This is not to deny the validity of universals but they are not the result of man's experience.

MALTHUS

1911s and boobs for the canaille! (I approve of both but neither is particularly germane).

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:26 PM  

@ Nate

"Send him to hell" is a metaphor for "kill him".

First, we all die. Second, Signe seems to be a gun owner, or at least an advocate of private ownership, so this statement simply doesn't make any sense. Yes, she said it. It's also incoherent with other things she says and does.

they probably were not on the best of terms with the Lord.

Fine. By this reasoning she would have no qualms about shooting someone who she knew to be "right with the Lord". Assuming she's a Christian that's a pretty bizarre position. Historically, people have always had far less problem killing out-grouped individuals versus killing in-grouped ones. This reverses the entire understanding of the notion of human society and group loyalty.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:28 PM  

@ Koanic

I have a section of Asher's intestine on my wall that begs to differ.

You bailed from that conversation, not me. I challenged you multiple times to come up with a meaning of "noumena" that was unitary and unambiguous. Whatever meaning you like is fine with me but it must be unitary and unambiguous.

Any time you wish to offer such I would be happy to resume the conversation.

It's bizarre to claim a trophy when you are the one who bailed from the conversation.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:31 PM  

@ Nate

Asher assures us he won the exchange

I did. He refused to answer a direct challenge I posed at least a half dozen times. That is the definition of losing going back almost three millenia.

In the agora when one debater could not respond to the challenge of another the lack of response was deemed a victory for the one offering the challenge.

He refused. I won. It's really that simple.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:34 PM  

@ James Dixon

You know, this statement has illustrate one of the most profound misunderstandings I've ever encountered.

This is where you're supposed to provide an argument substantiating this assertion. That lack of any accompanying argument makes this assertion nothing more than bombast.

Nothing more, Junior? I guess that explains your extreme preoccupation with debating.

That's correct. Nothing more. People offer competing theories on various subject and the best one wins until it is bested by a new competing theory.

Anonymous Koanic January 27, 2013 7:35 PM  

You're like Muhammad Ali on Asperger's and Ritalin.

"Float like a phenomena, sting like a noumena"

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:35 PM  

@ James Dixon

Why don't you run over to PZ's blog and explain to them that the scientific method is a waste of time?

PZ understands the scientific method like Elton John understand vagina. PZ wouldn't know the scientific method if it crawled up his ass and died, although he might move to Massachusetts and try to marry it.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2013 7:38 PM  

Where? What is that purported metaphysical argument? Be specific.

You claimed "Not to any meaningful extent, no." This ignores the fact that the traffic here has increased from 300 per day to 8,500 per day, ignores the testimonies of hundreds people who have changed their minds and their behavior as a result of my methods, and has resulted in numerous physical objects being produced. You ignored the practical argument, which shows you to be completely wrong, and retreated to arguing over what is, or is not, "meaningful".

An argument about what you do find meaningful is about as metaphysical as you can get.

You're inept, Asher. Your arguments are literally self-defeating. You're in well over your head.

Anonymous Noah B. January 27, 2013 7:42 PM  

Boom.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:42 PM  

@ scoobius doobius

I'm simply calling you a narcissist.

Ah, so you're asserting without arguing. Well, at least you admit it.

Regular people have recourse to plain words in the English language too

True enough. But regular people have about as much ability to engage in rational debate as I have to sprout wings and fly. At least you know your limitations as a regular guy.

pull your nose out of your Kant

That you make this claim indicates that you weren't comprehending the discussion on the logical proof for God. I was arguing against a Kantian argument, not for one. It should be bloody obvious that my main influences are Nietzsche and Heidegger, along with a healthy dose of the latter Wittgenstein and Quine.

How you confused that with Kant is beyond me.

Anonymous butttaxed again January 27, 2013 7:43 PM  

You're inept, Asher. Your arguments are literally self-defeating. You're in well over your head.

You know Agent Asher, I expect a little higher caliber of discourse for my tax dollars. Step it up a notch, would ya?

Anonymous Koanic January 27, 2013 7:51 PM  

Auto-immune disorders and lactose intolerance are Thal. Get your wife and kids on paleo diet: http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/05/paleo-baby.html

I bet you have a mild case of the stereotypical Asperger's face. I was the first child of a father with the same, indoctrinated heavily Asperger's christianese but grew out of it. You're the same as he is.
http://www.koanicsoul.com/blog/2013/01/24/edenic-phrenology-vindicated-science-discovers-facial-pattern-for-autism-aspergers/

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:52 PM  

@ scoobius doobius

This is the root of your problem! What sort of MONSTER would order a ham sandwich with MAYO?!

*tips hat*

A witty rejoinder. I laughed.

(The world is EVERYTHING that is the case.)

Over on that thread when I posited "noumenon" as "undifferentiated reality" this is exactly what I meant. Exactly. Kant's problem was that he wanted differentiation without perception, and, pretty clearly, Koanic does too.

