February 12, 2009

Real American Heroes [Dan Collins]

As for my being obnoxious, if the truth is obnoxious, then I am guilty as charged.

Posted by Dan Collins @ 6:17am
101 comments | Trackback

Comments (101)

  1. I loved him in Gilligan’s Island. He directed a few episodes. Most people don’t know that.

  2. There’s a big difference between an actual food shortage and a weak dollar.

    Anyone else think Flo from the Progressive commercials has kind of a Mary Ann-dirty girl next door thing going on?

    I mean, you know, desert island and all.

  3. Wasn’t the skipper his brother Alan..?

  4. Wasn’t the skipper his brother Alan..?

    I thought Alan was his middle name.

    Lovey was the dirtiest, btw. She was always “Thurston” for more……….uh ha….uh ha…ha

  5. Well if true, then that will fuck up all that bio diesel we have been growing. Damn.

    Iowans will be happy, their prices will be up.

  6. At least ‘ol Thurston was getting it regularly. Nearsighted as he was.

  7. I forget who it was who defined true adulthood as the age when Lovey becomes a plausible option, along with Ginger and Mary Ann.

  8. I was a Mary Ann fan growing up …but Lovey? alppuccino you are downright subversive! With those flimsy thatch walls, everybody must have heard those two all the time.

  9. …and Flo? Help a guy out.

  10. Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 2/12 @ 6:55 am #

    I forget who it was who defined true adulthood as the age when Lovey becomes a plausible option, along with Ginger and Mary Ann.

    I would define that more as true intoxication.

  11. HA!!!

    Obama kisses homeless lady on the cheek and whispers, “I’m gonna help you like I helped my illegal aunt”, and then he lets the wife of a Republican State Rep give her a house. How do I know it was a republican? Because it was her house, of course. Don’t look for party affiliation in the article, unless the radon test goes off the charts. Sorry Oprah, not sure there’s show material there anymore.

  12. I stopped kissing homeless women shortly after I got married. It seems unseemly, and just too personal.

  13. With those flimsy thatch walls, everybody must have heard those two all the time.

    Rumor has it that The Professor would bring along a rudimentary sound masking device that he fashioned from a couple half-coconuts, vine, and a rolled up sock.

    Lovey wanted her own money.

  14. My wife’s theory is that one of the castaways was on the run from the law, thus the repeated sabotage of their attempts to get off the island.

    Strong suspects: the Professor (do you really believe that he couldn’t fix the hole in the boat or rig the radio into the transmitter if he really wanted to?) and Gilligan (no explanation necessary).

    She also thinks that Gilligan and Skipper were a couple, as were Ginger and Mary Ann, with the Professor was creeping over to their hut for some hot bi babe action now and then.

    A strange woman, to be sure.

  15. I had Gilligan and the monkey as a couple.

  16. Maybe Lovey made a secret 15 million withdrawal right before they sailed?

  17. Talking about secret withdrawals… In the immortal words of Caddyshack to my least favorite GOP Senator right now Arlen Specter: “Tanks for nothin!”

  18. “Comment by alppuccino on 2/12 @ 7:04 am #

    I had Gilligan and the monkey as a couple.”

    Ah, thor’s dream date.

  19. Maybe Lovey made a secret 15 million withdrawal right before they sailed?

    Or Thurston, maybe. They did have all that cash — rather suspicious.

    Perhaps Thurston bribed Skipper to shipwreck them, then bribed the Professor to make sure they stayed on the island until the statute of limitations had run.

  20. You claim to be the voice of reason and of intellectual prowess, but you offer little but obscenities [and] self-congratulation and in return.

    See that’s not true, Mr. Bonesteel. I don’t think for real you’re willing to know the whole truth whatever anguish of spirit it may cost and etc. I think you just say stuff like that cause you like how it sounds all Johnny Bravo.

  21. I think you just say stuff like that cause you like how it sounds all Johnny Bravo.

    Heh.

    My beef with Bonesteel is he decided to lecture us rather than persuade us. In fact, his lecturing style wasn’t even as respectful as I’d expect from a PhD to a class full of undergrads. An insulting tone isn’t the way to win friends and influence people; rather the opposite, in fact.

  22. I tried to give Warren an opportunity to reset the voice last night, but he declined.

  23. What’s ironic is that if you try to tell him that he’s being a condescending dickhead, and that he’d be a lot more persuasive if he eased up on the stern know-it-all uncle routine, he’ll just claim that you’re insulting him because YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TROOOOTH!

    My theory is that he’s the pervy uncle that turned Gleen Grenwald into the long-winded authority on government and cabana boys that he is today.

  24. That social construction is genetic, bigot.

  25. Warren is hammer-fodder, and nothing more.

  26. “It’s not my fault I blather on and on about shit I don’t really understand! It’s the way Nature made me!”

