You know what would have really made it look like a robbery…
There is no argument that only a robber would not have stopped at $150. If the racist criminal has just killed a guy and already stolen some money, he is not going to intentionally ignore the rest of the money for some unknown reasons. If the perp really wanted the world to think that it was a hate crime there are far better ways of announcing that than pretending to ignore money in an open drawer.
I questioned two claims you made. One of your claims is highly subjective – that D’Anconia “picked on” Ambivalid. You offered up the following in support of that claim:
I pointed out that this seems like a weak example of “picked on.” But it’s true that one person’s wry observation may be another’s harassment; I don’t see any “picking,” but it’s not really possible to define concretely what “picking on” looks like at the borders of the expression, so I’ll assume that you and I simply have vastly different tolerances for what constitutes “picking on.”
But the second claim is susceptible to much more rigorous proof. This is your claim that D’Anconia “whined about capital gains taxes.” I have bolded the relevant section below to aid you in your recollection:
The only evidence you’ve offered here is some comment D’Anconia made about progressive tax rates.
This leads me to believe that you think the two are similar. As I explained, they’re not.
Do you now understand that progressive tax rates and capital gains tax are not the same thing?
Do you have some other example in which D’Anconia does whine, or even talk, about capital gains tax?
Or is it fair to say that this latter claim of yours was a mistake?
IMO, it’s not really a mistake. The quoted post was in response to a response about taxing capital gains as ordinary income (i.e., progressively).
I’m not defending Count Blucher here; this is pretty weak tea for a poster as obviously despicable as D’Anconia, and it doesn’t really have anything to do with this ridiculous thread.
But if you want the challenge of defending D’Anconia against these charges of “whining”, it’s possible the Count linked to the wrong thread. Here is a thread discussing capital gains where D’Anconia posts multiple times. Does it count as “whining”?
Good job on missing the point.
Here is the post in question:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18852524&postcount=12
Peremensoe made two statements that are inherently contradictory.
The problem is, progressive tax rates are government social engineering in and of themselves. They were introduced, in large part, to reduce income inequality. You can look this up, yourself.
N.B. My posts had nothing to do with capital gains tax specifically. It could have been a tax on balloons or marshmallows.
Maybe someone cares about your point in that thread, but I sure don’t. It was a thread about capital gains, and Peremensoe was responding to that (and weirdly enough, altered the OP in the quote box when he replied to it 
).
Bricker asked for another link to an instance of you posting about capital gains, and I cited another thread, with direct links to your seven posts in it.
My only interest is whether or not your posts in that other thread can be characterized as “whining”, or if that is also a subjective call. As I said, I consider you despicable, so that might color my view. I’ll accept Bricker’s judgement, should he actually be interested enough (or bored enough) to consider it.
I wouldn’t call it whining, but I absolutely agree that it’s fair to do so; he is complaining, at least, about a capital gains proposal. So I agree, based on this evidence, that Count’s comment is defensible.
(ETA: while “whining,” is another subjective term, and I wouldn’t apply it here, I think it’s very reasonable for someone else to do so. In other words, I regard “whining” applied here as very fair commentary.)
I disagree, on two points. I didn’t complain about a capital gains proposal, I asked for clarification and pointed out what I thought were errors. At one point, a poster in the Jan 2015 thread (almost a year ago) suggested that capital gains be taxed on paper profits, not just when assets are sold. Ridiculous, as many/most people couldn’t afford to do so. In fairness, he or she walked that statement back.
Also, there is exactly zero evidence that Blucher was referring to the year old thread, he was referring to the recent thread, where I was talking about progressive tax rates, not capital gains. As you pointed out, it’s doubtful that Blucher (or camille) knows the difference. shrug
I agree, based on Blucher’s post, that the strong evidence is he doesn’t (or didn’t) know the difference, and honestly believed the terms were synonymous.
But as to your first argument – nope. One person’s asking for clarification and pointing out errors can certainly (if snarkily) be called whining, especially in The Pit. It’s not the best, fairest summary, but it’s absolutely defensible.
Well, considering a thread about Broomstick and whether or not some guy had a word burned into his ass has evolved into a catfight between Bricker and D’Anconia about taxes and whether someone was mean to Ambivalid, I would argue that not only have goalposts been moved, but we’re playing a completely different game now. 
When you point out the errors of other posters in matters of the law, are you whining?
I’m not going to review your posts: I’ll merely address your inquiry.
Whining is a) complaining about things that aren’t especially important or b) complaining about things with an inflated sense of entitlement.
You can point out errors with or without complaining. So your question can’t be answered definitively.
No.
But if someone were, in the Pit, to describe my biting, insightful commentary on such errors as “whining,” I’d probably say what I said here: I don’t agree, and would not have called it whining myself, but it’s defensible commentary.
Yes, I realize that posters can say (almost) whatever they want in the Pit. It doesn’t mean that their comments are rational, let alone defensible.
Based on D’Anconia’s absurd posts in this thread, the posts in this thread, and everything else I’ve seen from him, I’m now thoroughly convinced that he is one or more of the following:
If it’s one of the first two - good job overall, but you’re a little too out there to be believed. I’d recommend taking a more subtle approach next time.
Have we ever had a poster with a username taken from Ayn Rand who wasn’t a complete asshole? It pretty much comes with the territory.
Um…you do know that John Galt’s nickname was Green Bean, right?
Oh wait…
We do have a JohnGalt though I don’t remember his posts being over the top.
Your definition of absurd is well, absurd.
It’s simply not rational to call the police, let alone trying to get a restraining order, because someone walks by your house.
Great example of why your posts are so laughable. If you have to rely on such pathetic straw men, you are obviously unable to make a valid point. You’re also being downright dishonest.
The OP of that thread did not call the cops because the neighbor just walked by his house. He called them because the neighbor threw glass, used condoms, and bloody tampons on his lawn.
Did you even bother to READ Atlas Shrugged?
I’ve read it several times, along with The Fountainhead and Anthem. I’m pretty sure Ayn Rand’s philosophy doesn’t include being a liar because you’re too weak to deal with the truth.
Bullshit, you dumb bitch.
The horror! Call the police!!!