On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:15 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve said: > ... dmb resorted to an ad hominem to avoid having to respond to the argument > that Marsha made. See below... > >> Marsha previously: >> Right. Dmb is conflating the SOM and MoQ; they're two different >> metaphysics. The MOQ rejects the Cartesian self as a ridiculous >> fiction and replaces that concept of the self with the MOQ's concept >> of the self as a complex ecology of static patterns. The Cartesian >> self is the problem and the MOQ's self is the solution to that >> problem. But Dmb has confused and conflated these two concepts so >> that he ends up rejecting the MOQ's solution. Then the MOQ's solution, >> not to mention the author of the MOQ, is misconstrued as the >> ridiculous fiction. He can't distinguish between the poison and the >> antidote, between the wreckage and the repair job. > > dmb says: > Actually, I usually delete Marsha's posts and I hadn't seen these remarks > until you posted it. I recognize it, however, because it's a slightly > re-worded version of something I said. She merely redirected my accusation > back at me. That's not an argument. It's just childish mockery. > You edited things to make it look like I was responding to Marsha's mockery, > Steve. I wasn't. I was responding to a different set of Marsha's > "equivocating weasel words".
Steve: That wasn't my intent, and I apologize. I assumed you were responding to her most recent post about how you continue to conflate SOM with the MOQ when it comes to the free will issue. dmb: As anyone can see from the original post, her "merely evasive" statements, the ones with "no meaning at all" were about how she neither accepts nor rejects free will or determinism. You had to do some work to create this lie. Wow. You really are an asshole and liar. It's flattering in a way but I'm also shocked at how low you've gone here. What a sleazy thing to do. I've lost all respect for you. Steve: If you don't read Marsha's posts except to mock her, then I guess it is no surprise that you find her claim that she neither accepts nor rejects free will or determinism to be meaningless even though both Marsha and I have made the case repeatedly that the MOQ denies the premise upon which it could even make sense to ask about free will and determinism. If you ever want to work on breaking out of your narcissism, you might start by withholding the judgment that everything that means nothing to you is just plain meaningless and that everything that you can't understand is simply incomprehensible. dmb: > And on top of all that, do you really think it's unfair to characterize > Marsha's mantra as equivocation, as meaningless weasel words? I don't. Her > track record on evasive equivocation is spectacular and unmatched. And do you > know of any way to register a complaint about weasel words without insulting > their author, at least by implication? I don't. Apparently, an "ad hominem > attack" is now defined as any criticism that hurts your feelings or states > things frankly. This means, of course, that all criticism is now off limits. Steve: No, as I already said, I think that sometimes Marsha DOES make such a retreat as a refusal to defend a claim she makes with her "illusion" tactic. But this was not one of those cases since she had already explained why the MOQ denies the premise of the debate she refuses to participate in. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
