Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

If you man up enough to agree on terms, then I’ll start working through misses,

If you man up enough to agree on terms, then I’ll start working through misses, Rothbard, Hoppe, and anyone else at misses you can bring up.

(No I don’t have any criticisms of Bob other than the usual “it’s not possible to bring those conditions into being”.)

Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 17:58:57 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456682461203771393

Reply addressees: @Bohm_Baller @BobMurphyEcon @billyj41

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456679600776486913

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@Bohm_Baller @BobMurphyEcon @billyj41 OK. Since you’re intellectually dishonest I’ll handle this as a prosecution, rather than a discourse.
TERMS: https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1456679486330650624

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1456679600776486913

November 5, 2021
OK. Since you’re intellectually dishonest I’ll handle this as a prosecution, rat

OK. Since you’re intellectually dishonest I’ll handle this as a prosecution, rather than a discourse.
TERMS: https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1456679486330650624

Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 17:47:35 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456679600776486913

Reply addressees: @Bohm_Baller @BobMurphyEcon @billyj41

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456664945530114057

https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1456679486330650624

November 5, 2021
Critique: (attached) “The Negative Sell”

Critique: (attached) “The Negative Sell” https://t.co/BdSBZwc1TY

Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 17:47:14 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456679512163373063

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456679507126071301

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

7) Pilpul: “The Positive Sell” Sophistry that implies a false promise of freedom from formal, physical, natural, or evolutionary laws by use of the following methods: https://t.co/BnMUVjN6vB

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1456679507126071301

November 5, 2021
Sure I can. I speak from a position of knowledge of what I claim. You didn’t. Yo

Sure I can. I speak from a position of knowledge of what I claim. You didn’t. You’re intellectually dishonest. Demonstrate that you understood my criticism and apologize for your fraud and then you’ll demonstrate sufficient intellectual honesty to invest in rather than lie again.

Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 16:44:48 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456663800279703554

Reply addressees: @Bohm_Baller @BobMurphyEcon @billyj41

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456663354492268552

November 5, 2021
Demonstrate that you understand the argument sufficiently to claim I err before

Demonstrate that you understand the argument sufficiently to claim I err before you made a false pretense that (a) I did not make an argument (b) that you understood what I’d stated. In other words produce restitution for your crime before I agree to engage in reciprocal exchange

Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 16:43:26 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456663457714130948

Reply addressees: @Bohm_Baller @BobMurphyEcon @billyj41

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456662274576367619

November 5, 2021
You didn’t ask me to make an argument. You stated I was wrong and a sophist. You

You didn’t ask me to make an argument. You stated I was wrong and a sophist. You engaged in intellectual dishonesty by using rallying shaming and reputation destruction to generate demand for self-defense using the pretense of knowledge you didn’t have. ie: a crime of fraud.

Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 16:37:04 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456661857591300103

Reply addressees: @Bohm_Baller @BobMurphyEcon @billyj41

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456660399806369793

November 5, 2021
Like I said. If you can’t demonstrate competency in understanding the argument,

Like I said. If you can’t demonstrate competency in understanding the argument, nor by refuting the argument, then you’ve self falsified your opinion. If at a minimum you understood Jones and Macdonald you’d at least recognize some of the terms.

Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 16:29:48 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456660025888415746

Reply addressees: @Bohm_Baller @BobMurphyEcon @billyj41

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456658800828690442

November 5, 2021
Could have the conversation with you (Bob) if not the vox populi of libertarian

Could have the conversation with you (Bob) if not the vox populi of libertarian common folk.

Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 16:28:06 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456659598455214085

Reply addressees: @BobMurphyEcon @Bohm_Baller @billyj41

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456659246498652161

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@BobMurphyEcon @Bohm_Baller @billyj41 Doubt it. Technical argument. The degree of rigor, knowledge, ability required is uncommon. Negative law harder than positive morality. Theological and rationalist traditions favor justification. And malinvestment in self-image by secular theologies is notoriously irreversible.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1456659246498652161

November 5, 2021
So, not only did I put forth an argument, you engaged in intellectual dishonesty

So, not only did I put forth an argument, you engaged in intellectual dishonesty by the pretense that I didn’t – proving my point.

Now you might not understand that argument. But others do. Your ignorance is not a measure of anything other than itself.

Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 16:01:54 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456653006817083398

Reply addressees: @Bohm_Baller @BobMurphyEcon @billyj41

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456650842875080708

November 5, 2021
The argument stands: “Misesian-Rothbardian (Jewish) Austrian theory relies on th

The argument stands:
“Misesian-Rothbardian (Jewish) Austrian theory relies on the Abrahamic method of sophistry (pilpul) and critique (undermining) and this is why so many Mises Institue folk function as secular theologians in the kantian rationalist tradition.”

It’s true. 😉

Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 15:57:08 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456651804331085835

Reply addressees: @Bohm_Baller @BobMurphyEcon @billyj41

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456650842875080708

November 5, 2021