For matters of dispute between Walto and KeithS

A dedicated home to spare other threads.

I’m going to start with Walto’s claim that Keith called him an anti-semite. I looked through and couldn’t find any evidence of this.

41 thoughts on “For matters of dispute between Walto and KeithS

  1. You need to look in guano for that. I was responding to a speech of Hitchens, and I said I was not convinced by Hitchens’ discussion of one of Holmes’ cases. I don’t have any of these links handy (or can even remember the thread on which this exchange occurred. But the gist was that Hitchens mentions something about some “Yiddish speaking socialists” in that case, and I replied that I wasn’t convinced of his point by that mention (there’s really no argument there, just a mention of “Yiddish speaking socialists” and evident moral indigation at Holmes’ decision–but don’t take my word for this, take a look at the vid yourself: much of the transcript made it to the thread here as well).

    Anyhow, I wrote,

    Anyhow, eloquent and clever as Hitchens was, I’m with Holmes on this matter (or at least await something better than the mention of a few Yiddish speaking socialists to convince me.

    to which keiths responded:

    Yeah, who cares about a few Yiddish-speaking socialists? As long as I myself can freely criticize the government, who cares if a few Yids get jailed for protesting the draft? They’re Yiddish-speaking, and socialists, and their liberties aren’t important the way mine are.

    Jesus, Walt.

    I take that to be an accusation of anti-semitism, in spite of that term not being explicitly used. I pointed out in response, not only that as my parents were Jewish (my father was actually fluent in Yiddish), their liberties couldn’t really differ in importance from my own, but also that keiths is an asshole for suggesting that his sarcastic remark reflects my attitude.

    I now leave to the adjudicators their determination. If y’all think I should apologize to keiths for suggesting that he was calling me an anti-semite in that post, I will do so. OTOH, if you think it is I who deserve an apology, I’ll expect one (though I note that while I have submitted to binding arbitration, keiths, unsurprisingly to me, has not).

  2. OK, I found a transcript of the relevant part of the Hitchens’ speech, which was a criticism of Holmes’ view that yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater ought to be regulated. Hitchens was a radical free speech advocate.

    Here it is:

    Transribed from the lecture, as requested, up to seven minutes. More to come.

    Fire, fire, fire, fire. Now you’ve heard it. Not shouted in a crowded theatre, admittedly, as I seem now to have shouted it in the Hogwarts dining hall. But the point is made. Everyone knows the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, when asked for an actual example of when it would be proper to limit speech or define it as an action, gave that of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.

    It’s very often forgotten what he was doing in that case was sending to prison a group of Yiddish speaking socialists, whose literature was printed in a language most Americans couldn’t read, opposing Mr. Wilson’s participation in the First World War, and the dragging of the United States into that sanguinary conflict, which the Yiddish speaking socialists had fled from Russia to escape. In fact it could be just as plausible argued that the Yiddish speaking socialists who were jailed by the excellent and greatly over-praised Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes were the real fire fighters, were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed.

    And who is to decide? Well, keep that question if you would — ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, I hope I may say comrades and friends — before your minds.

    I exempt myself from the speaker’s kind offer of protection that was so generously proffered at the opening of this evening. Anyone who wants to say anything abusive about or to me is quite free to do so, and welcome in fact, at their own risk.

    But before they do that they must have taken, as I’m sure we all should, a short refresher course in the classic texts on this matter. Which are John Milton’s Areopagitica, Ariel Pogetica being the great hill of Athens for discussion and free expression. Thomas Paine’s introduction to the age of reason. And I would say John Stuart Mill’s essay on liberty in which it is variously said — I’ll be very daring and summarize all three of these great gentlemen of the great tradition of, especially, English liberty, in one go: What they say is it’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. Indeed as John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view.

    In more modern times this has been put, I think, best by a personal heroine of mine, Rosa Luxembourg, who said freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently. My great friend John O. Sullivan former editor of the National Review, and I think probably my most conservative and reactionary Catholic friend, once said — it’s a tiny thought experiment — if you hear the Pope saying he believes in God, you think, well, the Pope’s just doing his job again today. If you hear the Pope saying he’s begun to doubt the existence of God, you think he might be on to something.

