I will explain and defend my administrative decisions to a certain extent, but I will not “debate” them with you. I will, however, debate scholarly issues
So far, you have done neither. I could give you numerous examples of actual offensive imagery or racist talk, i.e. the types of things I DID NOT post in this thread, but then you would probably, once again, fail to recognize the context of the discussion and punish me further. It seems like you are ignorant of the atrocities by the Israeli government and therefore have no problem feeling offended if anyone questions Israel’s “right” to herd Palestinians into ghettos.
It’s apparent that you are incapable of admitting to your mistakes. Balance an image that some people may find offensive, who probably also ignore the Jew praising Hitler’s “necessary technical application of law”, which was up for maybe an hour, against all of my other contributions to the forums. Bloom seems so embarrased that I brought his position to its logical conclusion that he totally stopped responding to me in that thread. Still, what is horrifying to you is my image and not what he advocates.
And I will point out that you have still yet to answer my refutation of argumentation ethics from a long time ago, even though I wrote the refutation in response to your challenge to critique it.
Refutation? I would really like to see this and am sad that I must have missed it. I forget what thread it was but I remember you vacuously asserting that flaws existed with Hoppe’s theory then telling me several times that you didn’t have time to justify your statements. I remember telling you that if your theory is so solid that you ought to post a Mises Daily on it, seeing as you have the keys to the kingdom and all.
You remember incorrectly. What I didn’t have time for was to look into Argumentation Ethics to write the refutation in the first place without some thing provided for me to respond to.
Remember this?
Again, if you want something from me, give me something concrete to respond to that you think undermines my position, even if it’s only a single paragraph, and I’ll respond.
But I don’t write monographs on cue.
After insisting on a response without providing me something to respond to you finally quoted Hoppe. I responded with a fully Misesian point that Hoppe’s entire enterprise of trying to “refute” a value judgment is non-sensical to begin with. Instead of grappling with my point, you just wrote “hurt-piece” and told me to go write a Mises Daily, to which I replied:
Are you saying my argument is somehow “drunken” or “ugly”? If so, how so?
ERO,
You repeatedly ask me to respond to Hoppe’s ArgEthics. You finally give me something to chew on, so I do so with a fully Misesian analysis of Hoppe’s vain attempt to refute a value judgment, and all you have in response is childish teh-internetz-speak? And you have the nerve to say you’re embarrassed by me?
What a joke. You can find Hoppe’s own writings and all of the responses to criticisms on his website. I’m not going to recount them for you and anyhow I’ve written plenty on them. Where is the “refutation”? I sure as hell don’t see it.
In lieu of a substantive arguement you’ve, once again, tried to distract things by focusing on my “incivility”. I don’t know where you get the idea that “hurt piece” means drunken or ugly, maybe some internet slang directory. Well, I’ll assure you that that is not how I meant it. I meant, “Wow! These forums are a hurt piece. The quote button still doesn’t work and for some reason everything I write is in italics. Wow! These people are concentrating on ‘personal, subjective valuations’ and don’t seem to realize that law can be analyzed praxeologically.”
I am typing this line since I accidentally posted this in the real forums and am getting a duplicate post warning. edit: I just now clicked your last link. If you think that is a refutation, you are sorely mistaken. You haven’t even read Kinsella on estoppel still I take it. If you really think:
“AE comes in to convince non-sadists and non-ascetics what social arrangement will best suit their ends: namely the contractual society. That post of mine you quoted wasn’t in response to your post which you linked to. It was in response to the “dodge” image you posted.”
You are seriously confused.
ERO: “Where is the “refutation”? I sure as hell don’t see it.”
Here. (I tried to link to this particular post in in my last post, but missed a “>” in my “a” tag. It’s there now.)
Regarding your edit: you fail to provide an argument. Notice how when I debate Rettoper, I do not vaguely gesture at literature. When I utilize Austrian authors, I explain in my own words how his positions are disproved by the arguments of those Austrian authors, or at least directly quote the relevant passages. You would be much more convincing in general (to your readers, if not your opponents) if you did the same.
I’ll make a debate thread later today. I don’t want to hear another word about this except that you accept or decline. Do you not understand the rule of staying on topic? While I work this up, you can get back on the topic of Israel.
I accept. Same rules as the Retopper debate.
While I work this up, you can get back on the topic of Israel.
I am not discussing the topic of Israel in the context of the OP of this thread (again I will not engage in “debates” over administrative decisions).
You claimed to be able to justify the decision, but in light of the issue of context, you are unable to do so. GGUL
Is this how you speak to people offline?
I’m asking because you seem to think that being insulting, cruel, making personal attacks, and demanding is going to get you any closer to your goals. And yet, it is obvious to almost anyone that you have zero power in the very relationships you behave with such belligerence.
You were much cooler headed and much more civil last year. But now, instead of behaving like a leader, which would reflect your tenure and understanding, you act like a big spoiled kid here in the community. While that is certainly your prerogative, I can’t help but ask what end it is you think you are going to achieve by being so wound up and anti-social to the very people whose cooperation you require in order to move forward your agenda (any agenda).
Do you really think Lilburne doesn’t have other things he would rather work on, including spending time offline with his family, than to humor you and put up with your insults and attacks? Do you really think that the Mises Institute, and the Mises Community in particular owes you something? Do you have any idea how many volunteer man hours people have dedicated to provide you with the opportunity to be so disrespectful? Do you really think that making people feel bad is the best contribution you have to offer, or that treating people with such disdain is somehow righteous and reflects your higher morality and intelligence?
Please, check yourself. Your behavior has become beyond embarrassing.
Why did you quit as forum admin?
There were several reasons, many of them personal, but I will say that the way some cough libertarians cough treated me, other members of the staff and LvMI explicitly and implicitly really bothered me quite a bit.