When I challenged Koanic to identify the subject differentiating noumena prior to human perception he answered "God". So, what he was doing was offering a proof that contained "God" in both the postulate and the conclusion.

It doesn't make any sense to assume the existence of something you're arguing for, but that is precisely what Koanic was doing. It's also the basis of subsequent critiques of Kant.

The idea that you would tell me to get my nose out of Kant when I am explicitly rejecting the Kantian notion of "noumena" is bizarre.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 7:58 PM  

@ scoobius doobius

If the world consists of EVERYTHING, (as it must; that is what we mean by "the world"), then the metaphysical is NOT prior;

No. It's that metaphysics is not rational, at all, and is a product of history, instinct and sentiment.

I don't EVER argue metaphysics except to examine metaphysical claims that others are making. Wittgenstein's claim isn't metaphysical it's a complete rejection of metaphysics as having any philosophical meaning, at all.

That's exactly my stance on metaphysics: it is philosophically meaningless.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 8:00 PM  

@ Koanic

Lol Asher threatened to leave.

*shakes head*

It's not a threat. I have no interest in watching a circle jerk of the kind that takes place over at Pharyngula, where it's not morbid it's frightfully boring.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 8:03 PM  

"Not to any meaningful extent, no. It's not that your arguments aren't well-though or that you have bad positions it's that the types of positions you argue and the arguments you make are of the kind that will only appeal to the types of people that already, generally, agree with you."

Bahahahahahaha


Ok...


Good.


And you see Agent Mongoloid... this is why we haven't bothered to engage you. You're clearly not tall enough for this ride.

Anonymous Koanic January 27, 2013 8:05 PM  

"Over on that thread when I posited "noumenon" as "undifferentiated reality" bla bla lies lies sperg sperg but that is precisely what Koanic was doing. "

I can only take so much of this before the thread derails... he's found my weak point... nghhhhhh

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 8:09 PM  

@ Koanic

use passive aggression, or want to. If you call him on his inadvertent uses,

Name one. Be specific. I am nakedly, coldly and viciously aggressive when it is called for an appropriate.

he'll just be offended

I couldn't give a shit what people think of me for the arguments I make. None of this is even remotely personal. That said, politically I am on the right and when people label me aspy, passive-aggressive, etc. they are engaging in the same tactics that leftists use. My only problem with conservatives doing this is that the left owns that territory and the right will lose when it fights on that ground.

I keep asking conservatives over and over "are you that hell bent on losing to the left?" and no one seems to want to answer that question.

not a sociosexual threat, and therefore we are not rabbits trembling before you.

You read waaaaay too much into Roissy. How in the world can anyone be a sociosexual threat over the internet??? That doesn't even make any sense. Is Vox a sociosexual threat to John Scalzi and the commenters on his blog??? If you think that he is then I would challenge you to specify how.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 8:11 PM  

@ Koanic

"Float like a phenomena, sting like a noumena"

D'oh. This was a wry comparison of Kant to Ali. Ali conned Frazier. Kant conned a bunch of philosophers. Sorry you missed the joke.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 8:26 PM  

@ VD

"Not to any meaningful extent, no." This ignores the fact that the traffic here has increased from 300 per day to 8,500 per day,

That's not a metaphysical claim, at all. The population of the US is around 300 million. 8500 is statistically insignificant. I, personally, find your blog value but I dispute that this increase has had any measurable affect on the overall political landscape. How many of that 8500 or those they influence have any real political clout?

Frankly, I find that depressing as I wish your blog were seriously influential on the overall political landscape.

An argument about what you do find meaningful is about as metaphysical as you can get.

Not necessarily. During world cup 2002 my sister told me she was avidly watching it. Since she had never watched soccer before I immediately responded "lemme guess, Christiano Ronaldo". She silently nodded yes.

She was watching Portugal's games because one guy was really sexy. The meaningfulness was one of her desires, instincts and sentiments, not of some rational assessment of meaning.

I don't make metaphysical arguments about the way things "ought to be" considered, which is the traditional pursuit of metaphysics. However, if I have a general synchronicity with other people's goals and sentiments I will make practical arguments about how to implement them.

I assume that your goal with this blog is to have an discernible impact on the overall state of political affairs. As intelligently as you argue I doubt that it has any. If I am incorrect about your goals for your blog then I won't dispute your definition of "meaningful", just note that I don't share it and that there's nothing either of us can do to convince each other.

So, no, my meaningful comment was not a metaphysical argument but an assumption that we already shared the same notion of what would make your blog "meaningful". Now, I may simply be incorrect on the facts and that there is evidence out there that demonstrates a large impact. That just implies you have a better command of the facts than I in assessing the impact of your blog, but at no point am I offering a metaphysical dispute.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 8:31 PM  

"First, we all die. Second, Signe seems to be a gun owner, or at least an advocate of private ownership, so this statement simply doesn't make any sense. Yes, she said it. It's also incoherent with other things she says and does."

No you blithering idiot. Nothing she said is inconsistent. it only appears so to you... because you are mentally defective.