  27. Did we even have cabana boys in prehistoric times?

  28. I for one could do without the omnipresent ad hominem vibe Warren puts out. Oh, and throw in the a. ad verecundiam too. And the gross overgeneralization and mischaracterization of PW readers and commenters.

    Massive complex theoretical constructs don’t bother me per se, after all, that’s what books are for (see i.e. On The Origin of Species), but using them as cudgels isn’t a practical means of promoting their virtue as interpretive devices.

  29. I just for once want Warren to tell us what he thinks we should be doing. In a single sentence. And not one of MY sentences, either. Something short and to the point and unadorned with cryptic patriotic referents and oblique intimations suggestive of our supposed denials.

    Just say it, boy! What is it classical liberals should be doing — and how is spending time trying to argue against bad ideas in a publicly available forum “not doing anything”?

    That seems a simple enough question, one that really begs for a straight answer.

  30. Warren doesn’t seem to be taking requests. I think he might be a recording.

  31. My guess, Jeff, is that it would gist something like “Think like Warren!”. But then I’m high as a kite on pain killers so my guess could be off a little.

  32. Same here, Jeff. I asked something similar the other day. He wasn’t up for it. He may have been pre-occupied with defending himself, but I am so sick of people complaining about what they see to be wrong and not advocating any solutions of their own. He seems like a bright guy. If he could get over trying to “daddy” everyone, I’d bet he has some useful information.

    Sdferr, what do they have you on? Ay extra Vicodin, send it up 95 to 77 to Cleveland.

  33. see Robert Kegan on social immaturity.

    Then, see Robert Wright on Non-zero sum games.

    ;O)

    Have fun, kids. It’s interesting reading.

  34. btw…the Brits and the Tories referred to Nathan Hale as an ‘obnoxious person.’

    Just a thought…

  35. See the middle finger on my right hand, Warren.

  36. You just can’t do it, can you Warren? What is it that you’re trying to say? What advice does a wise sage such as yourself have to give to help push the ideas of classical liberalism and reclaim our country? You’re bright. Synthesize what you’ve learned from all your links and let us know. Thanks in advance. I promise, I’ll still read them. I just want to see if you even understand what your pushing.

  37. Outside Context Problem
    Groupthink
    Factual relativism
    Cognitive relativism
    Rational ignorance

    Change blindness
    Availability heuristic
    black swan
    Organizational cultures

    see also:
    Authoritarian Thinking, Groupthink, and Decision-Making under
    Stress:
    by Peter Suedfeld

  38. There is something very Obama-like in this manner of “persuasion” I think.

  39. See, Warren, I’m stupid. None of that means to much of anything to me. But, you’re gonna need us stupid people in the battle to reclaim classical liberalism. So, can you, in your own words, tell me what your thoughts are? I would dearly appreciate it.

  40. What a fucking twatwaffle. All it does is cut and paste. It cannot illuminate a thought beyond the words printed on a page. It has delusions of granduer, is pedantic, pompous, arrogant, and frankly more than a little bit insufferable. I could give a flying fuck what it has to say. Go fuck yourself with an abused swordfish, Bonesteel. I actually prefer parsnip the mendoucheous wonder to this clown.

  41. OI – Point and laugh. Point and laugh.

  42. btw…the Brits and the Tories referred to Nathan Hale as an ‘obnoxious person.’

    Well, you hit a young sailor with your skipper hat enough times, and people will eventually form an opinion.

    *full circle*

  43. I actually prefer parsnip the mendoucheous wonder to this clown.

    That’s gonna leave a mark.

  44. Phew…Over the last few days, I’ve shared my thoughts in no uncertain terms. Ya either didn’t like it or ya couldn’t understand simple English.

    Those simple ‘cut and pastes’ I’ve been doing are from some four thousand folders of supporting material I keep on my hard drive. Material that I’ve read and studied rather closely. ‘Stuff’ that is references and background material for most of the things I’ve said over the last few days, and strangely enough, are relevant to the ongoing conversations.

    Although they haven’t said anything here, I’ve also had a few friends and associates stop by to keep an eye on me, and thus, on you, making sure that I don’t get too out of line. Bankers, Veterans, political and social activists, schoolteachers, Little Suzy homemakers, PhD’s, so I get a good mix on feedback, aside from the approbation I get from you folks.

    The general consensus is that most of you folks are acting just a bit juvenile, although I did get a take down from a friend who described what I have done as “Any pot stirred, have stick, will travel.”

    So, while most of you are willing to judge and criticize others and hold them accountable, while not applying the same standards to yourselves, I’m…not like that.

    As for Alan Hale, Jr., I liked him in the old Three Musketeer movies. (Mary Ann, btw.)

  45. If you don’t know the zen of Warren Bonesteel, then you don’t know zen. In case you folks don’t recognize the obvious, think of “intellectual rope-a-dopes.”

