[MD] humpty dumpty

[MarshaV]

Hi dmb,

>> You 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:
You made this statement to Dan referring to my "views", my "line of thinking".   It's your accusations I am asking you to explain, not your general opinion. You've NEVER provided the MoQ definition of 'intellectual' so that I might thoughtfully and sincerely explain my position and/or defend against the accusation of 'anti-intellectualism'.  I also expect you to present the evidence citing the exact statements that I made that led you to state that I am anti-intellectual and nihilistic, and the posts they came from (to include the context), and an explanation of why they make me anti-intelligent and nihilistic.   This you have not done.  Without such evidence, calling me "anti-intellectual,  "nihilistic", "un-Pirsigian" and "not very Buddhist either" is an ad hominem attack not a legitimate argument or discussion about the ideas you are claiming are anti-intellectual and nihilistic.  Your general accusation are nothing more than name-calling - an 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
 
 


On Aug 2, 2012, at 4:06 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Yep, exactly as I predicted, Marsha. (Predictable is boring!) That's why I don't bother repeating myself. You just keep pretending that I haven't provided what's right in front of you.
> Read the posts or don't. Makes no difference to me. But don't you realize that every subscriber can see that I've had lots to say and that you're simply denying it? Who do you think you're fooling? How are you not embarrassed by such bald-faced lies? 
> Marsha, you're supposedly responding to a post in which I already said, "...If Marsha sincerely wants to know what "intellectual" and "anti-intellectual" means, she could simply read my recent posts in this thread". THAT IS WHY your denial is so obviously false and shameless, as anyone can see. I even gathered those posts together and re-posted them for your convenience. Go ahead, pretend that happened either. Cause that's believable and it'll make you look very credible (Roll eyes here to indicate sarcasm).