Hey there AriKatsaris… So we’re move back up here now—with Katsaris the Morally-Unimpeachable taking full advantage of the highly-biased comment-response system (which prevents people from responding to Katsaris’ gibberish directly unless they have sufficiently fellated the ruling clique here). And “downvoting without comment”—apart from being so babyish that it qualifies for child support - enables something of an attempt to control the dialogue.
Eventually we will get to he nub, which is that Katsaris the Morally-Unimpeachable thinks that the State is necessary (of course without ever having examined what his betters throughout history have thought about the issue—reading the literature is for lesser mortals): in other words, he has no understanding whatsoever of the dynamic consequences of the paradigm to which he subscribes.
Dishonesty takes many forms, young Aris: first and foremost is claiming expertise in a discipline in which you’re an ignoramus. Legally it’s referred to as “misleading and deceptive conduct” to attempt to pass yourself off as an expert in a field in which you have no training: compensation only happens if there had been a contract that relied on your economic expertise, of course… we can be thankful that’s not the case, however the overarching principle is that claiming to be an expert when you’re not is dishonest—the legal sanction is subsidiary to the moral wrong.
Secondly, it is dishonest to perform actions for reasons other than those that you give as justifications. Your Euro-fearmongering and Islamophobia (the Harris-Hitchens “We can bomb the brown folks coz some of them are evil” nonsense) mark you out as someone who has staunch political views, and those inform your decisions (your stated reasons are windows-dressing—and hence dishonest).
You practice misdirection all the time. Again, dishonest.
You’re innumerate, too. That’s not a mark of dishonesty, it’s just a sign of someone who does not have the tools to be a decent analyst of anything.
We can do this for as long as you like: right up until you have to go stand in line for the next outburst of sub-moronic schlock from J K Rowling, if you like.
EDIT: some more stuff, just to clarify...
Here’s the thing: I don’t expect Aris “I Don’t Need to Read the Literature Before I Bloviate” Katsaris (the Morally-Unimpeachable) to have a sudden epiphany, renounce all the nonsense he believes, and behave like an adult.
What I expect to happen is that over time a small self-regarding clique will change their behaviour—because unless it changes, this site will be even more useless than it now is, and right now it’s pretty bad. Not Scientology bad, but close enough to be well outside any sensible definition of ‘rational’, and heading in the wrong direction.
Hey there AriKatsaris… So we’re move back up here now—with Katsaris the Morally-Unimpeachable taking full advantage of the highly-biased comment-response system (which prevents people from responding to Katsaris’ gibberish directly unless they have sufficiently fellated the ruling clique here). And “downvoting without comment”—apart from being so babyish that it qualifies for child support - enables something of an attempt to control the dialogue.
Eventually we will get to he nub, which is that Katsaris the Morally-Unimpeachable thinks that the State is necessary (of course without ever having examined what his betters throughout history have thought about the issue—reading the literature is for lesser mortals): in other words, he has no understanding whatsoever of the dynamic consequences of the paradigm to which he subscribes.
Dishonesty takes many forms, young Aris: first and foremost is claiming expertise in a discipline in which you’re an ignoramus. Legally it’s referred to as “misleading and deceptive conduct” to attempt to pass yourself off as an expert in a field in which you have no training: compensation only happens if there had been a contract that relied on your economic expertise, of course… we can be thankful that’s not the case, however the overarching principle is that claiming to be an expert when you’re not is dishonest—the legal sanction is subsidiary to the moral wrong.
Secondly, it is dishonest to perform actions for reasons other than those that you give as justifications. Your Euro-fearmongering and Islamophobia (the Harris-Hitchens “We can bomb the brown folks coz some of them are evil” nonsense) mark you out as someone who has staunch political views, and those inform your decisions (your stated reasons are windows-dressing—and hence dishonest).
You practice misdirection all the time. Again, dishonest.
You’re innumerate, too. That’s not a mark of dishonesty, it’s just a sign of someone who does not have the tools to be a decent analyst of anything.
We can do this for as long as you like: right up until you have to go stand in line for the next outburst of sub-moronic schlock from J K Rowling, if you like.
EDIT: some more stuff, just to clarify...
Here’s the thing: I don’t expect Aris “I Don’t Need to Read the Literature Before I Bloviate” Katsaris (the Morally-Unimpeachable) to have a sudden epiphany, renounce all the nonsense he believes, and behave like an adult.
What I expect to happen is that over time a small self-regarding clique will change their behaviour—because unless it changes, this site will be even more useless than it now is, and right now it’s pretty bad. Not Scientology bad, but close enough to be well outside any sensible definition of ‘rational’, and heading in the wrong direction.