Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Brian Peacock]

Your error is in forcing a dichotomy between the asserted normative morality of your own view while denigrating differing views as immoral 'collectivism'. In effect, your rhetoric undermines your own claims by marking you out as a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue.

"The right man is certain; the honest man sceptical." -- Alexander Hamilton

So rationally morally justify collectivism and prove me wrong. Saying that collectivism is moral is like saying that apples fall upwards off the tree, it's simply not factual and that is obvious to anyone with any sort of wit or intelligence. You're just doing exactly what I said all socialists do when their ideology is challenged: you resorted to ad hominem rather than providing rational arguments supporting the morality of collectivism.

First, I didn't say that collectivism is moral, nor did I say it represents a normative moral standard, or even advocate collectivism - so there's nothing for me to 'rationally morally justify' in that regard.

The implication of your support for collectivism and denigration of individualism is perfectly clear in your characterization of me as "a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue." You wouldn't say that if I were arguing for socialism.

You know next to nothing beyond the superficial about my political outlook, and quite frankly your characterisation of my views is pretty laughable. All you know is that I sometimes challenge and disagree with your expressed views. This is enough to mark me out as a collectivistic-Marx-loving-individualist-hating-eneny-of-freedom-and-liberty, apparently.

When you stake a normative claim to the moral rectitude of your views, and cite disagreement with same as a signifier of default moral turpitude--basically saying your are incapable of error and therefore never wrong, therefore making disagreement with you wrong automatically--then in fact you do come across as a over-zealous fanatic: an ideologue. I mean, when are you ever wrong about anything Seth, and when not has disagreeing with never been wrong?

[quote="]Second, I did say that you force a dichotomy by categorising views differing from your own as immoral 'collectivism' and then charging people to defend that categorisation - a point which is not an ad hominem and which you've just demonstrated once again.

What part of "[You are] a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue" is not ad hominem?[/quote]
I was specifically referring to your rhetoric, the manner in which your views are expressed, and how you force a false and polarising dichotomy into pretty much every discussion (demonstrating the point made above) and how that, imo, 'marks you out as a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue.' In this regard I am merely returning the favour.

Now get on with your defenses of collectivism or admit that you have none.

[/quote]
I have never advocated 'collectivism' and have no inclination to engage with a doomed and fallacious challenge to prove a negative to your satisfaction. However, that doesn't mean that I think your views then become the only game in town - far from it.

[pErvinalia]

I've never claimed that libertarians call for total freedom.

You have quite consistently and routinely done exactly that by clear and evasive implication, for two decades now.

Fuck off with your lies, you twat. You've never shown any interest in hearing anyone else's viewpoint. You've been bashing Marxist strawmen for most of your history. "Two decades"?? This alone shows how clueless you are. I've known you for about 2 years before rd.net went tits up. That can't be more than one decade ago.

[Seth]

I've never claimed that libertarians call for total freedom.

You have quite consistently and routinely done exactly that by clear and evasive implication, for two decades now.

Fuck off with your lies, you twat. You've never shown any interest in hearing anyone else's viewpoint.

The millions upon millions of words I've written doing exactly that belies your claim. You just think that "showing interest" means sucking your socialist cock. It's not my fault you're stuffed brim-full of Marxist twaddle and irrational propaganda, I just call it as I see it.

You've been bashing Marxist strawmen for most of your history. "Two decades"?? This alone shows how clueless you are. I've known you for about 2 years before rd.net went tits up. That can't be more than one decade ago.

And you think that RD.net was the beginning of my critique of Marxism? Nope. It's just when YOU became aware of it.

[pErvinalia]

You said "I" have done that for two decades. You can't even follow your own "argument" let alone anyone else's. :fuckoffhammersmilie:

[Seth]

Your error is in forcing a dichotomy between the asserted normative morality of your own view while denigrating differing views as immoral 'collectivism'. In effect, your rhetoric undermines your own claims by marking you out as a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue.

"The right man is certain; the honest man sceptical." -- Alexander Hamilton

So rationally morally justify collectivism and prove me wrong. Saying that collectivism is moral is like saying that apples fall upwards off the tree, it's simply not factual and that is obvious to anyone with any sort of wit or intelligence. You're just doing exactly what I said all socialists do when their ideology is challenged: you resorted to ad hominem rather than providing rational arguments supporting the morality of collectivism.

First, I didn't say that collectivism is moral, nor did I say it represents a normative moral standard, or even advocate collectivism - so there's nothing for me to 'rationally morally justify' in that regard.

The implication of your support for collectivism and denigration of individualism is perfectly clear in your characterization of me as "a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue." You wouldn't say that if I were arguing for socialism.

You know next to nothing beyond the superficial about my political outlook, and quite frankly your characterisation of my views is pretty laughable. All you know is that I sometimes challenge and disagree with your expressed views. This is enough to mark me out as a collectivistic-Marx-loving-individualist-hating-eneny-of-freedom-and-liberty, apparently.

Here in this forum you are what you write, nothing more, nothing less, and no fallacious appeal to self-confessed authority will be accepted.

