Which is complete nonsense. Sometimes ad hominems are helpful, in particular about known liars. Information about prejudices or interests is already much less important, because everybody has interests, including hidden interests. Manipulation attempts are essentially what we have to deal with every day, and in no way of that mythical power you attribute to them. A lie. It is you who has tried to claim an obvious ad hominem is not an ad hominem. The problem is that your arguments (if you propose some at all, instead of simple claims that I err) are too weak. Because too often only ad homs, and ad homs are notoriously weak. This podcast was the starting point, but played no role in my defense of Block. It seems, you don't get it even after the 1000th repetition. I do not even try to distinguish some non-existent completely neutral sources of objective information from some pure propaganda sources named wingnut by their enemies. I have no trouble recognizing such instances, but it does not follow that I, after recognizing it, completely reject all the information from this source. I recognize information about the various prejudices and weaknesses of various sources, information which is helpful if you want to extract useful information from the sources. The information that, say, Block is not top in English and literary criticism and has supported Trump is in no way useful to evaluate arguments from economic theory at all, and only of minor relevance for his libertarian theory claims. Roughly, small children would better stay away from propaganda sources. They better believe their parents and teachers. Instead, adults with appropriate education how to use propaganda sources have no reason to do this, because they can use them to extract information.
In the case of the sophisticated manipulations launched by American corporate rightwing authoritarian media outfits, their power over you is an observation, not a myth. They are the most sophisticated marketers and propagandists who ever lived, and you are not nearly wary enough of them. You were defending Block's contribution to the podcast - at least, that's what was being attacked. Did you not understand what was being attacked? You have had a great deal of trouble recognizing even fairly obvious manipulations from American corporate rightwing authoritarian media operations, on this forum. And that's how you get suckered - lacking an informed context, you get conned into providing one from your own influenced and prompted experience, whereupon you "extract information" according to the designs and agenda of the manipulators. It's a standard storytelling technique, also employed in hypnosis and similar manipulations. btw: English is not your home language, so it's no big deal, but "ad hominem" does not mean "personal insult" or "personally disparaging observation". It means attacking an argument by attacking the man making it, especially on unrelated grounds. When I disparage Block and cast doubt on his intellectual bona fides by pointing to his podcast role characteristic of the wingnut intellectual cadre, and his characteristically inaccurate vocabulary, and his characteristically immature assessment of Ayn Rand's writings, and so forth, that is attacking the man by attacking his "arguments" - including the very "argument" at issue, the podcast contribution. That is the opposite direction of implication. Whatever interesting things he does have to say, on his own time, outside of his day job as house "intellectual" for the scum of the country, remain unaffected. They can't all be on the level of (paraphrasing from a memory of something from him I ran across years ago) 'slavery wasn't so bad - picking cotton and singing songs'. He can't possibly have earned a PhD like that, even in economics. But you are taking the warning, yes?
An "observation" which depends on the assumption that you are right. Therefore, not an observation at all. No, I have not seen it and not commented it at all. Learn to read. I have (mis)interpreted your text as attacking the podcast owner for not getting the title of Block's book correct, and remarked that the title of the book was given correctly. This was all I have said about the podcast. Everything else was about Block in general, not about this particular podcast. You have no trouble repeating cheap accusations, but trouble to present evidence for this. Essentially your logic is "I'm right, they are wrong, so, if you do not agree with me, you are a victim of their obvious manipulations". Yes. And that's why I have written: "You proposed to care about "Walter Block's financial backing" instead of caring about his arguments in economic resp. libertarian theory. Classical ad hom, sorry. " I like Block for some of his arguments in economic and libertarian theory. As I have repeatedly explained. And you argue I would better care about "Walter Block's financial backing" instead. LOL. He is not even an objectivist. So, he is not making any argument of type "because Ayn Rand's novel is the best, ....". So, his failure in literary criticism is not related to any argument he has proposed. Thus, clearly against the man, not his arguments, nor the economic and libertarian arguments I sometimes value, nor why he thinks Trump is less evil. Especially on unrelated grounds like literary criticism and English language.
All observations depend on actually having observed - mine have had the additional feature of me posting the grounds for you, when I made them. You were responding to me about my posts, which were about that specifically. So the fact that you didn't bother to listen to the podcast and so forth, while completely typical of your approach, does not change the matter you were addressing - Block's purveying "intellectual" support of wingnut drivel, for which he is well compensated. You have been informed of the evidence, three or four repetitions is enough. Already addressed. Several times. I argue these points. With evidence and reason. In multiple posts, such as 1426 on page 72, 1442 you just quoted (omitting the argument, of course), and so forth. Enough. From now on, I will simply point out that you don't know what "ad hominem" means. So? In the first place, he does make such arguments at times. Check 'em out. Like all Randites he's an idiot that way, occasionally. But that's irrelevant to my posts here, because I'm not addressing those arguments. I'm addressing his podcast contributions and his many similar dealings, his intellectual role in American politics. You started this by claiming it was "nonsense" to classify Block's podcast contributions among the "wingnut right", because he was - you claimed - an anarchist and yadda yadda. But right in front of you, linked by 'michael' and directly referenced by me, you are confronted with him acting as a member of the intellectual cadre of the American corporate authoritarian right, lending his intellectual support to media wingnuttery. So your ad hominem argument - that Block is a certain kind of intellectual, therefore he cannot be doing such and so - has hit a snag. There he is, doing such and so. My argument, that Block is a certain kind of intellectual because he does such and so and says this and that - just as that kind of intellectual does - is from this evidence. And what he's been doing lately, is aiding Trump's Presidential bid.
