David Gordon Layeth the Smackdown

[John_James]

[Just as a sidenote, I grow bored with MMMark quite quickly, and I honestly didn’t really have an intention to respond to this latest nonsense, but since gotlucky made the effort to express his interest (using my graphic, too!), I figured what the hell. So this one’s for you, Bugs.]

@MMMark

I didn’t say you ignore his “arguments”; I said you ignore his argument. Singular, not plural. Now, which “argument” do I say you ignore? Why, the very one I make reference to when I write, in my very next sentence, “And what is Molyneux’s argument here?” and then go on to lay out what that argument (singular) is (that you ignored, while focusing instead on Molyneux’s “narcissism”).

I “focused” on his narcissism throughout the post. That was the running theme. You brought it up and cried “ad hominem” as if my post were somehow invalidated simply because the theme was his narcissism.

I didn’t ignore anything.

After examining the evidence, Block is clearly both incorrect and hypocritical when he insinuates, without substantiation, that Molyneux is “not a man of principle.”

So let me get this straight. All I have to do is show one single solitary area of my life where it seems to fall in line with a professed principle, and that makes me a principled individual? I didn’t realize it was that easy. Thanks so mmmmuch, mmmmark! That’s a load off my mmmmind.

And as for Block being a hypocrite, I’ll let Block’s own words respond to that. Feel free to contact him with your “refutations” and/or accusations of hypocrisy. I’m sure you’ll be able to give him tons of arguments he’s never heard before.

Wow, I strongly disagree with you here.

Oh my!

What you’ve just asserted, essentially, is that an argumentum ad hominem is a non-fallacious argument. If I were a “Molyneuxbot,” that fact would not, as you suggest, make Molyneux’s point here “true or accurate,” any more than your dislike of Molyneux, or your smearing him as a “narcissist,” would make his point untrue or inaccurate." His personality, or what you or I think of his personality or him personally, has nothing to do with the validity, or the truth or accuracy, of his argument.

Hm. What you’ve said here is reasonable, but your “conclusions” are absurd.

Well, what I’ve said there was a direct refutation of you’re erroneous implication that Molyneux somehow was meaning to claim that there was some huge sect of the human population that didn’t buy into the NAP in private relationships, and that therefore his focus there is not unfounded. So I’ll take your first clause as an admission of your error.

As for your second clause referring to my origanal post from the other thread, please, do tell, what other option is there? I’m just dying to hear it.

@MMMark

@John James

And if one might actually pay attention to the actual point Molyneux was trying to make, instead of pedantically focusing on his wording, …

Physician, heal thyself. This is hypocritical. Your entire analysis (<— note the link) of Molyneux’s video has nothing to do with “the actual point Molyneux was trying to make,” and everything to do with attempting to smear him as a “narcissist.”

First of all, let’s address the fact that in a very ironic, Inception-like twist of occurances, you’re here hypocritically calling me a hypocrite while ignoring the very thing you are doing so that you might accuse me of being a hypocrite for doing what you’re doing while you make you’re accusation.

Simply accusing me of being a hypocrite doesn’t excuse you for mischaracterizing his argument so that you might pretend to “catch” me in “misrepresenting his position” (aka mischaracterizing his argument). I realize this fallback to “oh yeah! well…uh…ad hominem! Also watch me use archaic English to make me sound like I’m really smart while I attempt to abscond with my dignity after doing precisely what I accused you of, so that I might accuse you of it…” is supposed to get you off free somehow, but it’s a poor choice of strategy.

Earlier in this very post I’m quoting from you, you basically implied that I only ignored Molyneux’s argument in favor of focusing on narcissism on a single point. In fact that was the entire point of your first section. You even went in and bolded an “s” and spent sentences talking about plural versus singular in this context. Now that you’ve been shown to be the actual mischaracterizer of Molyneux’s point, you’re looking for some way to point a different finger at me so that you might escape the reality of your error…and you’ve chosen to go back to your “ad hominem” claim…once again seeming to attempt to discount my entire post simply because the running theme throughout was that he’s a narcissist.

First of all, I openly stated that pointing out his narcissism was the theme of the post. It’s not some logical fallacy. I never attempted to claim that anything Molyneux said was wrong because he’s a narcissist. I was merely pointing out the fact that he is one, and providing examples throughout. Just because someone makes personal observations about another person it does not automatically make “ad hominem! ad hominem!” a valid claim.

And as I’ve shown here, (and you evidently agree), I was the one who actually did understand the point Molyneux was trying to make, so I’m not quite sure what ground you think you have to stand on to tell me to pay better attention to the actual point Molyneux was trying to make. Indeed as we’ve established it was you who misrepresented his point so that you might accuse me of misrepresenting his point (and later ironically, of being a hypocrite, evidently).

If you reject my first theory, there is another possibility; consider these quotes:

10:48 peaceful parenting; […] 14:34 how we treat our children;

So, perhaps when Molyneux says “…so violations of the NAP are considered evil in the private sphere, …” he excludes (for example) the use of aggression on children. While “… every sane, reasonable human being in the world accepts the Non-Aggression Principle in personal relationships,” (many of) these people might still spank or otherwise physically aggress against their children.

Here is some evidence to support my theory, from Corporal Punishment, the Nonagression Principle and the Future of Peace: 1:05

Wow you’re definitely “hardworking.” I mean, most people would say “desperate” but I guess it’s just a matter of perspective. You’re certainly willing to sacrifice more time for even the slightest hail mary chance of redemption than I ever would be. I’ll definitely give you an E for effort.