: SDF: Others are "emotional". Jacobson is "sarcastic". This according to Jacobson.No, it's pretty obvious that a label like 'whining lefties' telling the other party you think they're pukey yeller-bellied snot-nosed brats. 'Evil and morally deficient' are distinctly different; they try to pass off pure emotion as valid arguement. I ridicule you because I think you're completely incapable of holding a rational arguement fro any length. (hint: it's why I don't insult Red).
: SDF: Of course, one cannot debate Jacobson on this matter, for he has not spelled out what would count as a NON-essentialist categorization,
No. You like most on this room actualy use words as if they determined one's ideas. I realize that all of us use our ideas to formulate the manners in which we speak; thus, terms like 'capitalism' have absolutely no meaning except as we attribute to them. You, and most here, use 'capitalism' as if it were pre-defined for all of us. It's not. My whole arguement here is that there is no such thing as 'capitalism' except in your own minds.
: so potentially EVERY category can be accused of "essentialist categorization". However it can be said that the Fortune 500 corporations, the World Bank, the IMF, the OECD, and the WTO all exist as patrons of a global capitalist system, since there are global corporate entitites, global money lines, and global commodity supply lines that exist as physical entities in their own right and which coordinate together as a real physical system.
And I have said several times here taht these are organizations taht benefit thir members and profeesional bankers and politicians. Hello, it's called rational self-interest and we all engage in it.
: SDF: No it doesn't. There are plenty of philosophies of education, not all of them imply a will and intentions. Behaviorism, for example, considers "education" most prominently, without such conceptual baggage.
"behaviorism" can't consider anything. 'behavoirists' maybe? Only individual human beings can consider anything.
: SDF: Well, first of all, Jacobson started threads on Utopia and a parody of Marx's economics, then he throws a fit when I refuse to talk about "ancient tribes" within those threads (as if that were the only permitted subject, as if Marx's economics had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with "ancient tribes"), then (according to him) I am allegedly accusing him of supporting the Holocaust when I most clearly explained my use of the Holocaust as defying Jacobson's rational choice "essentialism" here. Jacobson changes the subject, then goes off into a emotive bicker-fest.
Well, if you want to keep on believing that fine with me. I can't snap my fingers and make you change your mind. Point is though, I was referring to rational choice theory and you jumped in and accused me of supporting the Holocaust. I responded, sarcastically, that we might have an intelligent conversation if you had at least landed somewhere within a thousand years of the onus of my conversation. You were acting like an asshole and I responded as such.
: I'll give you a hint, Jacobson. We're all accusing you of being evil
Which is quite unfortunate as I have never accused you of such. Nor do I think any of you are evil. Confused and mistaken? Maybe, but not evil.
: (even though one of us thinks you're merely obnoxious, since you haven't taught him anything), and what's more, we're all out to get you. This is why you've been spending so much time and posting so many posts in obvious debate-school maneuvers to avoid debate embarrassment, and it's why you feel it's so necessary to have the last word in every thread. But maybe somewhere outside this debating room you can find a therapist who isn't out to get you. IMHO we're all woefully inadequate therapists here.
Boo-hoo. This last paragraph Sammy-Boy shows what a complete asshole you are. If you want lessons on ratonal dialog and debate go ask Red. I've posted several times my respect for him and I'll continue to do so.
