My point, friend, is that your posts have been object-lessons in the very smug, unreflective dismissals that are long on insults and short on ideas that you purport to decry.
Actually, I do think you rue that kind of argumentation. I just think you lack the self-awareness to see that you’re one of the biggest offenders in that regard.
Clear now?
^^This
Again I; take the end of the post to illustrate the problem I have with its beginning :).
The first problem with your being dismissive is that you only give propositions 30 seconds of thought, so sure are you that they’re incorrect–and consequently you misunderstand their point. I saw this a lot in the discussion of the value of culture in SSM threads–but I strongly suspect it’s in play in your “I’m smarter than you because I’m an atheist.” paraphrase. I can only think of one regular poster who’d say anything like this, but I’ve seen you responding to a bunch of people as if they’re saying something like this, because you only thought superficially about what they’d said, instead of treating it with the respect it really deserved.
If you give folks more than 30 seconds of thought, you may discover that dismissing them would’ve been the wrong decision.
The second problem with your being dismissive is one I succumb to myself: if they’re really that dumb, you properly dismiss them wordlessly. Don’t bother responding to them at all. Witness how I, on second thought, treat Kimmy’s latest post to me.
Really? So when someone starts the argument with, “What you believe is idiotic for its lack of conforming with what I believe.”, then I am being dismissive for being dismissive of them? That’s some fucked up tortured logic you’re using there.
Heh, well if you are thinking of Lobohan then we’re on the same page, if not then you should realize maybe there’s more than one. As for the value of culture in same sex marriage thing I understood where the other side was coming from. One of the advantages of arguing a devil’s advocate position is that you already know what the other side believes because you more or less agree with them in actuality. What was happening in that thread is that people were getting very personally upset that I wouldn’t back down from my devil’s advocate position, and were arguing with me as though I didn’t understand their viewpoint when I understood it perfectly.
I do give folks more than 30 seconds of thought, when it’s warranted.
Yes, agreed, that is the more mature way of going about it. It doesn’t fight ignorance, but it cuts down on strife.
Were I cynical and middle-aged, I’d be tempted to read this as an admission of trolling. Since I’m not both cynical and middle-aged, today at least, I’ll just suggest that you avoid saying things like this because people might accuse you of trolling, and I’d hate to see that. Have a nice weekend and thanks for posting. No warning issued.
**Gfactor **
Pit Moderator
FinnAgain, your dishonesty is profound. You are a liar. There is no point in engaging with you on any level whatsoever because there is not the slightest goodwill. I know you’re too stupid to recognize what a breathtaking indictment this is, so I will try to explain it to you. In the Kantian system of ethics, all morality is based on honesty. Your deliberate mischaracterization of everything I write in order to support your flimsy self-worth makes you not just dishonest, but evil.
Lie.
I could explain to you why you’re wrong, but there’s no point, is there? For there to be even a basis of discussion, you would have to show some sort of goodwill. Literally all you do is construct strawmen, over and over and over again, deliberately lying and mischaracterizing what I write, presumably because you’re too stupid to know how to counter my actual claims. You have constructed an evasion structure such that if I refuse to engage with you, I’m a “woomeister” flake who doesn’t support his assertions, while if I do try to argue with you, you will take every word I write and deliberately and maliciously lie about the content and meaning of it.
The goal of all of this is to force me, like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, to engage with you forever on dishonest terms which you hope will make you look like some kind of smug, cynical Svengali toying with his prey. Fortunately I have a triple digit IQ, and I can choose to stop kicking at your football, Lucy.
The great irony of this is that anyone with an actual understanding of political science knows exactly what I’m talking about. Liberalism is based in the 19th century modernist movement, holding that individual liberties always trump collective rights, and that the community is best served when selfish personal interest is allowed free rein – Adam Smith’s invisible hand being the best example of this. Any number of anarchist theorists have written about this (from BOTH sides of the argument) from Malatesta to Spooner. But of course, you are not only dishonest, you’re an ignoramus and have no idea what you’re talking about. Where you aren’t lying, you’re simply stupid.