  46. Why does it come across as Pope-on-a-rope-a-dope?

  47. Sock lurkers?

  48. Nishizonobonesteel.

  49. I tend to think of Warren more as an “intellectual Jerry Quarry”, if we are going with boxing analogies.

  50. I’ve also had a few friends and associates stop by to keep an eye on me

    Do any of them inhabit a different physical body?

    If so, are you sure they’re not actually stopping by to make sure you’re taking your medication?

  51. To you Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn’t it?

    There was a reason I placed that here – but I forgot what it was. I blame beer – oh, I can’t blame you, beer!

  52. I remember now! It was ‘Warren Bonesteel’ and what-ever he would piffle on about.
    That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

  53. The Whole World Is Rioting as the Economic Crisis Worsens — Why Aren’t We?
    By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted February 3, 2009.

    How Modern Law Makes Us Powerless
    The real barrier to Barack Obama’s ‘responsibility’ era.
    By PHILIP K. HOWARD

    New Hampshire Fires First Shot Of Civil War – Resolution Immediately Voids Several Federal Laws, Threatens Counterstrike Against Federal “Breach Of Peace”
    February 4th, 2009 Posted By Pat Dollard.

    …meanwhile, back at Protein Wisdom…the inmates are engaged in watching their own belly buttons amidst discussions about which among them has the most beautiful belly button of them all.

    …and if Noonan, Krum and for God’s sake, Ebert have a clue…

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold
    By Roger Ebert on December 28, 2008

    It’s all a ponzi scheme
    January 28, 2009
    Bob Krum

    A Separate Peace
    America is in trouble–and our elites are merely resigned.
    PEGGY NOONAN
    Thursday, October 27, 2005

    …while all that the sophisticates at Protein Wisdom havcwe to offer are emotional outburts, which reveal their own psychological and social neoteny…for the world to see.

    It’s a small world, after all…

    (Actually, I kinda liked Norton’s overhand right. A devastating punch, and once he had an opening, it was virtually unstoppable. I kinda like watching old Marciano fights, too. He never gave up.)

  54. …meanwhile, back at Protein Wisdom…the inmates are engaged in watching their own belly buttons amidst discussions about which among them has the most beautiful belly button of them all.

    This was the kind of piffle I hated in grad school. Ironically, you accuse everyone here of naval gazing when you do nothing if not lavish undue attention on the hard drive and passel of enlightened friends you evidently keep tucked inside your own like some sort of wannabe Illuminatist lintball.

    Again:

    I just for once want Warren to tell us what he thinks we should be doing. In a single sentence. And not one of MY sentences, either. Something short and to the point and unadorned with cryptic patriotic referents and oblique intimations suggestive of our supposed denials.

    Just say it, boy! What is it classical liberals should be doing — and how is spending time trying to argue against bad ideas in a publicly available forum “not doing anything”?

    That seems a simple enough question, one that really begs for a straight answer.

    Time to put up or shut up.

    If you need something even more concrete to respond to, tell me what it was about my response to Amanda about social constructs and sex/gender that you found so like Amanda’s original response.

    I asked you over in that thread, and you ignored me there, too.

    See:

    eschew
    obfuscate
    sidestep
    name dropper
    substantial

  55. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m about ready to sell all I own and follow Warren.

    Oh, never mind. That’s just a piece of lint in there…

  56. I have two theories:

    1. “Look upon me with awe, for I am Warren Bonesteel.”

    or

    2. He’s Thor’s Daddy.

    It’s a tossup.

  57. As for Alan Hale, Jr., I liked him in the old “Hang ‘em High.”

    Jeeze, I’m not even in a league with this guy, he so smott.
    Here was dumb old me thinking that was Alan Hale SENIOR with Flynn.
    I’d better just yield the field. He’s speaking in some kind of code.

  58. Warren’s response ?

    1) Crickets chirping …
    2) Copy and paste a bibliography from some online reader.

  59. Jeff, as near as I can tell, we’re supposed to be rioting. Because that is gonna do … like … a LOT.

  60. Rioting? Well shit.

    Isn’t there something I could just download…?

  61. Strategic Collapse at the Army War College
    January 14, 2009 – by Patrick Poole

    On War #285: If Wishes Were Horses…
    By William S. Lind
     December 8, 2008

    See You At The Riots, Scofflaws
    by  Roger Boyes
    SUNDAY, JANUARY 25, 2009

    Jeff: Her comments were about sex/gender. Yours were about social constructs.

    As for the rest, the point is to quit jabbering and get off yer duffs and actually do something, even if it’s wrong.

    Leo, for example, has been primarily responsible for exposing John Murtha for who he is. The recent MSM ‘expose’ of same was broken by Leo over a week ago. Leo was revealing Murtha’s connections to such corruption long before anyone else figured out who John Murtha was.

    Leo also has all the same responsibilities and obligations that most of you do.

    He’s also a shrink, with the legal and moral obligations and duties that go along with that profession.