Anonymous Idle Spectator January 27, 2013 8:32 PM  

Hey Koanic, I noticed that The Neverending Story is a complete thal movie. All the actors and actresses and even the puppets have huge thal eyes.

Thoughts?


Fantastic job on linking autism and Hans Asperger's to the face-reading. Now you need to find the actual genotypes that lead to the phenotypes on the face, and more on the melonhead genes.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 8:33 PM  

@ VD

I find your blog valuable

This is a metaphysical assertion. It's also unargued for. I don't have to argue for it as I'm simply stating a sentiment. What we call metaphysics is simply an expression of human sentiment for what we prefer, and that is not governed by reason.

Per Hume, reason is a slave to the passions. If metaphysical expressions are rooted in passion then they cannot be ruled by reason. That's all I'm saying.

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 8:36 PM  

I find your blog valuable

This is a metaphysical assertion.


No, it's a statement of fact*. "Your blog is valuable" is a metaphysical assertion.

*Even if false, as in the Webster example sentence "history abounds with false facts"

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 8:40 PM  

@ Idle Spectator

In various blog posts discussing "thals" the people who comment seem inordinately concerned with whether or not they, themselves, are thal. Personally, I found the posts, themselves, uninteresting, but what I did find interesting were all the commenters obsessing over thinking themselves as thal/nonthal.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 8:43 PM  

@ scoobius doobius

You thought Koanic was just "tweaking" me over the whole thal thing. Isn't it obvious that he was completely serious?

Anonymous Sensei January 27, 2013 8:46 PM  

See this thread reminds me of why I follow this blog; there's nothing quite like it anywhere on the net that I've found. It's like an intellectually open-season rock tumbler for brains, with Vox ensuring a steady supply of grit, and coming from a churchian background it's hard to explain how refreshing that is.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 8:48 PM  

@ Markkus

No, it's a statement of fact*. "Your blog is valuable" is a metaphysical assertion.

When people say

"x" is valuable

What they really mean is

I value "x"

That cognitive glitch is a product of our "just good enough to function" brain. We impute to the overall structure of Being our personal values. That's all metaphysics is, a projection of desire, lying beyond the governance of reason.

For the statement "x" is valuable to have any meaning it would have to have an a priori standard by which to compare.

Anonymous Scintan January 27, 2013 8:50 PM  

It's not a threat. I have no interest in watching a circle jerk of the kind that takes place over at Pharyngula, where it's not morbid it's frightfully boring.

Your posts are embarrassing both for their ineptitude and for your inability to grasp the irony in most of what you write. When you're gone, another will come to take your place. He, or she, will be more or less as ridiculous as you, but it will at least be something different. That's the circle of life around here.

So, be it threat, promise, or just statement of fact, feel free to walk away at any time. The only thing that will change is the name your replacement uses.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 8:50 PM  

@ Sensei

coming from a churchian background it's hard to explain how refreshing that is.

The commenters, here, are far closer to churchian than they'd care admit

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 8:50 PM  

You thought Koanic was just "tweaking" me over the whole thal thing. Isn't it obvious that he was completely serious?

Koanic was, but we have certain people here with specific monomanias (there are those who might - and undoubtedly will in the very near future - say that I have one) that most other people treat as a joke. Like Wheeler and his Spartans.

Anonymous Idle Spectator January 27, 2013 8:50 PM  

In various blog posts discussing "thals" the people who comment seem inordinately concerned with whether or not they, themselves, are thal. Personally, I found the posts, themselves, uninteresting, but what I did find interesting were all the commenters obsessing over thinking themselves as thal/nonthal.

You do realize there is more than just thals, right? That's like going to a mathematics conference, finding the lectures uninteresting, and then finding it interesting that all the people do is discuss math.


The stupid... is strong in this one.

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 8:56 PM  

What they really mean is

I value "x"


Yet you are arguing that Vox should change his approach. That means you think it has shortcomings against some standard shared by both, and not just your personal one (unless you are solipsistic). The question about advancing his ability to exert influence on the positions and behavior of others was in connection with that.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 9:07 PM  

@ Nate

Nothing she said is inconsistent.

First, I'm going to list some assumptions I've made from my experience:

A) Signe sounds like a Christian
B) For Christians, their only source of metaphysical value is the bible
C) Any metaphysics not grounded in the Bible is not Christian
D) Christians are still allowed human reason in order to function in the mundane world
E) Statements of ultimate ends are only permitted if they are found in the Bible

Do you disagree with any of these?

Further, let's examine the word "hell":

A) You claim that Signe used the term "hell" to mean "death"
B) Therefore, anywhere we examine that claim we can interchange "hell" and "death"
C) When we kill someone we are creating the situation of their death

Disagree with any of this? Seems unarguable to me.

Signe's original statement was something to the effect that

I want to avoid killing someone to avoid sending them to hell

Now if we replace "hell" with "death" then what she is saying is that

I want to avoid killing to avoid responsibility for their death

However "killing someone" IS "being responsible for their death", they're the same thing. If we replace "responsibility for their death" with "killing them" then we get

I want to avoid killing someone to avoid killing them

This statement is trivial and meaningless, in the sense that it is just logically true and content-free. There's no reason given as to why she wants to avoid killing them. However, since Signe seems to be a Christian that would imply that there is some biblical standard to apply when discussing the topic of killing.

