Obviously, that should have read: I’ve already asked you not to post things I’ve never said and attribute them to me in a thread that I’m not already posting in at least.
For example, just a few days ago, you recast how I’d repeatedly corrected you a repeated error that whereby you often call an armistice line a border, even when it had been explicitly established by treaty as something that was not a border, and would not prejudice negotiations to set a border in the future. Instead, you claimed, that the very act of correcting you on the facts (repeatedly) meant that that I’d stated, anywhere at all, that all the land to the east of the armistice line and to the west of a neighboring state’s border was, is the property of the state to the west of the armistice line.
Be that as it may, as you seem to have such a shall we say, divergent reading of what I actually do post, I’d suggest that when you claim that I’ve said something, other people to check to see if I actually have.
For example, here you claim that I “[denied] that such a thing as class struggle even exists, ever or anywhere”. What did I actually say?
As is very clear, I went to great pains to outline the fact that depending on how we defined it, “class struggle” might apply and/or be useful, or might not. It might be a valid thing to claim, or it might not. And that it was up to the person using it to define it in such a manner that it has a consistent, objective definition that had explanatory powers due to specificity and internal logical consistency.
I can certainly understand your position. In response to “It’s the job of people trying to argue that ‘class struggle’ is a real phenomena and valid analytical tool, to define it with an operational definition and internally consistent delineations,” you actually (at first) tried to handwave it away entirely, saying that it was simply a “fact”.
Just like you tried to actually claim that getting you to define your own terms was “intellectually dishonest” and trying to “define [them] out of existence”.
Much of this makes sense, of course, as you “hold these truths to be as self-evident”. Hard to analyze “truths” that are “self evident”.
For your argument, actually having to define your terms into existence is an obvious burden. Being asked to provide an objective, logically consistent framework is a drag if your argument doesn’t contain it. And if the result of not being able to provide such a context is that your terms are discarded as imprecise and useless for analysis, then it must seem as if they’re fading from existence due to not having a definition. Of course, you should realize that if they don’t have that objective, logically consistent definition, then they didn’t necessarily exist as valid terms any more than “the greater good” or “proper Christian behavior” do.
Instead, by trying to get you to define your own terms, you think I’m attacking them, with intellectual dishonesty to boot, since you’ve already taken them a “self evident” “truths”.
Just like you actually went on to claimthat sociology would one day become a science just like physics. Seriously. Then of coursewhen I pointed out the numerous problems with your claim, and with the schema you put forward,, your only response was an ad hominem fallacy (amusing considered your basic error in comparing sociology to physics).Despite having it pointed out to you that ‘nuh unh, u r dum!’ is not a particularly robust factual counter you maintained thatyah, you thought it was.
Just like I pointed out the essential differences between an objective analysis and your fiction of defining-junk-and-stuff-out-of-existence.
And then, of course, you posted this thread to continue the same argument (while flaming my ever-so-non-eloquent-mind) and talked about how incomprehensible my words are to you.
Miraculously, two people immediately respond to you and fully understand exactly what I was saying.
Will wonders never cease?