Via, Scott Adam's Blog: I Score the First Debate. Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. --o-- So? Which Statist is it going to be? The Progressive, or The Warmonger. Incidentally, I still find it quite funny that Trump pie-pippered the religious-right into thinking homosexuality is conservative AND Obama was born in the USA. LOL! By Gods, he's even brought in about 20% of the Black vote? Jesus, doesn't he understand? As a left leaning "Progressive" politician, you make a living by pitting one group against another! Not by singing to them and leading off in the right direction!? That's no good? Keep doing that, and there may not be a job FOR a politician! Keep THAT in mind mf-er! LOL I don't know, I still feel like Warharpy should win. Eight more years of Change We Can Believe In, and greeenshoots - that's what America needs. Maybe 16 years of Hope and Change. That'll really fix a lot of thing.
That should be tattooed on your forehead backwards, so you can read it in the mirror. Because the fantasy world you live in is truly remarkable in its ability to incorporate not merely ignorance, but active denial, of the reality of the consequences of past week's, past year's, past decade's, and past century's realities - slavery, most prominently in the past; flagrantly, these days, the reality of the consequences of national governance strongly influenced (dominated) by followers of Ayn Rand, in the US, between the years 2001 and 2009. And this reality: Trump is a reactionary, and a nascent warmonger (the Wall is an act of war, as is a torture program for foreign enemies, unilateral repudiation of treaties, and blowing people out of the water for flipping the navy the bird), and currently his intellectual support - the public body of intellectuals and pundits and politicians and such voices - arguing his superiority as a Presidential candidate, includes a large and significantly influential majority of the public followers of Ayn Rand. Donald Trump's candidacy is one of the consequences of the reality of Ayn Rand's influence on US political discourse. That guy is your baby. And the desperation of your attempts to pin labels like "Progressive" on him reveals that at some level you realize that.
So you find sexual violence funny? You find the idea that people who might have experienced sexual violence and still want to learn about it and discuss it to be funny? What, exactly, is funny?
LOL - sorry, I'm not going to take this question seriously. It's THAT asinine IMO. See above. You. I find that you're quite funny. Enjoy your safe-spaces. LOL
of of of LOL I started this thread Aug 18, 2015. Over a year ago. Anyway, we'll see who's reading reality correctly. As I said, our choice is clear: A Progressive Socialist or a Warmonger. Which Statist Authoritarian do you want? Take your pick. In the meantime, let's see if our Nobel Peace Prize winning POTUS doesn't I'm really good at killing people. We Came We Saw He Died *maniacal cackling* - WarHarpy LOL
When asked about Nuclear Armageddon: "I think she [Hillary Clinton] is going to press the button ... She is going to be hawkish, she is going to be more hawkish in that role, I think that she is not going to air on the side of not being an aggressor." -- Gary Johnson 28/09/16 Incidentally, the Democratic Party is now the party that receives the most donations from Wall Street and garnishes the most support from the MIC. In case you missed the ole' switch-er'oo. Not that it was really a switch. The Democratic Party is the Party that started the KKK. Lincoln was, obviously, a Republican. The Democratic Party also supported minimum wage - it goes hand in glove with their KKK leanings. The same thing happened in South Africa. Mine owners were forced to pay a high wage, specifically to disenfranchise Black Workers. Of course, Democrats also 'fixed' the problem they purposely caused by buying off the Black voter with generational welfare in the process destroying the black family and community. Oh, and the GOP isn't really any better. So, pick your poison! Let's get this f*cker sunk already Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Donald Trump's candidacy is one of the consequences of the reality of Ayn Rand's influence on US political discourse. That guy is your baby. Has been all along. And the desperation of your attempts to pin labels like "Progressive" on him, and ignore the racial stuff that reflects so poorly on you, reveals that at some level you realize that. Keep ignoring the superpacs, and they'll go away? The MIC no longer includes the Koch boys, Halliburton, and the like? Oo-kaay - - - - And Nixon never existed, Reagan never ran on "state's rights", the KKK never switched Parties (speaking of missing the ole' switch-er'oo), and the Party of Lincoln did not remake itself as the Party of Jefferson Davis and nominate Donald Trump for President. Unless of course all that stuff happened. The KKK was and is rightwing, fascist. Its leaders are endorsing Trump, of course, and he is representing them. Minimum wage is leftwing. Its proponents are worried about endorsing Clinton because she's rightwing as well, but at least she isn't fronting for the goon squads, so they are going along. See? It lays out and makes sense. If you go around in circles trying to deny the racial bigotry at the center of the Republican Party's current electoral base, you'll just get dizzy and faceplant in it anyway, start talking about how much more freedom Americans had in 1850. The KKK, WCC, John Birch Society, all that crowd, is Republican now - has been your entire adult life. It's been renamed a few times - since "Tea Party" began to smell bad they've been looking for a new one, and seem to be settling on "The American People". That would be a coup on the order of getting the American and Confederate flags both on their side at the same time, which was a masterpiece of propaganda.
