?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Oh, it gets better - A Suburbs Boy Living a Country Life [Pete and Pam's pages (photos and some commentary)] [Pam's journal] [Our company] [My Flickr Photos] [Arisia]
July 7th, 2006
01:14 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Oh, it gets better
elorie posted a rant about me--and took a swipe at some of my friends--in note_to_asshat.
Among other errors, she again gets the definition of "ad hominem" wrong.  It is not necessary to be attacking the person making an argument to commit ad hominem.  Attempting to discredit a source--whether it be the speaker, or someone the speaker is citing--with "name-calling" is fallacious.  The specific case in point:  It is acceptable to argue against Objectivism or Libertarianism on the merits.  On the other hand, a rational person will not accept your thesis if you back it up solely by insulting Ayn Rand.  What I described as an instance of the fallacy of ad hominem is exactly that.  To quote--just for the heck of it--Ayn Rand:  "A is A."  The fact that elorie is attempting to convince her readers that "A is not A" merely by repeating herself more and more loudly and vehemently suggests, perhaps, the crux of "why we can't get along." 

If you're not already convinced, please look at the original comment from reikimaster [I have underlined her thesis, and italicized her argument]:
I concur [that Libertarianism is the bastard child of privilege]. Plus, libertarianism was borne out of those utterly lame books by Ayn Rand, mindless mensch. She couldn't have be more of a selfish evil moron. not that I have strong feelings about it or anything. Libertarianism seems to me to be what ultra-right Republicans go to when Bush is not enough.
Note please that in the ensuing  comments, I demonstrated to her exactly how it did apply precisely to what her commenter said, with a helpful analogy and a WikiPedia reference, to boot.  Is it ironic or merely pathetic that she accuses me of not listening to her at the same time that she refuses to listen to me or anyone else that disagrees with her?

She says that she included me in her sample of "Whack job" libertarians, despite my public recanting of at least capital-L libertarianism.  Calling me a whack job, though, does not make it so.  She says I am "entitlement-poisoned?" because I have a few natural talents and am willing to work hard every day, continue to improve myself, and do what I can to contribute to my own good as well as that of others--including doing my part to protect her from people who would gladly kill her and any other Infidel they could in order to make their point.

She also complained that I took the liberty of e-mailing her without invitation when she unfriended me and disabled commenting by non-friends.  Perhaps she shouldn't publish her e-mail address?  I didn't ask for nor did I take anything as an "invitation" to e-mail her.  I simply sent her an e-mail explaining how I feel. Don't like what I have to say in your journal?  Ban me.  Don't like what I have to say in e-mail?  Delete it.  If I really wanted to make sure she got the message, I could have sent her a certified letter--but it's not worth the postage.  I have no sympathy on this regard.

In her rant, she calls me a "shit-for-brains" and accuses my friends who commented of committing of perpetrating "troll infestation."  I won't do her the favor of returning the favor--I'd rather her words and mine stand side-by-side and let everyone else be the judge.

I'm not sure why she closes by pointing out that she doesn't want to have sex with me.  I would think that would go without saying, at this point, and I most certainly didn't ask.

Current Mood: bitchybitchy

(21 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:xoder
Date:July 7th, 2006 06:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
capital-R libertarianism

Completely off-topic, but I find the above construction hilarious and also useful for separating libertarian thinkers of many different walks from the nutjobs that want private roadways everywhere ;-)
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:July 7th, 2006 07:03 pm (UTC)

heh...

(Link)
fixed...heh...So it's the capital R libertarians I have to watch out for..good to know. ;)
[User Picture]
From:xoder
Date:July 7th, 2006 07:08 pm (UTC)

Re: heh...

(Link)
See... I thought it was intentional! The post you're commenting on said that libertarianism was "what ultra-right Republicans go to when Bush is not enough." Therefore, "capital R libertarians" are ultra-right Republicans that want to abolish the federal government so they can pay no taxes and be bigoted against "brown people" and gays.

Or something....
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:July 7th, 2006 07:13 pm (UTC)

Re: heh...

(Link)
Oh, right...

Yeah, I was never one of those to begin with, though.

Abolishing the federal government, though...can we do that?
[User Picture]
From:ne
Date:July 8th, 2006 12:10 am (UTC)

Re: heh...

(Link)
Constitution says we have the right to fix it if it's not working grin.
[User Picture]
From:moonstaff
Date:July 7th, 2006 06:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
She's a bit obsessive about being right, it would seem. To attack people who disagree with you simply shows her propensity to live in a mental fallacy of her own design. Translation? She's delusional. Her assertion that anyone making claims counter to her own is engaging in logical fallacy is laughable. Since these same assertions are so emotionally charged, it's just dripping with irony.

I wouldn't let her attempts at self-validation and ego stroking upset you. She lives in her own mind. Those of us who, at least on some level or another, identify as libertarian and were raised with next to nothing for money, know how full of shit she is.

Let it rest. She's got issues.
[User Picture]
From:eeedge
Date:July 7th, 2006 06:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You're as bad as I am about picking at wounds. Once the person proved she was a close minded idiot, you weren't going to be able to change her mind. Don't read her communities and wipe her from your mind as best you can! She's going to keep things as superficial, inaccurate and nasty as she can.
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:July 7th, 2006 07:07 pm (UTC)

Actually what happened was...

