Remember, going into a debate, if you have Rothbard on your side, you are a priori correct. However, to ensure your victory in a debate, you can follow the lead of your masters Rothbard and Hoppe have set the standard for debate. If you want to "knock down" your opponent, take the following steps:
A few more, general, pointers:
Allowed Authors:
Authors who should be avoided:
Now for some quotes:
THE ONE:"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance
What he really meant
THE ONE:It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while disagreeing with me."
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Hahahahaha, I laughed so much with this!
GilesStratton:However, to ensure your victory in a debate, you can follow the lead of your masters Rothbard and Hoppe have set the standard for debate.
Weren't you a self-admitted Hoppeian?Is this one of those blood-crudling cries for attention? It seems like you have one every week now.
'Why can't we talk about the regression theory!?'
'Why can't we all believe that economics is a value-free discipline!?'
'Ouch mommy, the Rothbardians are hurting me because I say silly things!'
Honestly, apart from the aggrandizement of these blood-crudling cries, why do you stay here? Perhaps such behavior can be explained by reading Venus in Furs. Perhaps such metaphorical beatings excite you.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Well given that this was a joke, I think I'm justified in telling you that you need to a priori CALM DOWN!
But yeah, I called myself a Hoppean. Then I learned a thing or two about a thing or two. Doesn't mean I don't still appreciate some of his insights, just, I think he's wrong on a lot of things and his argumentation ethics isa joke.
GilesStratton:Well given that this was a joke, I think I'm justified in telling you that you need to a priori CALM DOWN!
Everything that you seem to be saying is a joke these days and while I love humor, I have to ask...when are you actually going to say anything serious?
GilesStratton:But yeah, I called myself a Hoppean. Then I learned a thing or two about a thing or two. Doesn't mean I don't still appreciate some of his insights, just, I think he's wrong on a lot of things and his argumentation ethics isa joke.
I think it is sub-par but has a tenacious spirit. There are better arguments for ethical systems of agent neutrality.
It's nice to see people change their mind.
ivanfoofoo: It's nice to see people change their mind.
What does that mean?
Anarchist Cain:I love humor
Clearly.
Anarchist Cain:when are you actually going to say anything serious?
It's not as if I've not tried. It's just, when I do, people out compete me using the methods outlined above. You see, I argue that fractional reserve banking is legitimate I'm called a fraudster, I argue that it's efficient and I get called a Keynesian. I argue that the market is not infallalible and that institutions may be necessary to correct "market failure" such a global warming or various other public goods issues I get called a "socialist" and a "statist". I argue that religion may be necessary for some of rational ethic and I get called a "nihilist" and a "religious nut" in the same breath.
I don't think I need continue.
GilesStratton:It's not as if I've not tried. It's just, when I do, people out compete me using the methods outlined above. You see, I argue that fractional reserve banking is legitimate I'm called a fraudster, I argue that it's efficient and I get called a Keynesian. I argue that the market is not infallalible and that institutions may be necessary to correct "market failure" such a global warming or various other public goods issues I get called a "socialist" and a "statist". I argue that religion may be necessary for some of rational ethic and I get called a "nihilist" and a "religious nut" in the same breath.
These are all just titles given to you. If they only give you titles and not arguments...why should you care what they say?
GilesStratton:I don't think I need continue.
Then why are you still here?
Anarchist Cain:These are all just titles given to you. If they only give you titles and not arguments...why should you care what they say?
I don't care, it's just tiring.
Anarchist Cain:Then why are you still here?
To teach people who to beat down socialists in debates.
I think the only thing that would make this better is if it were in the checkbox survey format.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
GilesStratton: It's not as if I've not tried. It's just, when I do, people out compete me using the methods outlined above. You see, I argue that fractional reserve banking is legitimate I'm called a fraudster, I argue that it's efficient and I get called a Keynesian. I argue that the market is not infallalible and that institutions may be necessary to correct "market failure" such a global warming or various other public goods issues I get called a "socialist" and a "statist". I argue that religion may be necessary for some of rational ethic and I get called a "nihilist" and a "religious nut" in the same breath. I don't think I need continue.
You must learn to ignore personal attacks.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
market failure???????
Funny post.
GilesStratton:To teach people who to beat down socialists in debates.
Don't get too caught up debating people on teh interwebs. There are bigger fish to fry.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Anarchist Cain:Is this one of those blood-crudling cries for attention? It seems like you have one every week now.
Pretty much.
Persecution complex. Apparently this paranoia validates acting like an ass.
its actually quite amusing, he leaps from idea to idea every coupla months and acts as if noone has ever thought of it before and boy when he has a new idea doesnt everyone hear about it. he's so eager to show everyone how smart he is, that its basically all he posts about, I'M SO SMART!!!
funny thing is, is that next month he'll be saying something that completely contradicts his current ideas. but theyll be 100% correct of course!
he's a big teaser
he took me half the way there now
Spot on; but you forgot one. You hinted at it, but never outlined it
Use as much latin as possible; even if you have no idea what it means; a priori, ad hominem, semper fi tyranus!, whatever, noone else knows the latin so... you can just act like you do.
(Always faithfusl to tyrants; but you can just tell people its what Booth said when he shot Lincoln, they wont know.)
You need something about how mainstream economics is always wrong, even if you know nothing about mainstream economics
tacoface: its actually quite amusing, he leaps from idea to idea every coupla months and acts as if noone has ever thought of it before and boy when he has a new idea doesnt everyone hear about it. he's so eager to show everyone how smart he is, that its basically all he posts about, I'M SO SMART!!! funny thing is, is that next month he'll be saying something that completely contradicts his current ideas. but theyll be 100% correct of course! . . . he's a big teaser he took me half the way there now
. . .
Did you develop your worldview overnight?
i dont get it
tacoface: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.
tacoface: where did i criticize him son
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
I. Ryan: tacoface: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.
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
Hermes on the day of your death: Spot on; but you forgot one. You hinted at it, but never outlined it Use as much latin as possible; even if you have no idea what it means; a priori, ad hominem, semper fi tyranus!, whatever, noone else knows the latin so... you can just act like you do.
"a priori" and "ad hominem" are not difficult terms to understand. They are commonly used.
Anarchist Cain: You see criticizing Rothbardians as a valid exercise to developing a world outlook?
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.
tacoface: perhaps the english is not your first language then
If the portion that I quoted is not a criticism, then what is it?
Hermes on the day of your death: 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
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?
Anarchist Cain: 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.
I. Ryan: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.
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.'
Anarchist Cain: 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.
I. Ryan:That is an interesting strawman. You changed incomplete knowledge into no knowledge.
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.