Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2014, 11:39 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 11:15 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-06-2014 11:04 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Then why are you so ignorant?
I'm not, it's just the worst thing you think you can say to me.

I'd say your track record of saying things which are not true speaks to the veracity of my statement rather well, wouldn't you?

Since there is a very great deal you demonstrably are unaware of, but speak to regardless - without any apparent awareness of that lack of knowledge - you embody the word "ignorant" like few others I've ever met.

I am at times annoyed with you. But to label you "ignorant" is purely reactive to the nonsense you spout. It is, once again, a value-neutral statement - a well-attested observation.

What you choose to do with that observation is your own prerogative.

So far you have chosen to double down on it. That's not compelling.

I mean, it's all very charming and all that you're going to attempt to pretend that that's my problem, but protip: it's not.

Incidentally, you've called me far worse.

(25-06-2014 11:15 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Tell me, what did YOU study? Any humanities?

Since I cannot pursue dedicated studies in every field on the planet, much though I'd like to, I am, as you know, a physicist. I'm nobody special even in that field - although I certainly know far more of it than you do, as you ought to recall. You are nobody special, either; in any field. The problem is that in your self-assured delusion, you've latched onto the idea that you are. You, O privileged one, are the self-appointed guiding light of a new world order. It does not take much knowledge of statistics to determine that of the respecitively likelihoods of either you or several billions of others being correct leans rather heavily to the latter.

Appeal to authority is one of the few fallacies you don't work into every post; I guess it was only a matter of time.

In a world where the likes of William Lane Craig make the same appeal, one must evaluate it by the content of arguments put forth.

Yours are, as ever, founded on ignorance and adhered to with unfalsifiable fervour.

Good luck with that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, not true. Just because there wasn't a direct income tax, there were taxes such as real estate, personal property, and sales taxes, as well as tariffs and fees.

All of these came out of people's pockets, too.

Are all libertarians this ignorant?

Who knows? Maybe it's just the ones we get stuck with, but I'm not about to seek any out.

Although, that is how Michael Shermer self-identifies. He's certainly not ignorant, but he's as capable of ideological bias as the next man despite being much more self-aware about such things. He certainly captures the sprit of smarmy condescension that seems to go with the territory.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 12:47 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2014 01:06 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Since I cannot pursue dedicated studies in every field on the planet, much though I'd like to, I am, as you know, a physicist. I'm nobody special even in that field - although I certainly know far more of it than you do, as you ought to recall. You are nobody special, either; in any field. The problem is that in your self-assured delusion, you've latched onto the idea that you are. You, O privileged one, are the self-appointed guiding light of a new world order. It does not take much knowledge of statistics to determine that of the respecitively likelihoods of either you or several billions of others being correct leans rather heavily to the latter.

Appeal to authority is one of the few fallacies you don't work into every post; I guess it was only a matter of time.

In a world where the likes of William Lane Craig make the same appeal, one must evaluate it by the content of arguments put forth.

Yours are, as ever, founded on ignorance and adhered to with unfalsifiable fervour.

Good luck with that.
In other words, you did not study any humanities, you engage in a highly social topic. And when asked directly, you go on this convoluted mini-rant, because you are ashamed to be caught without credentials. And you do not apologize in the slightest for bullshitting everyone as Rev would say.

I'm just a student at university subjects, of course. Not a real historian. But I am more than a student, I'm an expert at something. That something is a multi-disciplinary approach, or generalism. I've gotten a basic grip of so many subjects, that they all have something to say about every single new subject I learn. This is something that can't be taught, it can't be advertised or culturally approved. It's something everyone thinks they can do, but they can't. The reason why they can't is, a true generalist will love and worship logical arguments, reason and philosophy and will light up like a lightbulb when he encounters them for the first time, because this is a long-sought instrument, enormously useful for generalism.

The problem is, if you think pseudoscience in religious take on natural sciences is bad enough, it's much, much worse in social sciences. Social sciences only get away with it, because they made a virtue out of precise describing, not testing and evaluating, because of course every evaluating in social sciences is shamelessly exploited by politics. And natural science only escapes politization because it's mostly so distant from social world.

So this pseudoscience in humanities is so bad, that it is THE culture as you know it. There can't be any logic, reason and testing in humanities, because then they would question the culture itself, the world as we know it. Oh, there of course are leftists and marxists, but they're harmless, because they criticize merely social constructs, the shadow play that is the "society", doesn't really exist.
What philosophy, psychohistory and some psychology criticizes, is the sore spot - the individual inconsistent, violent, immoral, dishonest behavior of people in power, be they parents or politicians. They have no idea what is goodness or truth, yet they always control others on the basis of goodness and truth and invent special advantages for themselves. And that knowledge is a huge no-no in "decent company", much less in an academic community. Some will cheer for criticizing authorities, but when I add parents, there will be awkward silence. Because about 90 % of people in any given room on Earth (except Sweden or so) were beaten into submission by parents and were forced to accept that as a moral thing and thus a lack of authority is immoral for them. They have to either condemn me or their parents - and guess what is easier. What worse, they have beaten their children and would have to condemn themselves! Such people almost have no hope.
That is the dirty, dirty secret behind most of the social sciences and whole human society and history as such. Good luck wrapping your head around that.

In my teens, before I learned about natural sciences, I believed half of fallacies against evolution (grew up slightly Christian, had lots of conspiracy magazines, nobody around understood evolution). That is about your level when it comes to humanities. I can't even talk to you about that. I only do that because other people might benefit from it and see the difference between what we say.