I kept challenging her, and you and Loki, to find such a standard in the Bible. The Ten Commandments cannot be that standard because it was set to govern the Children of Abraham, and God himself says that the law that was intended to bring life actually brought death. Further, in the same Torah where God says "do not kill" he then goes on to command the Israelites to kill.

Either, there is a contradiction, here, or the restrictions on killing are not some overarching command to "never kill under any circumstances". I was challenging Signe to come up with a principle on when or when not to kill. She didn't. She just kept reiterating that she didn't want to kill and never gave any indication for a principle of when it might be justified.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 9:08 PM  

So Boobs, 1911s, and Bourbon?

good.

Everyone seen the new Sig Spartan? it warms the cockles of my heart.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 9:13 PM  

@ Idle Spectator

That's like going to a mathematics conference, finding the lectures uninteresting, and then finding it interesting that all the people do is discuss math.

No, no, no. The commenters weren't discussing the theory, at all. What they were was emotionally engaged in whether or not they were, personally, thals and how that might impact them. It would be like going to a math conference and finding that all the attendees had no interest in discussing math, itself, but interested in how much emotional impact math had on their lives.

For myself, math is moderately interesting but not fascinating. But listening to a bunch of mathematicians sitting around discussing their feelings related to math? THAT would be fascinating.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus January 27, 2013 9:15 PM  

@Asher

Have they convinced anyone to change behavior or positions? Not likely, in which case the only place the argument has been won is in their own head. That's not winning

In all the literally decades that I have been debating individuals, I doubt that I have honestly changed the position or behavior of a single individual opponent. This despite many solid victories and quite a few out-and-out baby seal clubbings over the years.

Spectators on the other hand, I suspect that I have had a positive impact upon over the years. The debates are often really about those watching quietly on the sidelines (and my own amusement). Demonstrating the power of your argument to them through crushing your opponent is often much more satisfying. Often times it is the simple act of showing someone who is correct but lacks the ability to justify why...demonstrating that they are correct while showing them why and how...that is the real goal.

If you're expecting to talk someone out of their own personal brand of willful foolishness; you've got another thing coming.

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 9:23 PM  

Signe's original statement was something to the effect that

I want to avoid killing someone to avoid sending them to hell


Here's the original statement:
--
The target is a person, a fellow creation of God, whom I'm sending to Hell because he's dumb enough to think he's doing the right thing. Knowing that I was doing the right thing doesn't make me actively happy about it. (emphasis mine)
--

How did Signe explicitly calling it the "right thing" turn into "some overarching command to 'never kill under any circumstances'"?

Anonymous Koanic January 27, 2013 9:24 PM  

I haven't seen the movie, Idle, but I think that large eyes with no Cro Mag side bone flange is an original melon trait spliced into Thals. Socket depth and wide spacing are uniquely Thal.

Thanks kindly and agreed on the 2nd para.

Markku, it's possible to tweak while completely serious.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 9:25 PM  

@ Darth

Yeah, that's my take, too. My main concern is that attempting to rationally debate a metaphysical position is that I don't think metaphysics is subject to human reason. It may look that way to us via back-rationalizing the various sentiments we have picked up over the years.

In which case, arguing the true nature of things is not going to get you anywhere without someone already sharing your sentiments because when we say "true nature" that is just a manifestation of sentiment and desire.

Anonymous Idle Spectator January 27, 2013 9:27 PM  

No, no, no. The commenters weren't discussing the theory, at all. What they were was emotionally engaged in whether or not they were, personally, thals and how that might impact them. It would be like going to a math conference and finding that all the attendees had no interest in discussing math, itself, but interested in how much emotional impact math had on their lives.

You don't think that an anthropology theory has relevance to individual people, who are, in fact, what anthropology studies... in the first place?

That's like people discussing and being "emotionally engaged" with heart problems, and how it pertains to and affects their own heart.

I can just imagine Asher running up and screaming, "THIS ISN'T MEDICINE!!!!! GET BACK TO DICUSSING THE HEART VALVES AND CARDIOMYOPATHY!!!!"


My. God. He's not a parody...

//facepalm


For myself, math is moderately interesting but not fascinating. But listening to a bunch of mathematicians sitting around discussing their feelings related to math? THAT would be fascinating.

Cool story, bro.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 9:29 PM  

In honor of all the philosophical hair-splitting going on around here, I move that when discussing boobs, we should have separate categories for boobs au naturel, and boobs whose allure is subtly augmented by the tasteful mise-en-scene of a well-chosen top.

As for 1911s I plead utter ignorance. If the gun conversation somehow takes a wrong turn into the difficulties of translating Rilke and Ionesco, then you have my permission to wake me.