    Leo is also well familiar with the way I do my research. A good bit of the early info that he needed in order to nail Murtha was provided through my efforts. To him and others like him, what I have been saying is perfectly obvious.

    Of course, he’s just one of those people in my head, I reckon. Although, if you expend the effort, do a little research, you’ll find that just isn’t the case. He’s a real person in the real world.

    Like William, a VN combat Vet, a soldier, a professional in civilian life, now semi-retired, who spends a good portion of his time investigating Muslim militants in America. A ‘big’ case that made national and international headlines last year in Florida was the result of one of his efforts. In his spare time, he also works exposing wannabe Vets under the Stolen Valor Act.

    Tim’s efforts, the results claimed by others, kept most of the Haditha and Hamdania Marines from spending the rest of their lives in prison, even though they followed the rules of engagement and even though the charges against them were politicallymotivated and evidence proving their innocence was suppressed or destroyed. Tim runs a small business on the east coast, and has a home, a wonderful wife and children and grandchildren to take care of.

    Others I’ve spoken of are much the same. These are real people. These are people I know and many of whom I’ve known for a decade or longer. They’ve all sacrificed their time, their finances, sometimes their careers, and their blood, sweat and tears, for freedom. By despising them and allowing them to be despised here by others, you only prove your own disregard for your own freedoms and liberties.

    …while most of you play with words and congratulate yourselves on just how very clever and virtuous you all are.

    Just sayin’. The time for words is past, folks. Time to get offa yer duffs and…I dunno…do something…

    …or proudly wear the label of Sunshine Patriots and Summer Soldiers…

    Which is pretty much what I’ve been saying all along.

    If you are actually passionate about the freedom you claim to love, you’ll become engaged. You’ll take action. You won’t just sit around and talk…and talk…and whine…and complain…and make childish fun of those who *are* doing something, or of those who have done something, and you won’t openly despise those who have done something, even if they’re wrong.

    I’m saying get off yer asses and actually do something that proves that you believe what you say you do.

  62. Ding, ding, ding … We have a winner. #2

  63. you accuse everyone here of naval gazing

    Looking at boats?

  64. Ya either didn’t like it or ya couldn’t understand simple English.

    Or, excluded middle, you just suck at clearly and concisely stating your thoughts.

    I’m guessing that as a young adult, you blamed your parents for the way you turned out.

  65. Jeff: Her comments were about sex/gender. Yours were about social constructs.

    Uh, no. Her comments were about the social construction of sex with respect to “mothering.” My comments were a repudiation of social construct theory with respect to sex (and race), and — as a follow-on — a pointed rebuke to her logic, which she used selectively.

    As for the rest, you seem to spend time commenting here. Add to that the fact that you keep dropping written works to give weight to…well, whatever it is you are giving weight to, and it seems to me that the suggestion that “just writing stuff” isn’t actual engagement seems, dare I say it, hypocritical.

    People who bother to keep up with politics on the level of readers here are already far and above the average citizen. That they haven’t made your Rolodex of worthies says more about your own self-importance than it does about their lack of commitment to liberty.

  66. Ah…sophistry. Comes from too many years in those ivory towers. Sophistry is the very basis of our educational system’s theories. You lap it up with your kindergarten milk break and never stop drinking it…for twelve…sixteen…eighteen years or more. It becomes a part of you.

    Hypocritical? Asking another man WHAT you should do is to betray the very foundations of that which you claim to believe. Classical Liberalism. Yet, you and others have repeatedly asked that question of me, quite sincerely, at times. You thus ask me to exercise authority over you while surrendering your own sovereignty. I’ve repeatedly said that each person has a talent, an insight, a skill, an ability that they can use to promote the precepts and principles of liberty. The mean and women I referred to have done exactly that. They needed no one else to tell them what to do.

    You claim that words mean things, but when quoted, you claim that your words mean something else entirely than their common definitions, and that what you said was not what you meant, as if the meaning of words – symbols – was dependent upon something flexible and fluid. That’s sophistry. That’s not reason.

  67. Just sayin’. The time for words is past, folks.

    No dumbass, you just gave three examples of people who accomplished something with words.

    Time to get offa yer duffs and…I dunno…

    I agree with the “I dunno” part.

    do something…

    Suicide vests, maybe? Or you could just go away.

    Post 68 is some of the most epic horseshit I have ever read, I do have to give you credit for that.

  68. Comes from too many years in those ivory towers.

    Interesting. One minute we’re a gang of illiterate mouth-breathers, the next we’re a bunch of eggheads who have no connection with the real world.

    Pick a position and stick to it, Warren.

    You thus ask me to exercise authority over you while surrendering your own sovereignty.

    Asking you what you think we should do does not imply that we’ll do it, Warren. Jeff is simply asking you to get to the fucking point.