    Well, if everybody in North America is forced to attend, at school, training in sensitivity in Holocaust awareness and is taught to study the Final Solution, about which nothing was actually done by this country, or by North America, or by the United Kingdom while it was going on, but let’s say as if in compensation for that everyone is made to swallow and official and unalterable story of it now, and it’s taught as the great moral exemplar, the moral equivalent of the morally lacking elements of the Second World War, a way of distilling our uneasy conscience about that combat, if that’s the case with everybody, as it more or less is, and one person gets up and says, “You know, about this Holocaust, I’m not sure it even happened. In fact, I’m pretty certain it didn’t. Indeed, i begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of violence on themselves.” That person doesn’t just have a right to speak, that person’s right to speak must be given extra protection. Because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with, might contain a grain of historical truth, might in any case get people to think about why do they know what they already think they know. How do I know that I know this, except that I’ve always been taught this and never heard anything else?

    It’s always worth establishing first principle. It’s always worth saying what would you do if you met a Flat Earth Society member? Come to think of it, how can I prove the earth is round? Am I sure about the theory of evolution? I know it’s supposed to be true. Here’s someone who says there’s no such thing; it’s all intelligent design. How sure am I of my own views? Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the felling that whatever you think you’re bound to be OK, because you’re in the safely moral majority.

    One of the proudest moments of my life, that’s to say, in the recent past, has been defending the British historian David Irving who is now in prison in Austria for nothing more than the potential of uttering an unwelcome thought, on Austrian soil. He didn’t actually say anything in Austria. He wasn’t even accused of saying anything. He was accused of perhaps planning to say something that violated an Austrian law that says only one version of the history of the Second World War may be taught in our brave little Tyrolean Republic. The republic that gave us Kurt Waldheim, as Secretary General of the United Nations, a man wanted in several countries for war crimes. The country that has Jorge Heider the leader of its own Fascist Party in the cabinet that sent David Irving to jail. You know the two things that have made Austria famous and given it its reputation by any chance? Just while I’ve got you? I hope there are some Austrians here to be upset by it. A pity if not. But the two greatest achievements of Austria are to have convinced the world that Hitler was German and that Beethoven was Viennese. Now to this proud record they can add, they have the courage finally to face up to their past and lock up a British historian who has committed no crime except that of thought in writing. And that’s a scandal. I can’t find a seconder usually when I propose this but I don’t care. I don’t need a seconder. My own opinion is enough for me. And I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.

    Incidentally, I remain unconvinced by this speech, and I still don’t believe one has to be an anti-semite to take that position.

  3. BTW, I just wanted to thank Dave for writing “couldn’t find any evidence about this” instead of following Adapa’s usage and terming my complaint a “lie” before the investigation had even begun. And while we’re at it, I’d like to ask both you and Adapa whether you might mind if somebody responded to a post of yours on a public site–someplace where your real name is known or could be easily discovered–with the following:

    Yeah, who cares about a few Yiddish-speaking socialists? As long as I myself can freely criticize the government, who cares if a few Yids get jailed for protesting the draft? They’re Yiddish-speaking, and socialists, and their liberties aren’t important the way mine are.

    Jesus, Adapa/Dave.

    Would you not object to being cast as an anti-semite in that fashion? Would you consider it a lie if you said that you had been called an anti-semite here?

  4. davehooke:

    I’m going to start with Walto’s claim that Keith called him an anti-semite. I looked through and couldn’t find any evidence of this.

    That’s right. Walto just made it up.

    In reality, walto casually dismissed the rights of “a few Yiddish speaking socialists”:

    Anyhow, eloquent and clever as Hitchens was, I’m with Holmes on this matter (or at least await something better than the mention of a few Yiddish speaking socialists to convince me.

    And I took him to task for it:

    Yeah, who cares about a few Yiddish-speaking socialists? As long as I myself can freely criticize the government, who cares if a few Yids get jailed for protesting the draft? They’re Yiddish-speaking, and socialists, and their liberties aren’t important the way mine are.

    Jesus, Walt.

    And:

    Walt,

    In response to your series of (unfortunately, now Guano’ed) comments:

    And incidentally, you stupid asshole, my father was a Holocaust survivor.

    What does that have to do with our dispute? You told us that you’re “with Holmes on this matter”, and that you need something “better” than the false imprisonment of “a few Yiddish speaking socialists” to make you reconsider.