As for bourbon... Bourbon? Really? You do Makers Mark and some Woodford Reserve, and then you're pretty much done in my view. The stuff is too sweet, has a coarse mouthfeel, and lacks complexity. It's a little like sake, it's fine for a bit of relaxation and it goes well with certain things over dinner or afterwards, but I see little to talk about. Don't let anybody tell you that there are a zillion types of fine sake in the world that are worth $450/bottle or something, it's ridiculous. There's bad sake and pretty good sake and very good sake (which is not super-expensive), and that's about the end of it. Same with bourbon.

These guys do some nice things...

http://www.clearcreekdistillery.com/home/

The website just screams annoying NPR-listening bien-pensant, but credit where credit is due, they make some nice shit out there.


Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 9:29 PM  

I agree with A.

I disagree with B) and C).

As for your logic.. it fails entirely.

1) Death and Hell are not the same and cannot be substituted for each other. It shows enormous intellectual dishonesty to try to pull this bait and switch. Killing someone, biblically, is "sending them to Hell".... the place of the dead. Its called a figure of speech.


2) She expressed that she wanted to avoid killing to provide as much time as possible for repentance and salvation. This is an act of charity that has nothing to do with moral obligation.

3) The Torah does not say "Do not kill". It says "Do not Murder". Killing in self-defense is not murder. Killing in war is not murder. These are established traditions predating the torah, and carried through the New Testament.

It is a perfectly christian attitude to want to see as many souls saved as possible. thus it is a perfectly christian attitude to seek to avoid violent confrontation that may end in killing... even in self-defense.

You have missed the concept of Christian love and charity almost completely.

Which is not surprising... because you are clearly mentally defective... and judging by this pathetic attempt... entirely incapable of correctly applying logic... and utterly devoid of biblical understanding, church history, and church tradition.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2013 9:35 PM  

As for bourbon... Bourbon? Really? You do Makers Mark and some Woodford Reserve, and then you're pretty much done in my view. The stuff is too sweet, has a coarse mouthfeel, and lacks complexity.

Heathen

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 9:41 PM  

"As for bourbon... Bourbon? Really? You do Makers Mark and some Woodford Reserve, and then you're pretty much done in my view. The stuff is too sweet, has a coarse mouthfeel, and lacks complexity."

Wait... Wait..

You name two of simplest... least complex bourbons there are... there's really no spice in either Makers or Woodfords... then you piss and moan about a lack of complexity?

...

really?

Try Bookers, Basil Haydens, and Wild Turkey Russel's Reserve... and Blantons.

Then get back to me.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 9:42 PM  

@ Markku

My objection was that Signe was obstinately refusing to provide a criteria of when killing was justified. If something just remains the sentiment "what makes me happy/unhappy" then it remains outside of the jurisdiction of rational discussion.

Consider the two statements:

A) Killing someone makes me unhappy
B) Eating creamed corn makes me unhappy

Now, in a completely structural way those two sentences are identical. The object of these two is the same: my happiness; the verb is the same; only the subject has changed.

But do these two statements lie in the same category of human experience? Not even close. The first clearly relates to moral claims and the second merely to food preference. What I was getting at was that Signe had some prior moral ideas that she was not explicitly stating.

An additional clue for the basis of her stated sentiment was the phrase "creation of God". Mosquitoes are also creations of God. Does she have any problem with sending them to hell, too? I mean if death and hell are synonymous then aren't all deaths a "going to hell"?

Therefore, there must be some missing component in what she's saying. That missing component is the immortal soul the one that God will raise on judgement day to receive his righteous judgement. That soul is not concerned with death, but with facing the lake of fire.

Signe may not even be aware of the basis of her sentiment. I grew up churchian and I know how deeply it has taken hold. Even those who claim to have escaped it are still far more influenced then they'd like to think.

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 9:44 PM  

My objection was that Signe was obstinately refusing to provide a criteria of when killing was justified.

Because she wasn't talking about justification in the first place. By "Knowing that I was doing the right thing" she already assumed it was justified in the scenario.

Anonymous Idle Spectator January 27, 2013 9:49 PM  

It's really all about the Zima. They pulled it from the shelves because the other beverage makers were jealous.

The clear liquid allows both a reflection, and a view, allowing one to both see oneself and also the surrounding world through a prism. The subtle, crisp bubbles; so refleshing! At 10 proof, it merely enthralls and beckons the liver, rather than deadening it. The citrus, tangerine, and pineapple flavors lead to a cleansing tonic of what ales you.

Yeah.

Blogger Nate January 27, 2013 9:51 PM  

I am done with Asher... I will only say this in closing...


I CAN STILL TYPING!!!!!

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 9:52 PM  

@ nate

Death and Hell are not the same and cannot be substituted for each other. It shows enormous intellectual dishonesty to try to pull this bait and switch

Then you're going to have to take that up with Loki because I was just responding to that claim of his. He directly stated that several times and I'm betting he has a better grasp of Signe than do you.

Also, this statement indicates that you weren't following the conversation very closely because Signe referred me to Loki's comment that death and hell were interchangeable.

