You need something about how mainstream economics is always wrong, even if you know nothing about mainstream economics
Did you develop your worldview overnight?
i dont get it
It is ridiculous to criticize someone merely because they changed their arguments. He never pretended that he did not change his arguments.
where did i criticize him son
Giles, Your post was too long so I’m just assuming its incorrect.
Here:
If the above quoted portion is not a sarcastic attack, then you are a poor communicator.
perhaps the english is not your first language then
You see criticizing Rothbardians as a valid exercise to developing a world outlook?
Criticizing and examining ANYONE does create a better world outlook.
If you live in a self-reciprocating cycle of your own beliefs; you are 99% likely to be wrong… Like W Bush
“a priori” and “ad hominem” are not difficult terms to understand. They are commonly used.
In that portion that you quoted, I did not address the criticisms of any one else other than “tacoface”. He seemed to attack Giles because Giles often changes his arguments.
If the portion that I quoted is not a criticism, then what is it?
How does one know what to criticize if one does not already have an established view. If I have no conceptual knowledge of politics, how then would I criticize anyone?
That is an interesting strawman. You changed incomplete knowledge into no knowledge.
No I attack Giles because his arguments have already been presented [ in previous topics ] and am therefore not committing ad hominen [ disregarding the arguments of Giles and attacking him solely ] fallacies when I state that his bizarre nature is full of purposely neglected contradictions. Giles was a Monarchist months ago when he was a moderator so it is not as if he is ‘finally discovering himself.’
I do not understand that passage. I never said that you formed an ad-hominen. And I did not see where you explained that his contradictions are “purposely neglected”. Also, I do not understand why being a monarchist means that you cannot change your views. Also, I did not say that he is “finally discovering himself”.
You criticize yourself. If you cant criticize the things you agree with your beliefs are based soley on faith, and no real evidence. Its like taking lessons of liberty from the founders even though they were slave owners. Yes, Jefferson was a hypocrite, but was he wrong in the declaration?
a ha! so someone here does know what as hominem means. Im surprised, everyone else thinks it simply means a personal attack, not a diversion based on a personal attack.
Criticizing a political ideology that I do not know of or have conceptual knowledge of disallows me to make a priori judgements about it. If you disagree then I put forth this challenge to you. I have just invented a new ideology called Obtuse Naturism. Criticize the political platforms of Obtuse Naturism and propound your ideology which according to you is obviously better. Perhaps you are thinking of asserting ‘well how do we begin our journey into the political ideology?’ to which I reply, we experience states [ ie state of freedom ] which we conceptualize through experience. If I like the state of freedom then I will be willing to join an ideology that propounds a state of freedom and from this conceptualization I can preform a priori predictions as to the results of this enacting of this state.
Therefore to criticize an ideology is to imply that it is bad and therefore you are implying that there is a good. What this good is, is obviously from the conceptualization of an experienced state. Therefore to criticize, one must have an established set of concepts.