    ’ve repeatedly said that each person has a talent, an insight, a skill, an ability that they can use to promote the precepts and principles of liberty.

    Let me guess: your special skill is posting reams of poorly-sourced and argued polemic on the Internet.

    Sophistry indeed.

    Bye, Warren.

  69. Spend some time on the actual history of education, SBP, and you’ll see what I mean.

    In any case, Jeff used deconstructivism in order to attempt to refute Amanda’s constructivism. Sophistry piled upon sophistry. But he doesn’t seem to see that. That’s the problem with deconstructivism. It doesn’t require you to examine your own argument for any flaws in the logic. Neither does sophistry. iow, he’s using the same tools to try to change the system that the system gave him.

    Back to Roger. Jeff’s website – his product – and business model, aren’t bringing him the success he had hoped for, yet, instead of changing either one, the complaint, is at heart, a screed against how unfair it all is. Not the position of a Classical Liberal.

    Expose Roger’s unprofessionalism? Certainly. I can go along with that. Expose possible incompetence and, perhaps, a tendency towards fraud? I can go along with that, to a point. It warns others in the marketplace about possible dangers involved in dealing with PJM on a professional and business level. Whine and complain because you didn’t get what you wanted, when you wanted it, the way ya wanted it? Not the position of a Classical Liberal. Not at all. You just didn’t do your research going into the deal. No one to blame but yourself. You bought into someone else’s sophistry.

    Value yourself above what the marketplace is willing to offer? Then whine and complain about that? Again, not the position of a Classical Liberal.

    Then, to deny, despise and attempt to discredit the contributions of others to society and to the tenets of classical liberalism? Again, not the position of a Classical Liberal.

    I’ve pretty much said what I meant and meant what I said here. I’ve provided a number of references and resources and have offered to provide more that at least give people a clue as to what I am saying and why I am saying it, whether they agree with my conclusions or not.

    What I get in return is childish tantrums, outright denials and…sophistry. Not logic or reason. Again, not the position of a Classical Liberal. You attack others using the same argumentation and lack of logic and reason that you decry in them. You even attack them first, personally, using schoolyard insults, and then whine and complain when they respond in kind.

    You hold others accountable to the tenets of Classical Liberalism but refuse to hold yourselves accountable to the principles you espouse.

    Thus, the call to examine yourselves.

    Rational ignorance and availability heuristics only take you to a certain point, After that, you must examine your own assumptions, preconceptions and presumptions with even more rigor than you use in examining others. Mote, eye, that sort of thing.

  70. So you are bailing to the “do something, even if it is wrong” argument, Warren? And the “words are only something if my friends are using them” one, too?

    Can’t say as I blame you, not very rational, that.

  71. BECAUSE OF THE… Well, you know what it is.

  72. Warren, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  73. Has there ever been anyone that said less in so many words?

  74. Well, there’s SEK, JD.

  75. Oh goodness. We have another live one here.

    Let’s take this garbage piece by piece. And note: when someone takes your argument apart, one is not necessarily using Deconstruction — even if the end result is that the argument is destroyed.

    Ah…sophistry. Comes from too many years in those ivory towers. Sophistry is the very basis of our educational system’s theories. You lap it up with your kindergarten milk break and never stop drinking it…for twelve…sixteen…eighteen years or more. It becomes a part of you.

    First, you assert “sophistry.” But you give no examples of such — preferring instead to rely on some grand generality about “our educational system’s theories” and my having lapped them up.

    Which theories are those, Warren? Or is it epistemology itself you find troubling? Are all “theories” the same? In science, theory means something different than it does when used colloquially — one of the reasons why I argue that ID, eg., should not be presented alongside Darwinian evolution as a scientific “theory” (and should instead be presented alongside Darwinian evolution to show the difference between scientific theory and metaphysics or philosophy).

    Again, you give no specifics, relying instead on big broad meaningless statements that you present with the sigh and knowing headshake of one of the elect. Tell me, Warren — are you a priest of some sort?

    Hypocritical? Asking another man WHAT you should do is to betray the very foundations of that which you claim to believe. Classical Liberalism.

    Asking another man to get to the point and make his case in specifics rather than by lecturing in cryptic accusations betrays classical liberalism? Hardly. It is an attempt to engage in an actual discourse — which I can’t do should you continue to camouflage whatever point you feel you’re making. Again, more grandstanding, with little of substance to reply to.

    None of this has a whit to do with classical liberalism. It has to do with your inability to do anything other than string together accusations — accusations that you can’t even support with a shred of evidence. Your having asserted is proof of nothing. Yet you seem to think that making the assertion and then believing it is proof that the assertion is true. But you aren’t a god, Warren — which means you are not equipped to assume the role of final arbiter on the proof of your own assumptions. Doing so has you arguing in circles. Believing that those circles are squarely supported suggests that the sophistry you so wish to taint others with is primarily your own, and that, when you get into a lather, you project it onto everyone else.