I mean if I am called "dishonest" for simply reported a direct claim someone else made what's the point of discussing anything

Killing someone, biblically, is "sending them to Hell".... the place of the dead

You manage to contradict yourself in one sentence. that's quite a feat. Either death is hell or it is not. BTW, "sheol" IIRC simply meant "the grave". You're going to have to pick which definition you want. "Death" is the state of "being dead", that IS what it means. In other words the place, or state, of being dead.

"place of the dead" is interchangeable with "state of being dead". They're identical phrases. So, if hell is the place of the dead that means that hell is simply the state of being dead ... which is what I just said.

She expressed that she wanted to avoid killing to provide as much time as possible for repentance and salvation.

Ding Ding Ding!!!!!! Thats EXACTLY what I said she was saying.

The point is that sentiment that YOU just described is NOT biblical. It is extra-biblical. From a biblical perspective she has ZERO authority to express such a sentiment.

God, your reading comprehension is just shit.

Killing in self-defense is not murder. Killing in war is not murder.

Fine, but these are secular arguments based on human reason and have nothing to do with the bible. If she's exempting self-defense and war from prohibitions on killing she is not getting them from the bible but from human reason. And if she's arguing from reason then why bring up the issue of the "fellow creatures of God".

Just because I am at war with a fellow creature of God doesn't make him any less a fellow creature of God.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 9:57 PM  

@ Nate

It is a perfectly christian attitude to want to see as many souls saved as possible.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with killing and human government. You want to see more souls save? Great, go out and preach or lead by setting an example of God's love in your life.

"When to kill" is unrelated to saving souls. They are completely different subjects. BTW, you are also arguing against Loki, so you're going to have to take that up with him.

thus it is a perfectly christian attitude to seek to avoid violent confrontation that may end in killing..

Can you cite me chapter and verse? You are imputing your churchian sentiments into the bible. I know churchian sentiments well; I was raised in them.

You have missed the concept of Christian love and charity almost completely.

No, your churchian sentiments are not based in the bible, they are a cultural artifact, no more biblical than are the liberals who claim that a large welfare state is a biblical mandate.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 9:58 PM  

@ Nate

The problem is that your churchianity has very little to do with the bible.

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 10:00 PM  

Either death is hell or it is not.

Incorrect. KJV translates Sheol, Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus as Hell, and KJV still has a considerable effect on the English language.

Anonymous Koanic January 27, 2013 10:04 PM  

"I CAN STILL TYPING!!!!!"

The-Revenge-of-the-Aspie (movie)

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 10:06 PM  

Or if you want to 'sperg about what "is" is, then death is not equivalent to Hell, but is a subset of Hell, in the English language as influenced by KJV.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2013 10:07 PM  

Can you cite me chapter and verse?

Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, pray for those who persecute you?

Any of the ring a bell?

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 10:11 PM  

@ Markku

Because she wasn't talking about justification in the first place. By "Knowing that I was doing the right thing" she already assumed it was justified in the scenario.

Then why add the phrase "fellow creature of God"? That's not just some throwaway phrase, it's pretty compelling and specific. There must have been some reason she added it.

I kept on trying to get her to clarify the comment.

Incorrect. KJV translates Sheol, Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus as Hell, and KJV still has a considerable effect on the English language.

*sigh*

I was simply addressing a claim Loki made. He explicitly denied that hell was anything besides mere death. I known the different biblical terms that get translated as death.

It seems pretty clear to me that Signe did NOT mean "hell" as in "the grave" but hell as in the "lake of fire". Loki insisted otherwise and Signe decided it the right moment to claim that only believers have some magical intuitive property that allows them to understand the bible.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 10:13 PM  

@ Markku

I don't care which of the meanings she wants to use, but she needs to pick one and stick with it for the context of that comment. She refused to do that, and the one Loki offered turned her comment into gibberish.

Okay, you want to take a stab at explaining what she meant?

Blogger James Dixon January 27, 2013 10:14 PM  

> This is where you're supposed to provide an argument substantiating this assertion.

Why? Simple statements of the obvious do not need substantiation. "That was a beautiful sunset" isn't something requiring an argument, even if others may disagree.

> That's correct. Nothing more.

I guess all the cooperative working going into our scientific endeavors over the years has been completely wasted then.

> God, your reading comprehension is just shit.

This from a person who refuses to admit the meaning of "sending them to hell" and asks the source of "God helps those who help themselves".

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 10:19 PM  

@ Josh

I'm quite familiar with the verse. It says "love your enemies" not "don't have any enemies". And the "turn the other cheek" is a reference to the habit Jews had developed over time to lightly tweak the cheek of someone they considered ignorant of their scriptures. It's not about aggressive physical violence, at all.

Basically, "turn the other cheek" means "if someone insults you don't insult them back", and physical aggression is completely irrelevant to that context.

pray for those who persecute you

It seems pretty obvious that the ilk feel persecuted by the federal government. I don't see much praying going on here for Obama. Taken literally this looks to me like voting is unbiblical. Is that your position?