    That’s appalling. It was ridiculous of Holmes to jail those people for protesting the draft, and ridiculous of him to draw an analogy with yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Your Jewishness does not entitle you to minimize the suffering of “a few Yiddish speaking socialists”.

    You think I hate “Yids.”

    No, I don’t. I think you are dismissing the rights of “a few Yiddish speaking socialists” as if they didn’t matter. See above.

    And you will continue to tell people just how much smarter you are than Alvin Plantinga…

    This is pitiful, Walt. I never claimed to be smarter than Plantinga, and you know that perfectly well. I simply pointed out his mistake and backed up my assessment with a detailed argument, which you have been unable to rebut.

    It’s another baseless accusation. What were you saying earlier about misrepresenting other people’s posts and “the preservation of intellectual integrity”?

  5. I particularly LOVE this caught red-handed thing. It’s the weirdest most nonsensical accusation I’ve ever heard. I honestly have no idea either why anybody would do what you’re claiming I did (intentionally delete a post and then post the same thing again as a new post) or why anybody would deny they did it if they did something like that on purpose, or why you think anybody should mind even if somebody DID do something like that on purpose.

    It’s just completely whack. Frankly, to me this issue makes you seem nuts, rather than an obnoxious asshole, as the prior one does. And I believe Neil made a post suggesting he had much the same response as I had–namely “Huh?” But as I have turned adjudication of these matters over to others here, I’ll gladly let them decide this one as well.

  6. keiths,

    This is a great example of keithsian “argumentation.” I’m glad he reposted it. It’s beautiful stuff.

    BTW, the adjudicators may note here that keiths’ argument above isn’t that he never suggested that I am an anti-semite, it’s much more along the lines of a repetition of the claim that I indeed am one–in spite of my heritage. I take it his position as a whole is that I am an anti-semite but he’s never called me one.

    I just want to add here that the connection between the alleged right to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater for the hell of it and the case of those socialists is a Hitchensian rhetorical flourish. It was ridiculous when Hitchens tried to connect them, and it’s not any more sensible in keiths’ bullshit above. The proposition that there should be no regulation of speech of any kind simply doesn’t follow from Hitchens’ remarks about Holmes’ alleged anti-semitism (which for all I know are accurate). As I said above, there’s no actual argument there: just indignation and rhetorical skill.

  7. I just noticed this misrepresentation above which I either didn’t notice before or had forgotten:

    and that you need something “better” than the false imprisonment of “a few Yiddish speaking socialists” to make you reconsider.

    I’d like the court to go back and see what I actually wrote, how it has been contorted in that paraphrase, and consider the question of who, really, between keiths and I should be chastised for lying (or twisting the truth or whatever it was Adapa recently suggested my posts were sometimes guilty of).

  8. petrushka:
    Good thread. Let this be your last battlefield.

    Petrushka, I take it you’re not interested in being sworn in as one of the members of the Reviewing Board yourself?

  9. Since you ask, I will toss in my two cents.

    1. These confrontations make me think of a snake that can’t stop swallowing.
    2. I find myself able to back away from arguments that have outlived their usefulness. One of the advantages of posting anomalously is that I can truly not care whether I am perceived to have won or lost. When I have said everything I have to say, that’s enough.
    3 (of 2). My only interest in these forums is to exercise my writing and thinking skills. When I have made the best case I can make, that’s enough.

  10. petrushka,

    2. I find myself able to back away from arguments that have outlived their usefulness.

    In walto’s case, the desire to rewrite history overrides his better judgment. He makes the same accusations again and again, hoping they will become plausible through repetition.

    That doesn’t work when onlookers can see the evidence for themselves.

  11. walto:

    BTW, the adjudicators may note here that keiths’ argument above isn’t that he never suggested that I am an anti-semite, it’s much more along the lines of a repetition of the claim that I indeed am one–in spite of my heritage. I take it his position as a whole is that I am an anti-semite but he’s never called me one.

    Good grief, Walt.

    You wrote:

    You think I hate “Yids.”

    I responded:

    No, I don’t. I think you are dismissing the rights of “a few Yiddish speaking socialists” as if they didn’t matter. See above.

  12. walto,

    You already tried the “misrepresentation” gambit. It didn’t go well for you:

    keiths on May 27, 2014 at 5:26 pm said:

    Walt,

    You are indeed backpedaling, as I predicted.

    Alas, your words have been preserved:

    Yeah, right, dickhead, I wrote that I need something “better” than the false imprisonment of a few “Yiddish speaking socialists” to make me reconsider. Excellent use of selective quotation. Go “fuck” yourself.

    You also described it as a “really excellent use of selective quotation for the purpose of misrepresentation”.

    You are making an accusation. You are responsible for it. Back it up or withdraw it.

    Your original statement:

    Anyhow, eloquent and clever as Hitchens was, I’m with Holmes on this matter (or at least await something better than the mention of a few Yiddish speaking socialists to convince me.

    My paraphrase:

    You told us that you’re “with Holmes on this matter”, and that you need something “better” than the false imprisonment of “a few Yiddish speaking socialists” to make you reconsider.

    Point out the glaring differences. Show us how my paraphrase amounts to “selective quotation for the purpose of misrepresentation”. You won’t be able to, of course, because your accusation was false.

    And this from someone who hypocritically bemoans “misrepresentation” and demands that it be punished.

  13. Let it go, Walt. You already look foolish and dishonest, and making even more false accusations won’t fix that.

  14. Not one to complain but I must protest this thread.
    Furst i have often found the author of the thread to make unrelated and hostile abuse and accusation against me.
    I don’t care but allowing a thread to be about ACCUSATIONISM and EVIL is a absurdity in this case.
    one could say I’m proud to rumble on this origin forum. it is sharp and smart as a reflection on almost everyone here.
    This is a origin forum etc.
    Please don’t let it become a crazy place for infighting .
    Where is lizzie?
    anti-semitism does not exist as a real thing in reality.
    its just a ‘ism to discredit identity accusers.. right or wrong, good or evil.
    all there is in human society IS accusation of one towards another.
    nevertheless its unlikely “anti-semitism’ is rearing itself on this forum.
    Its stupid to think so.
    Please lets make this a good forum.

  15. I eagerly await the determination of who is the history rewriter–indeed the complete asshole. I will abide by their judgements. Will you?

  16. One thing I like about this thread is that it gives a nice picture of how each of us can be expected to comport ourselves. It’s like a microcosm!

  17. walto:
    BTW, I just wanted to thank Dave for writing “couldn’t find any evidence about this” instead of following Adapa’s usage and terming my complaint a “lie” before the investigation had even begun.

    I too did a Google search of the site (which includes Guano) before I made my post. No one ever called you an anti-Semite. No one used the term “anti-Semite” except you. You flat out lied in order to smear keiths. It’s pretty funny now that you got caught in the lie you’re trying to spin it / twist it just like I knew you would.

    Carry on with your pissing contest without me. You have convinced me you have no problem lying your ass off if you think it will be to your strategic advantage to do so. As such you’ll get the respect you earned.

  18. F you don’t mind, I’ll offer mea culpas after hearing if there’s anybody else on your panel who agrees with your characterization of my behavior. I will even take my lying ass off somewhere where I can distort no more of keiths’ repeated, kind avowals of my non–anti-semitism.

    May he one day deny some alleged non-fault of yours in similar terms. As you are clearly a much more calm, honest, level-headed and non-distorting type than I am, there will be no ensuing spin, acrimony or pissing contest, and all will be well.

  19. keiths

    You are a liar and a dipshit. The “glaring differences” are perfectly obvious and you know it. What I claimed was that Hitchens’ (who used the term “Yiddish speaking socialists” more than once–as you know–I put that phrase in quotes because I was just quoting HIM–as you also know, you asshole) reference to that group was a red herring and did not show that there should be no regulation against yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. The entire business about me needing something better than the false imprisonment of those people was an utter and obvious misrepresentation on your part, as you fucking well know.

    I sometimes don’t even get how you can stand yourself after posting and reposting (and reposting) such utter, lying garbage.

    ETA: Repeating what I said before–that you are a liar who tried to put absurd words in my mouth regarding me “needing something being better than the false imprisonment” of those men is not “backpedaling”–it’s the repetition of something that you know perfectly well is the simple truth. Posts like yours are just disgraceful, and it disgusts me that you will repeat them over and over.

    But I guess I don’t know that many lying dipshits.

    Look, you’re a local hero here. Adapa and Richard and no doubt others think you’re the cats meow. If the consensus is that posts like the one you made above are just fine and that my response of disgust is a matter of me distorting or whatever, then I will leave this site to those who are sympathetic with that attitude. But you and I will always know that you are a lying dipshit.

  20. LOL! Walto gets called on his lying so he has a hissy-fit meltdown. Typical. His tiny little phallic avatar fits him quite well.

  21. Robert Byers:
    Not one to complain but I must protest this thread.
    Furst i have often found the author of the thread to make unrelated and hostile abuse and accusation against me.

    This thread isn’t about you. I’ll reply in the moderation issues thread.

  22. Adapa:
    LOL!Walto gets called on his lying so he has a hissy-fit meltdown.Typical.His tiny little phallic avatar fits him quite well.

    I don’t think this thread exists so that you can start making personal comments.

  23. It’s ok, Dave: as adapa wisely warned, one should be careful about what one wishes. I asked for this trial, and have no complaint about keiths’ new impartial champion. They’re a nice team.

    BTW, I was thinking last night that there is a similar M.O. at work in each of the two disputes between keiths and me discussed above. In the first, there was a discussion going on of freedom of speech. There are some absolutists here, as well as natural rights doubters like me. Anyhow, someone posted the Hitchens video as giving a good argument for the dangers of any regulation of speech at all. I disagreed with Hitchens’ argument (In truth, I couldn’t actually find it), while keiths apparently agreed with it. That’s all fine. But the next thing I knew the argument was not about freedom of speech or even Hitchens speech at all. Suddenly, I found that I was having to defend myself against an accusation (via a sarcastic remark) of anti-semitism. That was the end of the substantive discussion: from that point on, it was all a matter of me defending myself and calling my accuser a lying dipshit.

    Now, note the other kerfluffle brought up above. In that case, there was an ongoing discussion of one of keiths’ arguments for something or other. I said that it was bad argument. I didn’t deny its validity, just pointed out its inanity. I note that it’s easy to make a bad, but valid argument. For example, the following isn’t just valid [truth preserving], it’s even sound [the premises are true as well]–but in spite of that it’s still inane:

    1. keiths is a lying dipshit.
    2. I still haven’t had my coffee
    3. It’s Thursday.
    4. Therefore, keiths is a dipshit.

    I take that to be a sound argument, but, of course, it’s also ridiculous, not only are there are terms and premises serving no purpose, it’s generally nonsensical. Anyhow, there was some back and forth on these facets of proper argumentation, when….BANG! the next thing I knew I was defending myself for having engaged in some sort of deception: making a post, and then– rather than editing it–deleting it, and then making substantially the same post as a new post instead. While I claimed I couldn’t figure out what had happened to my earlier post, that I couldn’t find it–keiths had “photographic evidence” of its existence, so I must have been lying and have intentionally deleted it so I could repost it again anew and lie about it. My point is that that somewhat cuckoo accusation had dislodged the discussion over the merits of keiths’ argument. Once more there was a shift to whether or not I am a bad person and the substance of the discussion went bye-bye. This time, instead of being like the classic anti-semite who would deny rights to Jewish defendents, I was like Barry Arrington.

    I won’t say that all of our fights have been like that, but this maneuver–call it “the dipshit smokescreen” — has obviously been used more than once.

    Anyhow, I digress. As the points in keiths favor are obviously continuing to pile up among the impartials, I clearly should make my promised apology and hit the road.

    I’m sorry. I have now learned that it is impossible to be accused of anti-semitism by the use of any cognate terms or a sarcastic aside. Indeed, it can’t be done in any other language than English. Unless one is CALLED AN ANTI-SEMITE, one can have no reasonable grounds of complaint. So I apologize to all and will limp off to Reading Gaol, licking my self-inflicted wounds.

    But let me first say something in anticipation of keiths’ expected (above the fray) response to this:

    Oh, c’mon walto. There’s no need to be a melodramatic drama queen. Nobody has asked you to leave. All anybody expects is that you comport yourself honestly, without any more fabrications, misrepresentations, or getting caught red-handed in clearly inappropriate breaches of common internet courtesies. [where “fabrications”, “misrepresentations” , “caught red-handed”, and “inappropriate breaches of common internet courtesies” are all hyperlinks either to prior accusations by keiths or of his crap paraphrases of my posts or both]. It wouldn’t be bad having you around, if you could just get some big boy pants [and here adapa might add, “and a bigger cock”] and stop making up things about others because you realize you can’t refute their superior arguments.

    What I want to say in response to this is “Go fuck yourself.”

    Adieu. I hope someone will contact me if you get an ignore function here.

  24. Adapa:
    LOL!Walto gets called on his lying so he has a hissy-fit meltdown.Typical.His tiny little phallic avatar fits him quite well.

    Jayzuz. Could you really not stop to think before you brought a jibe about peen into this discussion?

    Maybe you should take a winter’s afternoon to bingewatch Malcolm in the Middle.

    Middleschoolers slinging peen insults can be cute. You can’t. You’re not cute.

  25. I’ve not wanted to get involved as Keith has indicated I have some sort of anti-Keith bias. To an extent it is true in that I don’t think his combative style is that well-suited to the aim of this blog, as set up by Dr Liddle:

    My motivation for starting the site has been the experience of trying to discuss religion, politics, evolution, the Mind/Brain problem, creationism, ethics, exit polls, probability, intelligent design, and many other topics in venues where positions are strongly held and feelings run high. In most venues, one view dominates, and there is a kind of “resident prior” about the integrity, intelligence and motivation of those who differ from the majority view.

    That is why the strapline says: “Park your priors by the door”. They may be adjusted by the time you leave!

    However, she has not posted anything since, I guess, April and has given no recent indication how or if she would like this blog to continue. In one way I can view this optimistically as the need for such a blog declines in proportion to the decline in the “Intelligent Design” movement. On the other hand, I find the less diverse the interests of the remaining commenters, the less interesting the site becomes.

    Regarding the antagonism between Keith and Walto, it is regrettable but I don’t know how anyone can fix it other than the antagonists themselves. I’ve had a quick look for an ignore plug-in on WordPress but I didn’t find one. If someone knows of such a plug-in, we can give it a try.

  26. walto: What I want to say in response to this is “Go fuck yourself.”

    Adieu. I hope someone will contact me if you get an ignore function here.

    Damn, walto, I just re-joined TSZ so that I could respond to you in this thread, and before I could get logged in this morning, you’re out.

    IF you read this … I don’t know of any way to contact you back-channel … so I can’t tell you “in private” … best wishes always and happy trails to you.

  27. I see quite a few guano-worthy comments upthread but it seems pointless moving them now. Could commenters try and exert a little self-control. Thanks.

  28. The best ignore button is found under your index finger. It’s okay to step away from a site when you feel unfairly treated, but at some point you have to learn some self control. This argument is a poster child for why Lizzie made the rule she did. Every post that refers to the honesty or character of another poster should go to guano.

  29. I’ll nominate myself to the board. Like Alan Fox, I am not a fan of keiths style, but I acknowledge his dogged determination in holding IDist feet to the fire. We disagree on tone.
    walto, I believe you are a nice guy, but you come across as incredibly thin-skinned, and amazingly quick to take offense.
    With regard to this particular pissing contest, the preponderance of evidence is in keiths favor. For example, when you originally used the phrase “Yiddish speaking socialists”, you did not surround it with quotation marks.
    You wrote

    Anyhow, eloquent and clever as Hitchens was, I’m with Holmes on this matter (or at least await something better than the mention of a few Yiddish speaking socialists to convince me. While his views likely will give comfort to Libertarians…

    keiths paraphrase may not have been what you meant to convey, but it was not a gross mis-representation of what you in fact wrote.
    If someone misunderstands what you wrote, you might want to consider the “that’s not what I meant” path, rather than the “how dare you call me an anti-semite, my parents were Jewish!” path.
    Similarly, this:

    May he one day deny some alleged non-fault of yours in similar terms. As you are clearly a much more calm, honest, level-headed and non-distorting type than I am, there will be no ensuing spin, acrimony or pissing contest, and all will be well.

    probably does not come across as you intended it to.

  30. Actually I have had a pissing contest on this site, but I will not link to it, because there is nothing to be gained from it except the fact that such confrontations require two people and can be ended by one.

    Sometimes, someone on the internet is wrong, and it just doesn’t the fuck matter.

  31. I will say one more thing before departing this thread.

    When I get into a heated argument, I tend to think it is because I am unable to express myself clearly.

    Now, it is possible the the opponent is stupid or malevolent, but those are not useful interpretations, because I have no control over my opponent’s abilities and motivations.

    What I have control over is the expression of my ideas. When I reach the limit of what I can do to express my ideas, I’m done. Perhaps some other day.

    But I do not argue to convert opponents. I argue to refine my own thoughts.

    Edited for typos.

  32. The evidence has spoken pretty well for itself in this thread, so let me just add one more piece that gives some insight into the origin of walto’s grudge. It happened on the Plantinga thread:

    If I’ve truly made a de re/de dicto error, I’d like to know what it is. It’s very odd that you refuse to say, while nevertheless expending so much energy defending Plantinga’s honor (see below).

    I must say that is matter of you being king of planet Plantinga is really weirdly important to you.

    It isn’t, actually. I know that Plantinga is human and fallible, like everyone else, so it isn’t shocking to me that he made a mistake in his area of expertise and that I was able to identify it. I won’t be crowing about it on my resume.

    You, on the other hand, seem to find it impossible to believe that your hero might be gainsaid by a mere amateur. Look at these examples of your increasing indignation:

    Plantinga is very careful about this stuff and understands it very well.

    Plantinga doesn’t make the mistake of which Keith accuses him in that post.

    I really don’t think that anybody here (or too many other places) is likely to find a simple fallacy in Plantinga’s modal logic. He’s very good in that field, and most people here not only have never studied it, but aren’t even quite sure what it is.

    It’s not the kind of mistake modal logicians make: it’s the kind made by people who first heard about de re and de dicto a couple of days ago and are still trying to get it straight.

    I really have no idea why you think Plantinga makes the mistake you accuse him of, Keith. He’s understood the difference between those two types of necessity for a long time, has explained it cogently, written on its relevance to mind/body and received far more acute criticisms of his views than he has received either from his internet interlocutor or from anybody here.

    Plantinga is stooopid! We’re smart!!

    As indicated, if you want to keep implying that you understand these matters better than Plantinga, be my guest.

    Anyhow, Plantinga has heard all these criticisms in many forms for many years and from many people. There’s nothing at all new here except keith’s incredible one-day mastery of modal logic and his (admittedly endearing, if irrelevant) Snoopy story.

    I do have a much more useful idea, though. I’m going to (i) send a little note to Plantinga indicating that you’re willing to give him some instruction on the de re, de dicto distinction, if he has a the time; and (ii) notify the media that you’re planning to publish something showing that Moore’s diagnosis of the naturalistic fallacy is confused. These are items with actual value (I mean if there were such a thing as value). Bravo!

    But you’re cockiness is absurd and unflattering, and, whether I can get you to believe this or not, you really don’t understand modal logic better than Plantinga.

    What’s that all about, walto? You seem infuriated at the idea that I might have caught Plantinga in an error on his home turf of de re and de dicto.

    Why are you so outraged? Even experts make mistakes, you know.

  33. And just to be clear, I don’t think the problem was that I was challenging Plantinga — it was that I was challenging walto.

    Prick walto’s insecurities and you will get the kind of response exemplified above.

  34. DNA_Jock:

    With regard to this particular pissing contest, the preponderance of evidence is in keiths favor. For example, when you originally used the phrase “Yiddish speaking socialists”, you did not surround it with quotation marks.

    keiths paraphrase may not have been what you meant to convey, but it was not a gross mis-representation of what you in fact wrote.
    If someone misunderstands what you wrote, you might want to consider the “that’s not what I meant” path, rather than the “how dare you call me an anti-semite, my parents were Jewish!” path.

    +1

    Also, comparing Keith to JoeG is just silly.

    As for tone, IDNGAF.

  35. I am a very recent newcomer here, by way of UD and Sandwalk. To be completely honest, I don’t know where I stand on this other than the pissing match is juvenile, on both sides.

    Yes, Keiths can be annoying, but I have seen him being annoying at UD and he makes a fool of them. But he uses their own tools against them (ie parsing language and logic to a rediculous extreme). But it does get trying here, on a side that doesn’t typically use this ruse.

    Personally, I would hate to see Keiths’ arguments at UD take on the same silliness as Mullings.

  36. acartia_bogart:

    But he uses their own tools against them (ie parsing language and logic to a rediculous extreme).

    Specific examples?

Leave a Reply