The historical Democratic Party is now the Republican Party after the dixiecrats bailed due to their support of segregation, so shame on you for the mendacious insinuation that the Dems are the racists. I guess you missed that little switcheroo.
It has become traditional for conservatives and other critics of the general proposition of a Democratic Party to ignore 1968.
Forbes: On The Historically Racist Motivations Behind Minimum Wage. “In 1925, a minimum-wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry. A Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese” who were willing to work for less. In South Africa during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum-wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs away from white unionized workers by working for less than the union pay scale.” --o-- And etc.... but don't worry, it doesn't matter. Before you know it, some politician will be promising something for free. That's how 'serious' politicians get elected. LOL Salon: Hillary Clinton is Wall Street’s preferred candidate. HuffPo: Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine.
How anyone can really say what Donald Trump believies in is really fooling themselves. Here we have over 100 policy positions AND his shift on each of them... A Full List of Donald Trump's Rapidly Changing Policy Positions
Every single economic law, policy, rule, or enforcement agency, in the US, has been supported by racist motivations of somebody. There are racist motivations for establishing, repealing, raising, lowering, and amending the scope of, the US Federal, State, City, and County minimum wages. What's your point?
Racism is a Liberal and Democratic talking point that appears each election time. It is not coincidence that the worse cases of racism, in terms of segregation, violence, police shootings, and lack of opportunity, occurs in the inner cities controlled by the Democrats. Each election cycle they need to set up a finger pointing distraction, so people will not look at the reality of these situations. The self proclaimed party of compassion, has the worse track record, so they need to spin reality. Democrats were the original party of slavery and segregation. This has not changed, just the tactic for segregation is more subtle and devious. One can see this by the inner city results. The words are pretty, but do not equate. If we assume men and women, black, brown, and white are all equal, why do you need women's or minority rights? The need for special and extra rights implies some of these groups are not equal, but need a handicap. If everyone is equal in a foot race, why would some need to start with a 5 meter lead or start back behind the line 5 meters? This is irrational. The words and actions do not equate. This irrationality causes women and blacks to unknowingly segregate themselves, because the unwritten law is you are a lessor person, who needs a head start, based on our actions. It is not what is said, but what is done. If you give lip service to equal, but treat each group separately, this is not logically consistent. Hard reality will come first in the mind of most people, not lip service. Say you have a black student who is the head of his/her class. The student reaches this level of accomplishment because in their intelligence and hard work. In a land, where we are all equal in both words and deeds, that student will be commended for their accomplishment. Say we do this the Democrat party way and have a different set of rules for blacks. Now, if the same student reaches the top under their own steam; in reality, there will be many who will assume this is fixed, due to the dual standard, where words and actions are opposite. The irrationality of saying one thing and doing the opposite creates misunderstanding, which can cause even a smart black student to self doubt. This is the devious segregation policy of the Democrats, which needs to be broken. They say one thing, but do another, with most people believing action means more than words. The entire PC scam is about convincing people words mean more than hard reality. In the PC world, if it deemed right to say you are beautiful, but then I snicker at you, you need to ignore the snicker, and only hear beautiful; land of morons. PC is popular among pseudo-intellectuals who are all talk but can't get good results. They need a way for all their hot air to be given more prestige than the the poor results of their actions. Hillary was a disaster in results but is assumed qualified because of her words. People who sincerely believe all people are equal, also believe that this means there is one set of rules for all. They do not segregate with different rules for each demographics unless they believe everyone is not equal and some need a handicap. This is called logical consistency. The treatment of blacks, by the Democrats, like they have a perpetual handicap than needs special rights, is causing many of the blacks to become their own worse enemy. It is not what is being said; blowing smoke up your shirt, but what is being done that is causing the problem; different treatment implies being different.
It seems that Trump is a pragmatist rather than an idealist. So, when he says: 'Everything is negotiable." That is most likely exactly what he means. He does not see any advantage to the concept of america being the worlds cop, nor to our current brand of imperialism. If elected, he will most likely have to deal with a major financial crisis within months of assuming office.
He doesn't know anything about any of that stuff. He doesn't know how to stop being the world's cop, cut back on imperialism (he doesn't know what that is), or handle a financial crisis. His method of dealing with financial trouble in his own life has been to insulate himself and let his corporate interests go bankrupt. When he has negotiated in the past, the solvency and existence of his corporate interests has been on the table, along with "everything" else - except his own personal wealth and advantage. Apparently, he has never in his life defended, protected, or worked on behalf of, anything except his own personal financial interests and related social status. I can't even find a record of his having played a team sport in his youth. He has rented his name and reputation to swindlers for money. So that's what being a pragmatist means - not only no ideals, but no principles?