BTW, I grew up in a household that considered voting "unholy" as it was involvement with the things of this world. I didn't really engage with politics, at all, until college. Several families we knew also refused to vote on the basis that they considered any political action an acknowledgement of satanic power.

Anonymous Noah B. January 27, 2013 10:22 PM  

Asher, these people can help you if you will let them.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 10:26 PM  

@ James Dixon

Simple statements of the obvious do not need substantiation

Ah, asserting without arguing. At least you admit it. FYI, making a criterial assertion about someone is NOT a simple statement. You don't even comprehend the fucking meaning of "simple statement".

I guess all the cooperative working going into our scientific endeavors over the years has been completely wasted then

PZ Myers? Is that you?

This from a person who refuses to admit the meaning of "sending them to hell

I have asked for a specific definition of what it means and have gotten numerous, mutually exclusionary answers. If it's simple on it's face then why can't anyone give me a straight answer. Care to give it a shot?

"God helps those who help themselves".

I'm aware of the source, which is a god that is alien to the bible. It was a sarcastic quip to a supposed Christian citing a non-Christian god as a religious authority. Obviously the irony was lost on you.

I mean if you have to have it spelled out for you then what's the point.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 10:27 PM  

@ Noah B

Asher, these people can help you if you will let them.

Help me "what"?

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 10:27 PM  

A) Killing someone makes me unhappy
B) Eating creamed corn makes me unhappy


I think they WERE the same kind of statement, and the only difference was a quantitative one. Of course, happiness isn't the only reason not to kill someone, but the specifics of the scenario already assumed the killing justified.

Her claim wasn't that killing is categorically wrong, but rather that you seemed to take so much pleasure about the thought that you probably suffered from some degree of psychopathy. Now, I'm not going to debate that point, I'm merely saying that you are misrepresenting her claim by saying it was about justification of killing.

Okay, you want to take a stab at explaining what she meant?

Two possibilities. 1) She meant death, and Hell was poetic license in the KJV tradition.

Personally I think it is more probable, although not certain, that she:

2) Meant Gehenna, but since she wasn't writing legalese, the sentence meant "whom I'm in all likelihood, judging by the circumstances of the scenario, sending to Gehenna." But normal people don't write like that.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2013 10:28 PM  

And the "turn the other cheek" is a reference to the habit Jews had developed over time to lightly tweak the cheek of someone they considered ignorant of their scriptures. It's not about aggressive physical violence, at all.

Strong's would disagree with you:

rhapizó: to strike with a rod, hence to strike with the palm of the hand

So, yes, it is about physical violence.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 10:39 PM  

@ Markku

Of course, happiness isn't the only reason not to kill

Fine, but I kept challenging Signe to elaborate and clarify and she refused.

the specifics of the scenario already assumed the killing justified.

Fine, but what does that have to do with happiness? this is why people need to clarify their statements. She wouldn't.

ou seemed to take so much pleasure about the thought that you probably suffered from some degree of psychopathy

No. I take pleasure in telling leftists what war with the right will bring. It's called theater.

Politics IS theater.

When I was fifteen I was shooting targets with pistol-style pellet guns in a friend's backyard. Just as we were about to leave I drew on a squirrel I saw running across the fence about 30 feet away and nailed him, injuring him pretty badly. The odds of making that sort of shot was one in a million so there was no way you could have convinced me prior that I would hit the squirrel.

I cried all the way home. Over a squirrel. At fifteen.

Thats not exactly psychopathy. See, the problem with diagnosing someone with anything based on an internet discussion on the nature of government is ... moronic. I would never dream of doing it, and when someone does it is evidence that they simply don't want to contend a position.

It's a cowardly way of running from an argument while pretending you're not.

If Signe took issue with my position then she shouldn't have offered a weepy sentimental statement involving her happiness.

She meant death,

Which is what Loki said she meant. This interpretation of her usage reduces her comment to incoherent gibberish.

Meant Gehenna,

Which is what I said she meant. In which case she is claiming extra-biblical authority to judge the criteria whereby God judges who is sent to Gehenna. This is unbiblical and heretical.

Either

A) Sheol, which reduces to nonsense
B) Gehenna, which amounts to her claiming equality with God which is denied in Romans 2 and Matthew 7 and which I pointed out to her

there is no other possible interpretation of her statement.

Anonymous Noah B. January 27, 2013 10:39 PM  

"Help me "what"?"

Normalize, chill out, focus your thoughts, gain some composure. If that sort of thing holds any appeal.

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 10:42 PM  

@ Josh

Jesus everything you cite contradicts your own positions. That's pretty impressive.

palm of the hand

This is what's known as a "bitch slap". A closed fist signifies violence, an open hand contempt.

Ever been in a fistfight? Ever heard it called an "open handed, palm fight"?

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 27, 2013 10:43 PM  

"Try Bookers, Basil Haydens, and Wild Turkey Russel's Reserve... and Blantons.

Then get back to me."