    Do please get one of your secret lurking Illuminati to consider that argument, and provide me with a response.

    Yet, you and others have repeatedly asked that question of me, quite sincerely, at times. You thus ask me to exercise authority over you while surrendering your own sovereignty.

    Asking you to articulate your own plan of action — which you’ve continued to refuse — is “surrendering” our “sovereignty”? Again, this is ludicrous, and — to be frank, passive aggressively backward. To wit: you, Warren, have spent days reading what others have written and made suggestions that they aren’t doing things correctly. Clearly, you WANT THEM to be doing things the way you believe they should, yet you lack the skills to articulate what that is. You fancy that by not laying things out clearly, you aren’t forcing people to surrender their sovereignty to your ideas. But that’s a dodge — your defense mechanism for what is clearly the fault in your own manner of discourse. You want to be a king, Warren — but you wish to do so while telling yourself your subjects are acting on their own, should they finally fall in line after your constant browbeating.

    Nice work if you can get it — and nicer still if you’re able to con yourself into not only believing it, but believing in it nobility.

    I’ve repeatedly said that each person has a talent, an insight, a skill, an ability that they can use to promote the precepts and principles of liberty. The mean and women I referred to have done exactly that. They needed no one else to tell them what to do.

    But of course, what “talent” or “insight” or “skill” or “ability” a person has “to promote the precepts and principles of liberty” are only such once they’ve been vetted by King Warren.

    We know now, for instance, that making arguments in which sloppy thinking is exposed and illuminated doesn’t pass the Warren test; while making sloppy arguments accusing those whose special talent this happens to be DOES — and in fact, is constantly self-celebrated in endless lectures on ones offline greatness!

    You claim that words mean things, but when quoted, you claim that your words mean something else entirely than their common definitions, and that what you said was not what you meant, as if the meaning of words – symbols – was dependent upon something flexible and fluid.

    — Well, except you didn’t quote me, you paraphrased — and your paraphrasing completely misrepresents what I wrote and argued.

    Words do mean things. Like, eg., “quoted”.

    If you wish to prove that I “claim that words mean things, but when quoted, [...] claim that [my] words mean something else entirely than their common definitions, and that what [I] said was not what [I] meant, as if the meaning of words – symbols – was dependent upon something flexible and fluid,” then by all means quote me and show it.

    But be advised, I’m not a nominalist, and I believe intent governs meaning, not the marks that we sometimes use to signal that intent. The reason we are even capable of misreading is that these marks — which are different than the signs that they become once signified — can appear to take on any number of meanings in any number of contexts. What they mean, however, is governed by intent — and whose intent we privilege, the author’s or the receivers’, determines how we are able to proceed epistemologically.

    When you speak of language, you are out of your depth entirely. And to try to tell me what I think about language without, evidently, having understood a thing I’ve written on it, is the height of hubris.

    That’s sophistry. That’s not reason.

    Indeed. Perhaps you should work on that, Warren. It could save you considerable embarrassment next time.

    … BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

    In any case, Jeff used deconstructivism [sic] in order to attempt to refute Amanda’s constructivism. Sophistry piled upon sophistry.

    Do you have any idea what this means, or are you just throwing out buzzwords?

    I dismantled Amanda’s argument because it was logically incoherent. I pointed out how, when pressured, her attempts to claim that sex/biology is a social construct forces her to make uncomfortable admissions about other instances of sex/biology that she would argue is ESSENTIAL and unchangeable (like, for instance, homosexuality). As a bonus, I linked to an essay pointing out that, in racial studies, the race-as-social-construct theory is likewise based on essentialism, though it hardly recognizes how or why. Again, the logic failed, and I pointed that out using a method of logical consistency — one of the hallmarks of Enlightenment thinking.

    — Which, as we eggheads who spent too much time in our ivory towers know, is entirely at odds with post-structuralism and deconstruction.

    But he doesn’t seem to see that. That’s the problem with deconstructivism [sic]. It doesn’t require you to examine your own argument for any flaws in the logic. Neither does sophistry. iow, he’s using the same tools to try to change the system that the system gave him.

    Let’s parse this carefully, to see just how little to it there is.

    First, you haven’t pointed out any flaws in my logic. I’ve given you ample opportunity to do so. Instead, you throw around terms you clearly don’t understand and then use those terms as a cloak of proof.

    But if there’s one thing I do, it’s examine the kernel assumptions of my arguments. And yes, I do so using the epistemic system I find most rigorous and coherent. In the case of my reply to Amanda, that kernel assumption was that it is logically incoherent to base your conclusions in the area of ontology on a pair of obviously antithetical claims — and that in doing so, Amanda has shown that she starts with a politically motivated conclusion and argues backward in order to justify it, without worrying about logical coherence or consistency. It is pure will to power — the ascendency of will over rationality.