(25-06-2014 11:07 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I cannot understand that either. He has the historical knowledge of a 6 year old yet claims to have masters in this. Either that or he just intentionally misrepresents what he knows to be false to support his ideology. If that is the case it makes it worse.
Hey! No bullshit please. I didn't say I have a master's. I'm a student for master's degree.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 12:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In other words, you did not study any humanities, you engage in a highly social topic. And when asked directly, you go on this convoluted mini-rant, because you are ashamed to be caught without credentials. And you do not apologize in the slightest for bullshitting everyone as Rev would say.

I'm just a student at university subjects, of course. Not a real historian. But I am more than a student, I'm an expert at something. That something is a multi-disciplinary approach, or generalism. I've gotten a basic grip of so many subjects, that they all have something to say about every single new subject I learn. This is something that can't be taught, it can't be advertised or culturally approved. It's something everyone thinks they can do, but they can't. The reason why they can't is, a true generalist will love and worship logical arguments, reason and philosophy and will light up like a lightbulb when he encounters them for the first time, because this is a long-sought instrument, enormously useful for generalism.

The problem is, if you think pseudoscience in religious take on natural sciences is bad enough, it's much, much worse in social sciences. Social sciences only get away with it, because they made a virtue out of precise describing, not testing and evaluating, because of course every evaluating in social sciences is shamelessly exploited by politics. And natural science only escapes politization because it's mostly so distant from social world.

So this pseudoscience in humanities is so bad, that it is THE culture as you know it. There can't be any logic, reason and testing in humanities, because then they would question the culture itself, the world as we know it. Oh, there of course are leftists and marxists, but they're harmless, because they criticize merely social constructs, the shadow play that is the "society", doesn't really exist.
What philosophy, psychohistory and some psychology criticizes, is the sore spot - the individual inconsistent, violent, immoral, dishonest behavior of people in power, be they parents or politicians. They have no idea what is goodness or truth, yet they always control others on the basis of goodness and truth and invent special advantages for themselves. And that knowledge is a huge no-no in "decent company", much less in an academic community. Some will cheer for criticizing authorities, but when I add parents, there will be awkward silence. Because about 90 % of people in any given room on Earth (except Sweden or so) were beaten into submission by parents and were forced to accept that as a moral thing and thus a lack of authority is immoral for them. They have to either condemn me or their parents - and guess what is easier. That is the dirty, dirty secret behind most of the social sciences.

In my teens, before I learned about natural sciences, I believed half of fallacies against evolution (grew up slightly Christian, had lots of conspiracy magazines, nobody around understood evolution). That is about your level when it comes to humanities. I can't even talk to you about that. I only do that because other people might benefit from it and see the difference between what we say.

Complete failure to engage. Thanks for playing.

Keep on restating the demonstrably false, bud. That's a great way to make friends and influence people.

"You only disagree with me because you were beaten as a child" is perhaps the latest and greatest example of you outdoing yourself in reaching new heights of vapid delusion.
(even "I'm special and magical and superior and brilliant and therefore I don't have to make sense to others" doesn't quite match it)

It's long past the point where anyone else here has much hope of an actual discussion with you. You've moved beyond that into sanctimonious knee-jerk raving. Have fun stroking off.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 01:34 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 01:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Complete failure to engage. Thanks for playing.

Keep on restating the demonstrably false, bud. That's a great way to make friends and influence people.

"You only disagree with me because you were beaten as a child" is perhaps the latest and greatest example of you outdoing yourself in reaching new heights of vapid delusion.
(even "I'm special and magical and superior and brilliant and therefore I don't have to make sense to others" doesn't quite match it)

It's long past the point where anyone else here has much hope of an actual discussion with you. You've moved beyond that into sanctimonious knee-jerk raving. Have fun stroking off.
Yup, that's about it. I say: Don't hit! Hitting is bad! Let's not attack anyone, especially children. Let's not have a central attacking agency to which we pay taxes, or it attacks us. We can all be united in not attacking, just like we are united in not believing in God.
I know most of us were attacked as children and we only could survive that, because we came to accept attacking as necessary. "I was spanked and I turned out fine, it taught me respect!"
And so we are really pressed hard when we see a problem - because in all our history the response to a problem was an attack of the stronger against the weaker. The weaker is blamed, of course, for being so depraved and provoking the stronger person's wrath. But that never solves any single social problem, ever. Which is why all sociologists know how humanity is at least hundreds of years ahead technically than socially. But nobody knows why, because they don't know or don't admit what was just said. Which doesn't depend on me, of course. Everyone should think about why that makes or doesn't make sense.

Anything demonstrably false should be demonstrated, btw.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 01:37 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 01:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yup, that's about it. I say: Don't hit! Hitting is bad! Let's not attack anyone, especially children. Let's not have a central attacking agency to which we pay taxes, or it attacks us. We can all be united in not attacking, just like we are united in not believing in God.
I know most of us were attacked as children and we only could survive that, because we came to accept attacking as necessary. "I was spanked and I turned out fine, it taught me respect!"
And so we are really pressed hard when we see a problem - because in all our history the response to a problem was an attack of the stronger against the weaker. The weaker is blamed, of course, for being so depraved and provoking the stronger person's wrath.

I can't for the life of me figure out how that's a coherent response.

(25-06-2014 01:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Anything demonstrably false should be demonstrated, btw.

Oh, it's just little things like every part of this nonsense:
(25-06-2014 03:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  [Image: 599945_10152294852840515_993484051_n.jpg]

But I do understand how vapid image macros are easier than actual responses...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: