Peter 'Happy' Thomas (happypete) wrote,
Peter 'Happy' Thomas

  • Mood:

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.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.