View Single Post
  #18  
Old 07-28-2011, 05:41 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledocs View Post
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:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=218323&postcount=126

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:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...&postcount=114

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.
When somebody on the internet claims they want to debate you, how far do you think that obliges you? Can you "shrink" from a debate into which you've never entered? In what sense has SK ever shown that he'd be a useful interlocutor in any such encounter?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote