: 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: Words ARE our ideas -- in fact, there's nothing more to ideas than words --
Okay, what you want me to start doing, just like all my Randian friends, is defining my terms. But this always results in an exercise of futility. Every word I define is based upon more words which, in turn, is based upon even more words.
: but you can continue to believe otherwise, so keep your definition of "essentialism" a secret.
If you'd followed the debate I have made it quite clear, several times, that essentialism claims to look at things 'as they are' as opposed to asking how we interact with them and how they interact with each other. Reducing all reality to the existance of the wage relation is pure essentialism.
: This will allow you to accuse us all of "essentialism" without fear that any of us will figure out how to become non-"essentialists".
Give up the blatantly falacious 'laws of historical development' ideas and start developing real, feasible solutions to waht you see wrong with the world.
: Or is it that the rest of us have mere words but you have -- ideas?
No. You have ideas but continuously fall back upon essentialist definitionism to support your 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?
I have no answer for this. Show me specific real world experiments we can engage in to make the world a better place to live.
: : "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!!!
Again, you fall back upon words such as 'exploitation' to give your ideas force. I don't. My goal is to make my arguements stand or fall without having to claim that they are based upon some objective essential definition of 'the good'.
: : : 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"),
Well, Marx would have certainly taken issue with you. His whole historical materialism idea rested upon the observation taht throughout history every human being has been tied to the need to support their metabolism; tribes included. And additionally, Marx is but one small philosopher in a sea of such. The whole post was showing the fallaciousness of 'exploitation' as envisioned by Marx and his erroneous ananlyses of power and relationships.
And nothing here even addresses any issues I brought up.
: 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.
I make no bones about it . . . I was pissed. You were avoiding any pretense of dialog by setting up straw man arguements. Your post, to my recollection, said something like 'how bout when they came for the Jews' families and individuals were forced to cooperate with the Germans; where's your rational choice now?" This didn't even address anything I was referring to.
: : 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!
Ummm, it would have been helpful had you actually made some points.
: 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.
No. You simply either misread my post or sought to obfuscate the issue and avoid rational dialog.
: 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?
This, also, actually says pretty much nothing. I've been called evil, morally deficient, greedy, etc. at least ten times on this board. Phrases like 'fuck you' or 'whining lefties' while emotive clearly are not trying to subsitute emotion in place of rational dialog. By calling someone evil you are baldly stating that nothing they say can have value. It completely avoids rational dialog while insults and ridicul do not.
At this instant, I'll take your word for it and assume ridicule. however, it has been directed towards me to often to think that many actually are saying this seriously
But Sammy-Boy you still are an asshole.