You’ll notice that there are lots of people who disagree with me whom I don’t regard as malicious and stupid. I will argue with them quite happily 'til the cows come home because they don’t lie and they’re capable of understanding any arguments I might pose them. You, on the other hand, are both dense and dishonest.
I’m a Wobbly delegate, the organizer of the OPU – an organization which has attracted international attention – and the organizer for the local copwatch program. What are your activist bona fides, snookums?
No, they aren’t. Neither in the real political science sense or the Amerikan bizarro-world sense. The two arms are collectivism and individualism, with Amerikan-style liberalism and conservatism both lying on the individualist arm with varying degrees of authoritarianism. But of course, you’re too stupid to understand this – and worse yet, believe your ignorance is actually a sign of your superiority. You are dumb. Get it? People don’t want to engage with you not because you’ve got some kind of acerbic Wildean wit, but because you’re just too gosh-darn stupid.
Free clue: Perhaps the reason I didn’t feel the need to “defend” it is because it was a perfectly accurate assertion, and even a cursory examination of anthropological texts dealing with shamanism will reveal the accuracy. It’s possible to debate whether the view I presented is held by a sizable minority rather than a strict majority, but a person who is honest (you aren’t) and intelligent (you aren’t) will see pretty quickly that the link between shamanism and schizophrenia is pretty widely recognized.
The DSM-IV and the DSM-IV casebook are expensive texts. I can’t afford to own copies, and I can’t access them online, and I’m not going to waste my time going down to the library to find the actual text for a person who is simply going to lie about what I write anyway. As I indicated in the original thread, I have no personal experience with Latin American culture. The DSM-IV casebook provided a concrete example of the cultural relativism about which I was discussing, and I repeated it in good faith. When someone with personal experience indicated that the DSM-IV was wrong, I – again in good faith – accepted that this may well be the case and moved on, because the truth or falsity of the specific example was immaterial to what was under discussion.
But then, I’d hardly expect you to understand something this nuanced, because you’re stupid.
What am I “making up,” liar?
Incidentally, my “woo-woo” frothing insanity about aspartame consisted of a single sentence in a response to someone’s inquiry about stevia in which I noted the (perfectly accurate) concerns about methanol. And when I produced a peer-reviewed article detailing the specific concerns about methanol – a concern which has been recognized for well over two decades – the very age of the document was used as “proof” of its inaccuracy. No one has presented any peer-reviewed documentation that chronic exposure to methanol is totally harmless, because no such documentation exists. Instead, we get you and Jackmannii putting on your dog-and-pony show, being intellectually dishonest (par for the course) and attempting to hand-wave away the concerns of sizable numbers of the very scientific community you claim to fellate.
FinnAgain, you humiliate yourself every time you post something. Have you not noticed that (with the exception of Jackmannii), even the people who disagree with me ignore your postings? They’re as well aware as I am that you’re stupid. Your attempts to curry their favour are an embarassment to all of us. I’d feel sympathy for you, since you’re too stupid to see how you’re embarassing yourself, but your sniggering dishonesty infuriates me. You make any kind of actual discussion impossible by shitting all over any thread in which you participate. You encapsulate exactly the sort of self-satisfied onanistic stupidity which makes these boards so unpleasant, and which is drowning any actually useful discussion or debate.
Do you, uh, not see any contradiction at all between the first three sentences quoted and the last one?
FWIW, I dislike FinnAgain’s line-by-line refutation style, so I tend to skim or ignore his posts–but the bits I’ve read I agree with, and in any intelligence or honesty horserace between him and you, my bet’s on him.
Yeah, it’s a pretty underhanded tactic to say that when someone retracts a position due to a persuasive argument, that they are being dishonest.
I’ve noticed that one being pretty common around here.
Even though I am considered smug and dismissive by some, I see myself saying, “oops my bad.”, a lot more often than my detractors. Oftentimes the detractors rather than saying, “Oh I am arguing with a reasonable person who can admit when his facts aren’t the best.”, they pounce for the kill and harangue you often months later calling you dishonest for retracting a statement that you can’t substantially support with evidence.