    Please, show me how and why that’s wrong. What model of epistemology am I using? Which would you like me to use? Why?

    Otherwise, what is clear is that you haven’t any idea what it is you are talking about — and that you are kin to Amanda insofar as you believe the mere accusation constitutes proof, and that it is perfectly fine to begin with a conclusion and then argue backward from it to justify the conclusion, all for political purposes.

    That makes you and Amanda one and the same. So, like, OUCH.

    Back to Roger. Jeff’s website – his product – and business model, aren’t bringing him the success he had hoped for, yet, instead of changing either one, the complaint, is at heart, a screed against how unfair it all is. Not the position of a Classical Liberal.

    Right. Because a TRUE classical liberal would do anything he had to to bring about the success he craves, even if doing so meant abandoning his principles and playing to the market or fashion.

    Or, to put it another way, to be a classical liberal, Jeff should become a leftist. Well done, Warren!

    Expose Roger’s unprofessionalism? Certainly. I can go along with that. Expose possible incompetence and, perhaps, a tendency towards fraud? I can go along with that, to a point. It warns others in the marketplace about possible dangers involved in dealing with PJM on a professional and business level. Whine and complain because you didn’t get what you wanted, when you wanted it, the way ya wanted it? Not the position of a Classical Liberal. Not at all. You just didn’t do your research going into the deal. No one to blame but yourself. You bought into someone else’s sophistry.

    Classical liberals, by definition, can’t vent. And they certainly can’t make the mistake of trusting people. Heaven forfend! To be Classical Liberal is to play to fashion, abandon your principles as a matter of principle when abandonment seems called for, and to keep the terms of your disappointment to yourself.

    In other words, a classical liberal is a perfect combination of relativism, postmodernist epistemology, and stoicism!

    Value yourself above what the marketplace is willing to offer? Then whine and complain about that? Again, not the position of a Classical Liberal.

    Valuing yourself above how you were used is not valuing yourself over the marketplace. It is valuing yourself over one organizations marketplace philosophy. I know, Warren, that you have a difficult time thinking in terms that are local rather than grandiose and general, but there is nothing in classical liberalism that suggests one can’t believe in what he does — nor does a nodal point in the long history of the marketplace represent the entirety of the marketplace. If it did, “Cheers” would have been canceled after 5 episodes, and “Seinfeld” would have gone away after one season.

    Then, to deny, despise and attempt to discredit the contributions of others to society and to the tenets of classical liberalism? Again, not the position of a Classical Liberal.

    Here, you seem to be speaking of yourself. Because who else here has marched into the fray to tell everyone else that what they are doing to promote classical liberalism is wrong and useless?

    No need to ponder that too long. It was rhetorical.

    I’ve pretty much said what I meant and meant what I said here.

    Then the problem is that you are a poor communicator.

    I’ve provided a number of references and resources and have offered to provide more that at least give people a clue as to what I am saying and why I am saying it, whether they agree with my conclusions or not.

    Why not condense what you are saying into an abstract? We’ll wait.

    What I get in return is childish tantrums, outright denials and…sophistry. Not logic or reason.

    I’m beginning to believe you have no idea what any of these words mean, Warren.

    Again, not the position of a Classical Liberal.

    You mean to make accusations without any proof, and then to pretend those assertions have validity based on the accuser’s own desire to believe his own accusations? Agreed. There’s nothing classically liberal about begging the question.

    You attack others using the same argumentation and lack of logic and reason that you decry in them.

    You keep saying this, and yet you can’t provide an example.

    I’ve asked you to do so, and I’ve given you my essay on Amanda’s logical breakdown as raw material. Many days and thousands of generalities and accusations later, and still you’ve failed to make any sort of rigorous argument to back up those assertions.

    When is it going to hit you, Warren, that you are the problem here?

    You even attack them first, personally, using schoolyard insults, and then whine and complain when they respond in kind.

    Who?

    You hold others accountable to the tenets of Classical Liberalism but refuse to hold yourselves accountable to the principles you espouse.

    Examples? And real ones this time, not easily refuted attempts like the ones you’ve put on display here. Those were feeble, and suggest to me that you haven’t the first clue about what classical liberalism actually is.

    Thus, the call to examine yourselves.

    Been there, done that, have the merit badge. Hopefully one day you’ll take your own advice before expecting others to follow.

    Rational ignorance and availability heuristics only take you to a certain point, After that, you must examine your own assumptions, preconceptions and presumptions with even more rigor than you use in examining others. Mote, eye, that sort of thing.

    Were I you, I’d tattoo that last bit on the insides of my eyelids.

    Because if anything is evident from your pontificating, its that you haven’t examined any of your own assumptions carefully enough — the end result being that you wind up spouting generalist bullshit, using words incorrectly, paraphrasing others poorly, and then using what you believe to be your own perspicuity as proof that your assumptions are sound.

    That’s not logic. That’s masturbation.

