[MD] humpty dumpty

[MarshaV]

On Aug 1, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> dmb had said:
> I've criticized your position as anti-intellectual and nihilistic
> many times and provided lots of explanations along with supporting
> textual evidence.
> 
> Marsha to dmb:
> NO you have not!   Not ever!
> 
> Andre:
> Hi dmb,Marsha:
> Marsha, you have denied this in the past and keep on denying having
> received the explanations and contextual evidence of your
> anti-intellectualism dmb has provided. In fact, I have provided very
> similar retorts to you as well which stem from your self same ground.
> I specifically pointed out four indications of your confusion about
> the MoQ which related directly to your anti- intellectualism.
> These explanations provided and contextual evidence given date back to
> at least 2010. My suggestion therefore is to go to the archives where
> you will find what you so vehemently deny. And please, do not expect
> either dmb or myself to drag it up yet again and confront you with all
> the evidence.
> 
> I think you are so much involved with yourself on this discuss that
> you simply do not see let alone acknowledge any responses from other
> members. And please remember that neither dmb nor I are the only one's
> having difficulty with your form of communication on this discuss.


>> dmb wrote to Dan:
>> My hunch, Dan, is that you've followed Marsha's line of thinking and ended up with an excessively anti-intellectual position as a result. I'm not a mind-reader, of course, but I think it's quite clear that a bogus anti-intellectualism is her central mistake, from which many other mistakes flow. For whatever it's worth, I really think that reading her posts are a waste of time and you ought not take her views seriously. She'll only lead you down some dark alley or dead end. Here brand of vacuous nihilism is very un-Pirsigian, I think, and it's not very Buddhist either.


Marsha:
Andre,your appearance is too predictable, and I think dmb should not expect me to deal with his sock puppet. HE made the statement to Dan.  "NO you have not!  Not ever!" is what I stated to dmb and what I meant.  He has NEVER provided the MoQ definition of 'intellectual' so that I might thoughtfully explain my position or defend against the accusation of 'anti-intellectualism'. I also expect him to present evidence citing the exact statements, and posts they came from (to include the context), with an explanation of why they are anti-intelligent and nihilistic.   This he has not done.  Without such evidence, calling me 'anti-intellectual' and 'nihilistic' is an ad hominem attack not a legitimate argument or discussion.  It is an unsubstantiated accusation - ad hominem attack - a form of evil as RMP stated in the following quote.



RMP:
"To say that a comment is “stupid” is to imply that the person who makes it is stupid. This is the ad hominem argument: meaning, “to the person.” Logically it is irrelevant. If Joe says the sun is shining and you argue that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid [or anti-intellectual and nihilistic], what does this tell us about the condition of the sun? That the ad hominem argument is irrelevant is usually all the logic texts say about it, but the MOQ allows one to go deeper and make what may be an original contribution. It says the ad hominem argument is a form of evil... the ad hominem argument can be defined more clearly: it is an attempt to destroy the intellectual patterns of an individual by attacking his social status. In other words, a lower form of evolution is being used to destroy a higher form. That is evil..."
        (LILA's CHILD) 


Marsha