OK, I'm back to you. Really, I have sampled Bookers, Blantons, Basil Haydens, and not a few of the top-shelf small-batch brands, whose names I can't recall. There's nothing really wrong or inferior about any of them, they make a fine highball, but there's not a lot to discuss either. A lack of complexity is not necessarily a fault or a demerit, it's just simplicity, which is fine, and is often even a virtue. A good bourbon and branch is a good bourbon and branch, it's just that there isn't a whole lot to talk about. Now, boobs, on the other hand, have a virtually infinite variety of fine layers and dimensions to engage the connoisseur.

It may also be a matter of comparative palate. If I lived say in SE Asia for 15 years on a diet of fish, rice, spices and fried tofu, then a good bourbon might seem almost exotic to me, and also a welcome echo of my homeland. But I eat an American diet and so the American quality of bourbon doesn't leap out at me in the way that even an entry-level whiskey does.

"You name two of simplest... least complex bourbons there are..."

That's not a fair way to proceed. Makers is a very common brand, and a standard-bearer as it were. Woodfords presents itself as a high-end product, which should reasonably be taken to be representative of something about bourbon. If those two lack complexity, it seems fair to infer that something in-born about bourbon lacks complexity, that's just its nature. For instance I drink Budweiser, I prefer it a lot of the time to more exotic or expensive beers, and I'm prepared to defend it. Or with whiskey: Bushmills and Jamesons are good but nothing special, but no one would say O, if you've only tasted Bushmills then you've never tasted whiskey!

Complexity is only one of many qualities that can make for a fine drink on a lazy summer afternoon. I'd never refuse a good glass of bourbon; it's just that I wouldn't have much to say about it afterwards, except Thank you kindly.

"then you piss and moan about a lack of complexity?"

I'm not pissing and moaning. I'm just talking. Where I come from it's considered poor manners to mischaracterize a man's words just because he says something you didn't happen to like.


...

really?

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 10:45 PM  

@ Noah B

chill out
...
focus your thoughts

These are completely opposite things. Focusing one's thoughts take effort and is pretty intense. Chilling out indicates a reduction of intensity.

Which should I do? Focus or chill out? I can't do both.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2013 10:48 PM  

This is what's known as a "bitch slap". A closed fist signifies violence, an open hand contempt.

Ah, but this is the action you claimed Jesus was responding to: "lightly tweak"

And what about the first definition, to strike with a rod?

Are you going to next argue that by "rod" Jesus actually means "pimp cane?"

And are you also going to argue that a slap is not violent?

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 10:49 PM  

@ scoobius doobius

I like good sippin' rum. Try Prichard's. When distillers take the alcohol from the cask it's around 100 to 110 proof and they cut it with water to get it to 80. Prichards takes water and ages it in the same casks that they age the rum so it has many of the same flavors and the cut doesn't take away from the flavor.

At least that's what the bartender told in a rum bar up here in Seattle.

Blogger Markku January 27, 2013 10:52 PM  

Fine, but what does that have to do with happiness?

It removes the other possible consideration: That killing in the circumstances is wrong. The scenario postulated that it wasn't.

If Signe took issue with my position then she shouldn't have offered a weepy sentimental statement involving her happiness.

Right after the part I quoted, came this:

If that doesn't give you pause, you might be a sociopath.

What am I saying? You advocate cutting toddlers to pieces for the crime of being related to someone who works for the government. You ARE a sociopath.


This here was the actual claim made. Again, I'm not going to debate the position, I'm just telling you to debate the right one. Justification wasn't it.

In which case she is claiming extra-biblical authority to judge the criteria whereby God judges who is sent to Gehenna.

I said "in all likelihood". That's not krino, that's anakrino. Something that Paul tells us to do in 1Cr 2:15 .

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2013 10:53 PM  

Also, from Luke, this is the word used:

tuptó: to strike, smite, beat

Anonymous Asher January 27, 2013 10:54 PM  

@ Josh

yes, an open hand throughout history has not generally be considered an act of violent aggression. There's a reason for the phrase "closed fist" and the appearance of a fist on all kinds of martial insignia.

My mom slapped me on the face a few times as a kid. It didn't signify physical aggression. She struck me on the cheek, forcefully.

Josh, do you any difference between a mother striking her five year old on the cheek with an open hand versus a closed fist? In other words, is there a difference between a slap and a punch in kind or merely in quantity?

Anonymous Noah B. January 27, 2013 10:58 PM  

"Which should I do? Focus or chill out? I can't do both."

I've noticed. But it is possible to do both.

You're ridiculously preoccupied with trivial details, like what exactly Signe meant when she talked about sending someone to hell. Or arguing over the precise definitions of half of the words that people use. What exactly is it that you think you're accomplishing? Do you really think you're winning some kind of debate and not just making yourself look like a fool?

Sometimes the one who gets the last word is the one who wins the debate. And sometimes he's just the crazy guy talking to himself while everyone else has moved on.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2013 11:00 PM  

Are you moving from "aggressive physical violence" to "violent aggression?"

Please be more precise in your word choice

1 – 200 of 368 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts