View Single Post
Old 07-28-2011, 04:53 PM
ledocs ledocs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

So the criticisms keep changing. First, I have a low emotional IQ, which doesn't mean what it would normally mean, it means that I shrink from rational argument and disparage people instead. I have disparaged people, I agree. Whether I have done so unjustifiably or without provocation is another question. Then, I'm lazy. Well, I'm not really lazy, I'm intellectually vain. It is up to others to decide when I have disparaged people in order to avoid joining a rational argument. I say virtually never.

I thought I had made myself clear with respect to sugarkang (SK), here:

But in any event, I have already made some remarks which were not addressed to SK specifically but which provide an opening for making the kind of defense of economic libertarianism that I think would be necessary here:

If SK wants to address the problem of insurance within the scheme of economic libertarianism, fine.

SK now claims that he asked me more than once to refute libertarianism. I don't remember him asking me to refute libertarianism even once, let alone several times. I have just searched on the keywords “libertarianism” and “libertarian” over the past two weeks, and there is no post by SK addressed to me that uses either word. I would be interested in seeing citations of these requests before I agree in principle to do anything, ever, involving SK. How can I refute something, when I don't know exactly what it is that I am supposed to be refuting, in any case?

I have been doing a lot of posting lately, way too much, really, and a lot of it, regrettably, has involved SK. I have many other obligations over the coming days, and I am really not at all sure that I should be asked to engage with SK or that I should agree to do so. I am intellectually vain, but he calls me a liar, he never apologizes, and now I'm supposed to debate him? And I have to define libertarianism in order to refute my own definition? It all seems a bit much, really. It might be preferable to be judged a coward by you fair-minded and much put-upon seekers after truth and justice.
Reply With Quote