OOOH, so you are saying you simply don’t have the courage of your convictions!!! Got it! :p:D
No, I am just saying that your attempts at neckbeard dialectical irony are falling woefully short of the mark. 
I have to say that I don’t think mswas belongs in that list. He puts up a good argument, and he only cranks up the contempt when people consistently misread his posts and ignore clarifications. At least, that’s been my experience with his posts.
Thank you Miller. I don’t know how many times you’ve lessened my frustration in a discussion by showing that at least SOMEONE understands what I am getting at.
I think, Smashy, that the great difference between most people reading your stuff and FinnAgain is that he appears to care enough (or be amused enough) to engage. Me, I just get a chuckle out of it. 
But then, I know myself to be the sort of person you would find most objectionable - a real tool of the evil capitalist oppressors - so you can take that for what it’s worth. 
Now if you will excuse me, I’ll go back to polishing my monocle, twirling my moustache, sipping my snifter of Cognac and dreaming up ways to inflate my already swollen moneybags by oppressing panhandlers [well, not really - I just do it to pay off the mortgage ].
Okay, folks, notice what happens here. Finn says Smash asserts that aspartame is bad for us because it breaks down into chemicals that, according to Finn, don’t actually end up harming us. Smash asserts that methanol, in the absence of ethanol, is damaging. For a citation of this proposition, he pulls out a 20+ year old study on Aspartame, methanol, and potential ill effects relating to the first caused by its breakdown into the second. But he does in the process make mention of “20 years worth of growing concern” over the issue. Finn then improperly attributes the cite to the claim of 20 years of growing concern (hint: nope, it was a citation to the claim that methanol sans ethanol is damaging). Having set this straw man up, he knocks it down, then goes on to say that modern research has shown that Aspartame is safe to use, without offering any citations to such research (my own later post makes some reference to them). Smash then attempts to assert a) his statement about aspartame was basically a throwaway line, b) Finn got the issue of the citation wrong, and c) there are “concerns of sizeable numbers of the very scientific community you claim to fellate” about Aspartame, without producing any evidence that this statement is in any way true.
Whew.
Smash: here’s a clue. There is no sizeable number of scientists of decent reputation who are claiming that Aspartame is unsafe to use. There are some scientists who purport to have concluded by study that it is, but they refuse to allow review of their results or their slides for confirmation.
Finn: when you attack someone for the quality of their citation, it helps to correctly attribute the argument that the citation is purportedly supporting. Here, the proper response was not to claim the citation was invalid as support for the claim of ongoing concerns over Aspartame; the proper response was to assert that, regardless of whatever worries the study raised in the early 80s, the concern in question has long since been settled as being non-existent (citation to study results).
Neither of you is particularly good at anything but rhetorical flourish, frankly, mostly because one of you dismisses anything but the more fringe notions about science and society as being inaccurate or biased, and the other dismisses the first as being unworth dealing with in a comprehensive, logical way.
But continue the dance, by all means. Maybe something of value will shake out of the trees as a result…
Out of curiousity how do Panhandlers organize? I mean wouldn’t going on strike be a net benefit for everyone else?
StS, what exactly would you like to see happen? I mean, other than letting driunk drivers off free, what do you want society to do to make the world a better place? I’m completely serious, too. I want to know what you think should happen if the “state” were to be smashed.
DSYoungEsq I’m hoping that what shakes out is that they realize that their argumentation styles are more similar than they are different.
And you accuse FinnAgain of mischaracterizing and distorting. Really.
For a more modern and relevant formulation, I suggest you read Amartya Sen, Collective Choice and Social Welfare and, if you can get a hold of it, “The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal”. If your idea of political science is Bakunin, however, don’t bother as you may not have the chops to read Sen.
This is patently false. By “real political science sense” here I mean, stuff that gets published in AJPS. Here are some actual datasets, and unsurprisingly, they have nothing whatsoever to do with collectivism or individualism. Those are simply not dimensions that real political research is framed in.
I will assume that your errors are due to ignorance rather than snivelling dishonesty.
No, the goal is to make you look like a buffoon.
It’s working.
Regards,
Shodan