View Single Post
Old 07-29-2011, 08:44 AM
ledocs ledocs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)


Wow, you are a supreme dick. Have a look in this thread.
I looked in the thread. First, I asked you for citations in which you ask me to refute libertarianism. So I would like to be referred to specific post(s), not to a thread. But having looked in the thread, I think you are referring to this interchange, the one you quoted in part:

Originally Posted by ledocs
No, my mistake. That was operative I quoted, but I thought it was sugarkang. So I owe sugarkang an apology.
Originally Posted by sugarkang
No ill feelings on my end. Though, in the interest of civility, I ask that you give operative an open minded hearing. Libertarians work on different fundamental premises, so things may not actually be as they appear. But if afterward you still think he's an asshole, then tear him a new one!
Asking me to give operative a fair and open-minded hearing is not the same thing as asking me to refute libertarianism. I believe that even you should be able to see that, so I will refrain from going on at length about why this is so.

On that matter, though, I did react somewhat violently to operative's suggestion that if the welfare state were discontinued, unspecified anti-intellectual classes of people would dwindle away through attrition.

Operative had said:

I don't want the government to be in the business of trying to change culture. But if we move to flat tax, privatize social security and move toward privatized medicare accounts, eliminate welfare, eliminate public housing, etc. then there will be some pretty positive results. For one thing, the reproduction rate of people with anti-intellectual cultures will drop.

So as a practical matter, there is strong reason to doubt that this is true. Declining birth rates are associated with higher levels of education, especially among women, and with higher per capita incomes and a rising standard of living among the poor, not with an unemployed or underemployed underclass which receives no state support. Alternatively, though, highly nonlibertarian means can be used to achieve the lower birthrates among the unspecified anti-intellectual populations, means such as China's one-child policy or forced sterilization. I do not think there is any good reason to believe that libertarian means would achieve the eugenic ends operative wants to achieve.

Sugarkang continues:

Originally Posted by ledocs

After a subsequent little interchange we had about Israel, I stopped reading operative. I've been hitting "View Post" a lot over the past few days. I have sugarkang filtered too, because he said he was going to filter me and I said, "Fine, no big loss to me." This was after he had written something unintelligible, and it happened to be the first time I had seen a post of his, I think.
Originally posted by sugarkang

Except, this is a big fat lie. FAT LIE. I asked you to provide proof. You said you couldn't find it. Well, ask bhtv mods, then. You know what we call this in America? It's called slander (or libel if you want to get technical) you amoral charlatan.
Rather than apologizing for calling me a liar, you keep repeating this unprovable charge. In order for me to be lying, I would have to be aware that the facts are not as I assert them to be. But I don't know that, and I believe rather strongly that they are as I assert them to be. It's not my fault that the Search function in the software is not as robust as I would like or would need in order to find the interchange in question. I don't think bhtv staff have the time or inclination to look into the facts here. But what is worse, much worse, is that you would keep repeating this charge when you have read a lot of my posts, you can go to my blog and read more things there, including a published interview I did with a famous philosopher, you can Google my name and find out more about me, you could go to an academic library and read my published dissertation, or buy it on the Internet at an exorbitant price, you can listen to songs I have composed and performed, and so on. Meanwhile, you are hiding in anonymity, but yet you insist on calling me a liar, all because I assert that you threatened to filter me and that, in response, I did filter you. The facts here probably do not matter very much in any event, because I probably would have ended up filtering you anyway. But suppose that you are correct and that I am wrong about the underlying facts. Does this make me a liar? No, it does not. It makes me mistaken. I would have made a mistake. So why would I agree to enter into a debate with someone who shows me no goodwill whatever, who is just an anonymous bombthrower on the Internet, as aemjeff points out, and who shows no respect for precision in argument and is probably incapable of precision in argument in any case?

So va te faire foutre, espèce de connard. As I said before, I don't know you, and I don't want to know you.

And look, if you can't find better proxies than this one, you are in deep trouble. Ever see the movie "Hard Times," with Charles Bronson playing a streetfighter in New Orleans during the Depression? "Better find yourself another hitter."

Last edited by ledocs; 07-29-2011 at 09:07 AM..
Reply With Quote