Is there an ignore function for this site? I’ve never really checked. I’m not going to go through pages of Auto accusing me of trying to “intimidate” him, and throwing all kinds of baseless accusations and irrelevant hypothetical scenarios. It’s annoying to no end.
It’s not like I’m the only one here who has accused him of it either…
So apparently you do know what’s going on inside my head.
Like this, what does this even mean? I said in a passing joke that I’m not psychic, but earlier I had pointed out that I’m familiar with his behavior. Is this response a joke, or is he really accusing me of being psychic?
I call BS on this. You’re just trying to get me to back down. That’s not going to happen, understand?
And this? Was I trying to get him to “back down?” Am I really trying to intimidate him? Well.. I guess if I’m telling a liar to stop lying, ya I guess that is me trying to intimidate someone.
Then it shouldn’t be too hard for you to point out, or otherwise explain, exactly how you’ve “conclusively proven” my accusations wrong. So go on, then. What are you afraid of?
Notice that after I said this, I proceeded to (at least try to) prove his accusation wrong. So I did do it, yet he accuses me of not doing it because I’m “scared.” Stop trying to intimidate me Auto… stooge.
I think it is a repsonse. Understand? If you disagree, well, that’s your problem, not mine. Understand?
I mean I guess a false accusation is a response…
No, it doesn’t. You were shifting the goalpost in trying to change the context of our discussion. I noted that the US Constitution isn’t a voluntary agreement on my part, while agreeing to work for someone would be.
Notice that he never noted this. Maybe in his head he did, but not in his post. He said “I didn’t sign the Constitution as a contract” (or words to that effect) and I responded that “I never signed any contract making me a part of the legalized property system.”
Then you shifted from the context of voluntary agreements to the context of coercion. This isn’t rocket surgery.
Notice I did no such thing… but… talking about coercion in the context of voluntarism is “shifting the posts?” That would be like talking about food in the subject of obesity is shifting the post.
If you’d like, I’d be happy to start a thread where I challenge you, personally and directly, to a debate over whether property is coercive - i.e. whether someone owning or even possessing something is itself inherently coercive against those who don’t own/possess it.
I would be happy to do that… with anyone other than him (in fact, Isn’t that what we’re doing in this thread right now. The coerciveness of a property system is sort of fundamental to Marx’s view on the worker/owner relationship). If I debate it with Auto, it’s just going to be 5 pages of me defending myself from charges of dishonesty. The worse part being that 1) fallaciousness is not dishonesty 2) he can never conclusively prove his accusation, only state and restate it endlessly.
I’m actually quite sure he’ll accuse me of some dishonesty and intimidation for referring to him in the third person, rather than responding directly to him. I just hope he doesn’t troll me in PM again… and I in a small way regret not forwording that conversatin to a mod. But I’m not really one to get someone in trouble over dumb drama.
Obviously, I don’t think you critiqued my fictional scenario. Rather, I think you presented a different fictional scenario as a distraction. If you want to convince me that I’m wrong, then I’m all ears. The above doesn’t do that though.
I had to present a different scenario, obviously, because his was a straw man and irrelevant to my post… to put it succinctly, just the “distraction” he is accusing of me.
I call BS on this, too. Acting obtuse like this is not going to save face whatsoever, least of all with me.
This would be easier if he could take a joke…
Unless Auto can stop trolling me, this will be my last response to him, ever.