If you quack like a collectivist and you waddle like a collectivist, then for the purposes of argument here you're a collectivist. I do fully realize that this particular aspect may be only a persona you choose to put on for the purposes of argument, and I'm quite certain that you're a hearty and sterling character whom I wouldn't mind having a pint with any time at all. After all, that's all you know of me...what I choose to reveal to you through this persona.

When you stake a normative claim to the moral rectitude of your views, and cite disagreement with same as a signifier of default moral turpitude--basically saying your are incapable of error and therefore never wrong, therefore making disagreement with you wrong automatically--then in fact you do come across as a over-zealous fanatic: an ideologue.

Only if I'm wrong in my assessment of your disagreement as being a signifier of default moral turpitude, which of course I'm not.

I mean, when are you ever wrong about anything Seth, and when not has disagreeing with never been wrong?

Well, never really. I once thought I had made a mistake but then discovered I was wrong about that.

If you don't want to be wrong, don't disagree with me, or at least provide a compelling and rational argument supporting your disagreement.

Note to you: If I critique and deconstruct your argument it means that it's not a compelling and rational one that has both a strong foundation and supported conclusions. After all, my job as Interlocutor is to do precisely that; deconstruct faulty and fallacious arguments and reveal their flaws so that the student can learn from his or her mistakes and learn to formulate better, stronger arguments.

[quote="]Second, I did say that you force a dichotomy by categorising views differing from your own as immoral 'collectivism' and then charging people to defend that categorisation - a point which is not an ad hominem and which you've just demonstrated once again.

What part of "[You are] a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue" is not ad hominem?[/quote]

I was specifically referring to your rhetoric, the manner in which your views are expressed, and how you force a false and polarising dichotomy into pretty much every discussion (demonstrating the point made above) and how that, imo, 'marks you out as a fanatical, self-authorising ideologue.' In this regard I am merely returning the favour.

Well, that is the nature of Socratic dialog I'm afraid. If you don't like it, then learn to rebut it effectively without adding more and more errors in reasoning and logic each time you try.

Now get on with your defenses of collectivism or admit that you have none.

[/quote]

I have never advocated 'collectivism' and have no inclination to engage with a doomed and fallacious challenge to prove a negative to your satisfaction. However, that doesn't mean that I think your views then become the only game in town - far from it.

Ah, so you can't. I see. Pity about that. And how is it exactly that a defense of collectivism is "proving a negative?" Are you asserting that collectivism does not exist?

[Seth]

You said "I" have done that for two decades. You can't even follow your own "argument" let alone anyone else's. :fuckoffhammersmilie:

And I have. Since 1987 in fact, as I recall. Just because you weren't privy to those early arguments doesn't mean they didn't occur.

[pErvinalia]

Are you mentally retarded (more so than usual)? You were referring to ME! Not you, ffs. Seriously, you can't even read your own words properly. THIS is exactly why you can't read anyone else's viewpoint properly.

[Seth]

Are you mentally retarded (more so than usual)? You were referring to ME! Not you, ffs. Seriously, you can't even read your own words properly. THIS is exactly why you can't read anyone else's viewpoint properly.

No, I wasn't.

[pErvinalia]

Holy fuck. Go to hospital immediately. There is no doubt you are having a stroke or something.

[Seth]

Are you mentally retarded (more so than usual)? You were referring to ME! Not you, ffs. Seriously, you can't even read your own words properly. THIS is exactly why you can't read anyone else's viewpoint properly.

Hm, well, it is true that you and I have not been sparring for two decades. My bad. It seems like an eternity though, so you'll have to excuse my temporal confusion. My point remains however, you habitually use these sorts of tactics to deflect and derail when you get uncomfortable with being bested. Sometimes you throw a tantrum and run away as well.

We're having a post-overrun here. I'm going to go watch "Sea Patrol" from your neck of the woods. Not particular realistic but kind of fun and Bomber is the bomb, as is Nav.

Nighty, night.

[pErvinalia]

This is what you said:

You [i.e. rEvolutionist] have quite consistently and routinely done exactly that by clear and evasive implication, for two decades now.

edit: I'm glad to see you've finally seen the error. You make these errors a FUCKLOAD of the time. Slow down and think before posting shit.

[Brian Peacock]

Holy fuck. Go to hospital immediately. There is no doubt you are having a stroke or something.

I could do with one of those. Seriously. I haven't had gentle fingers dancing a concerto across my ribcage since before the 56k modem became obsolete.

Oh, you didn't mean that kind of stroke...

[DaveDodo007]

Holy fuck. Go to hospital immediately. There is no doubt you are having a stroke or something.

Lol, this from the person who has been wrong for a decade and no amount of evidence will change your mind.

[pErvinalia]

"wrong for a decade"? Wow. That's impressive blindsight you've got. I think we've known each other for about 2 years.

[Seth]

"wrong for a decade"? Wow. That's impressive blindsight you've got. I think we've known each other for about 2 years.

That doesn't mean you haven't been wrong for a decade...or more.

Besides, how do you know you've only known him for 2 years? Maybe you just think so.