: : 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.
SDF: Let it out, Jacobson! Tell the world what an "asshole" I am, how worthless I am in front of your imperial gaze! Maximize utility like the true rational chooser you are! Why stop here, tell the world at the top of the Debating Room! Then, when you're finished ruining my reputation for good, you can go back to your regular routine of accusing others of the fallacy of appeal to emotion.
: : 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.
SDF: Words ARE our ideas -- in fact, there's nothing more to ideas than words -- but you can continue to believe otherwise, so keep your definition of "essentialism" a secret. This will allow you to accuse us all of "essentialism" without fear that any of us will figure out how to become non-"essentialists". Or is it that the rest of us have mere words but you have -- ideas?
: 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: There's also a global economic INFRASTRUCTURE, but that is doubtless also a product of our minds. Or is it?
: "behaviorism" can't consider anything. 'behavoirists' maybe? Only individual human beings can consider anything.
SDF: Does your debate squad give you points for being pedantic? But of course, I know what it is -- how could I forget! My posts contain mere words, and are justly criticizable for their syntactic content, whereas yours contain -- ideas!!!
: : 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.
SDF: Since it fits the evidence I've presented rather nicely, and since you haven't come CLOSE to what argumentation theorists call "direct clash" with any of my points, I think I will! But of course I am sadly mistaken here, since I am merely reading the words of the threads you started, while ignoring the essential "ideas" you hid from me.
: : 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.
SDF: For one who dishes out quite a lot of sarcasm, you sure don't recognize it when it comes from someone else's posts. Or maybe it's that I am not capable of sarcasm, but only of mere appeal to emotion?