  76. That’s the kind of writing that needs its own post.

  77. Didn’t Warren used to be significantly more lucid?

  78. Pingback: Don’t Sit Under the Sophistry [Dan Collins for Jeff]

  79. Concurring with Dan, I was glad to see it. It’s far better than the snark about Eleatic Strangers and diaeretic argument I was cooking up.

    Still, a quote from The Sophist that may illumine the scene:

    E. Str. — But whereas some appear to have arrived at the conclusion that all ignorance is involuntary, and that no one who thinks himself wise is willing to learn any of those things in which he is conscious of his own cleverness, and that the admonitory sort of instruction gives much trouble and does little good-

    Theaet. — There they are quite right.

    E. Str. — Accordingly, they set to work to eradicate the spirit of conceit in another way.

    Theaet. — In what way?

    E. Str. — They cross-examine a man’s words, when he thinks that he is saying something and is really saying nothing, and easily convict him of inconsistencies in his opinions; these they then collect by the dialectical process, and placing them side by side, show that they contradict one another about the same things, in relation to the same things, and in the same respect. He, seeing this, is angry with himself, and grows gentle towards others, and thus is entirely delivered from great prejudices and harsh notions, in a way which is most amusing to the hearer, and produces the most lasting good effect on the person who is the subject of the operation. For as the physician considers that the body will receive no benefit from taking food until the internal obstacles have been removed, so the purifier of the soul is conscious that his patient will receive no benefit from the application of knowledge until he is refuted, and from refutation learns modesty; he must be purged of his prejudices first and made to think that he knows only what he knows, and no more.

    Theaet. — That is certainly the best and wisest state of mind.

  80. Didn’t Warren used to be significantly more lucid?

    Not in the first dozen or so comments he made. At that point it became clear he wasn’t really worth the trouble.

  81. This isn’t Warren Haynes by any chance, would it? Because, really I like Gov’t Mule as much as the next guy, but come on.

  82. The meaning of words does depend upon something(s) flexible and fluid – thought and perception. Warren has a mistaken premise that words are immutable platonic solids of some sort. Words mean things, but their meanings reshape over time in a fluid way, and it’s always, finally intention that determines the meaning of an expression, no matter how it has been perceived.

  83. This isn’t Warren Haynes by any chance, would it?

    No, it’s Warren Bonesteel, of the New Jersey Bonesteels.

  84. He’s been coming here on and off for ages. But I might have misremembered him a bit. probably because of the scroll wheel.

  85. But the description, by some critics, of the state of affairs I sought led me to question my own sanity, and then, finding it in good order, to question that of my critics.

    A certain Billy Frank Buckley said the above, with cause.

    And so it goes.

    Don’t let the sonsabitches get you down really says it all, thanks Ronnie.

  86. No, it’s Warren Bonesteel, of the New Jersey Bonesteels.

    No, it’s Warren Bonesteel, of the New Jersey Bonesteels. FTFY.

  87. Those simple ‘cut and pastes’ I’ve been doing are from some four thousand folders of supporting material I keep on my hard drive. Material that I’ve read and studied rather closely.

    Reminds me of:

    Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy.
    Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.

    *

  88. Thanks, Pablo. I was sure I had seen his name around before he started his latest round of spouting off. It appears that he has been doing this for a long time.

  89. Jeff, hows that work on getting trade coming? Pretty damn good by your response at #77. Now when will the Goldstein Hootchshine be ready, because Garçon Green is waiting.

  90. That last comment must have been written by somebody’s sphincter.

  91. Yeah, what Jeff said. Turdbreath.

  92. Not Joe’s comment. The one that went to the spam box.

  93. It would have been a lot more entertaining,Jeff, If you just kicked him in the nuts. Not nearly as enlightening, for us, though.

  94. Spam or not, I am looking forward to the Goldstein hootch! I need it to disinfect and eliminate mold & mildew, to start fires to burn excess brush before it gets too dry, to strip paint, and for drinking!

    Say–maybe you need a Billy May infomerical fill in for Roger Simon.

  95. Aw, sphincty–you just earned yourself a nuking! Congrats.

  96. As long as its agreed that intellect is devoid of gender identity, I will say that Jeff’s gives mine a giant boner.

    If not, nevermind.

  97. ccoffer, don’t worry, it’s heteronormative intellectual discourse.

  98. Not So Happy Days reported in the NYT Op-ed:

    CONGRESS has made a terrible mistake. Amid a rhetorical debate centered on words like “crisis,” “emergency” and “catastrophe,” it acted too fast. While arguments were made about the stimulus bill’s specific components — taxpayer money for condoms, new green cars and golf carts for federal bureaucrats, another round of rebate checks — its more dangerous consequences were overlooked. And now the package threatens a return to the kind of stagflation last seen in the 1970s.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/opinion/14ryan.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

  99. The spys were out in force.

Leave a Reply