I don't know what else to tell a quasi-conspiracy theorist.

I like how you have to throw the word "quasi" in there to innoculate yourself from the fact that I don't actually believe in any conspiracies.

nice.

hey borodog, what was my relation to your making this post? did i help you discover you were a jerk on here? was i meaningless?

one point though. i think you lashing out at other peoples posts reflects on the security you feel in your own ideas. you made the exact same point to me in my post (although in my own post i literally said something like ´interesting that i get so defensive about this´ acknowleding the fact so your post was more like an -i told you so-).

Your thread tilted me and I'm not even an ACist.

This is definitely wrong unless you are using a bizarre definition of rigor. Nothing anybody ever posts on 2+2 politics is at the level of rigor of even social sciences, which is very low. The difference between the ACists here and everybody else is that the Acists don't realize this.

Oh, stop it. Plenty of people who consider them selves ACists do the same thing. Inability to look at a problem or situation from multiple points of view is not unique to statists.

There are plenty of people on here from a variety of different of points of view that are intellectually rigid.

You played little if any part. I've always been an ******* in internet debates, from back in the days when I was arguing with creationists. I eventually lost interest in having the same debate over and over with the same sorts of intellectually dishonest posters and trolls making the same logical mistakes over and over. I used to post much more extensively here on free market anarchism two years ago, but eventually my interest waned for precisely the same reasons, because the arguments of the creationist and the statist are precisely analogous; neither one can comprehend how complex order and harmonies can arise without a central planner, a designer.

Nah. I'm just an *******.

I guess I meant a high level of rigor relative to typical arguments about political philosophy, not rigor equivalent to that of a mathematical proof.

Maybe like comparing someone who thinks that it may be possible that having a state makes things better for a majority of people to creationists?

They make the same arguments. What do you want?

Hooray for sweeping generalizations!

Look, people. I'm willing to give folks what they want and have this kind of thread once in a while, but I am not willing to simultaneously put up with complaints from each side that the others' sweeping generalizations (but not their own) are out of bounds. So if these kinds of complaints continue it's just getting locked.

When I said Acists on here I was referring to something like 5 to 7 posters, all of whom you could switch around their posts and not be able to tell. How on Earth can that be considered sweeping?

Specifically, to name a few:

God/Government of the Gaps
Argument from Ignorance
Inability to comprehend spontaneous order
Inability to understand the importance of selection pressures/structures of incentives
Irreducible complexity
Accusations of "empty tautology"
Micro/Macro fallacy

I could probably come up with others.

How indeed?

Why do you think I mentioned valenzeula. On average, though, ACists are going to have a higher degree of standing than statists, by a lot. If ACism was the default position, the opposite would probably be true.

That doesn't really work when you blah blah the actual argument imo.

Maybe one time somebody arguing for the state made that argument but I don't think it is very common.

Mainly because I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and the context of our previous thread. I'd be even more harsh on your ridiculously naive beliefs not given your background.

I guess thats understandable.

What do you mean by higher degree of standing?

I, for one, am shocked that "Why am I such an *******?" has turned into "Here is why I am so much smarter than everyone else!"

O RLY? FWIW your internet persona comes off as more of an angry fifteen year old bitching about how unfair life is than an *******.

We really need to get back on topic, which is discussing why Borodog is such an *******.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/...ur-future.html