(Link)
twochicsinbham mentioned that they had really enjoyed some of the things she wrote in note_to_asshat. I haven't looked at the timestamp, but I'm guessing she hadn't posted her rant when they said that, or they hadn't read it.

I went looking to see if there was something of redeeming value--and instead, walked right into her attack.

I sought to join the community, and, surprise-surprise, my request was sent to the community maintainers, including, of course elorie.

I've had reasonably good conversations with one of the other maintainers in the past; it'll be interesting to know if I'll be permitted to post my response.
[User Picture]
From:phoenix_glow
Date:July 7th, 2006 07:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think people's livejournals really do tend to be their little islands. They are in charge there, and isn't that the fun of it all?

Also it's rarely easy to have a GOOD argument about religion or politics that doesn't get alot of heated unhappy feelings in a rile.

I'd go play elsewhere where the psychodrama isn't brewing. ;)
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:July 7th, 2006 07:21 pm (UTC)

The area around you tends to be a psycho-drama free zone..

(Link)
...when's that little shin-dig again?
[User Picture]
From:phoenix_glow
Date:July 7th, 2006 07:32 pm (UTC)

Re: The area around you tends to be a psycho-drama free zone..

(Link)
Saturday, July 15th -- 4 pm onward, our place, grill going. Life is good. ;)
Hope you can make it. :)
[User Picture]
From:wombat1138
Date:July 7th, 2006 07:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I present two rhetorical questions based on the premise that she is an irrational paranoid idee-fixeuse:

1.) Why do you care about what she says about you?

2.) Why are we supposed to care about what she says about you?
[User Picture]
From:drowsy_poppy
Date:July 8th, 2006 12:16 am (UTC)
(Link)
My take on it, if happypete wishes to respond differently, I will consider myself chastised.

1. He knew her, at least in passing, and cared enough about her to comment on the discussion she started, and valued her opinion enough to put thought into said discussion.

2. Her comments obviously made happypete unhappy, and therefore belong on his journal. We care enough about happypete to read his journal, therefore we offer him comfort. If he's still talking about it a week from now, then people can bitch about him not letting it go.
[User Picture]
From:drowsy_poppy
Date:July 7th, 2006 07:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh dear.

You know, I knew Elorie in a weird, distant internet sense for a while, starting about four years ago. It seems that every few months, something would happen along these lines:

Step 1: Elorie says something she knows will stir shit.

Step 2: Shit is stirred by the many people who view her journal or community. In the process, somebody doesn't agree with her.

Step 3: Elorie takes offense that someone would disagree, claims that shit was never meant to be stirred, and declares that her journal has and always will be a shit-free zone.

Step 4: She bans people, rants, and makes a new user icon.

Don't worry, you aren't the first its happened to. Laugh it off, open a beer, and toast the drama llama.
[User Picture]
From:gsh
Date:July 7th, 2006 08:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Why don't you just give it up and ignore her?

[User Picture]
From:dindin
Date:July 7th, 2006 08:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't know elorie, but I finally went to see the hubub, bub and I'm not surprised to see the comment above me about her.

What I saw was: Inflammatory statement, somewhat vigorous discussion, and the only "boundary" of hers you crossed was being able to conduct a thorough argument that contradicted her viewpoint...so she went apeshit. Now, maybe you've bugged the shit out of her in the past and this was a last straw kind of deal, I kind of doubt it.

If you had omgviolated her boundaries so much, why is she still talking about it? Granted everyone is different, but usually when one's boundaries are violated, one tends to go inward, no? Not raging outward with such intense anger. My community psychos love to do that. "OMG you're such a meanie. *I* don't have an attitude, YOU have an attitude. I'm now going to call you all sorts of names because you banned me for breaking the rules!" That's what I see her doing.

Deep breath, shake it off and let it go.
[User Picture]
From:chaiya
Date:July 7th, 2006 08:06 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah, in an argument such as this one, there's no winner. The best that can be said is that you kept your cool, you didn't sink to low insults and degrading sexual comments. That makes her look like the nutjob, frankly.

You get kudos from me, at least. Then again, I was in the same situation with eleri (interesting how the lj users seem similar in this way, eh?) just last night. Grr.
[User Picture]
From:datavortex
Date:July 8th, 2006 08:55 am (UTC)
(Link)
Haha. She's a classic whackjob. I submitted her to ljdrama.org.
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:July 8th, 2006 01:05 pm (UTC)

A classic, eh?

(Link)
When we blew up at each other over Katrina, I chalked it up to stress, mis-communication, and defending her friends against a what she perceived as a personal attack by me against them...We got past it, or so I thought...and then this...
[User Picture]
From:datavortex
Date:July 8th, 2006 06:29 pm (UTC)

Re: A classic, eh?

(Link)
"Classic" in the sense "I've seen this pattern of behaviour and fallacy thousands of times before."
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:July 8th, 2006 06:43 pm (UTC)

Re: A classic, eh?

(Link)
I knew what you meant, I was just musing on the situation...
Pete, Pam and Quinn's pages Powered by LiveJournal.com