Form: Short Note

(from elsewhere)

Note to newbies: becuase people who lose arguments like to delete the record of it, I tend to capture my responses here in my thread, becuase it is often in these arguments that I find new ways of saying things. So I don’t put headlines on these posts. You can read them if you are interested.

In this one, a fellow is claiming I can’t know anything about persians because I don’t know everything about persians.

—-

I am extremely qualified in comparative analysis of methods of argument, information possible to convey in each argument method, and the means of deceit possible in each method, and the various means of verbal error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. I am, as far as I know, the MOST qualified person in the construction of scientific speech that provides a means of conducting due diligence against the use of the spectrum of arguments, and the use of the spectrum of deceits.

I am also extremely qualified in comparative analysis of methods of constructing law and the consequences; the methods by which institutions laws, norms, traditions, and myths produce capital – including genetic, normative, and economic capital.

I am also extremely qualified in comparative analysis of distributions of capital that constitute the ability to make use of different group evolutionary strategies, and how those strategies result in competitive advantage or disadvantage.

As an analyst of your responses I can (and once I point them out, all others can) identify the techniques of deception that you attempt (unsuccessfully) to make use of.

1 – Your arguments are reducible to “i now a secret’, but not ‘given what I know, here is how your analysis errs.’

2 – Your argument makes use of the fallacy that knowledge of the particular is extensible to knowledge of general rules. A log of knowledge about a little thing, is a dangerous thing.

3 – Your argument depends upon the fallacy of deliberate choice rather than mere justifications of the necessity of organizing geographic and demographic resources within the constraints provided by them.

4 – In fact, you have made no rhetorically honest argument whatsoever, just childlike pretense of knowledge, rallying, and shaming.

I”ll restate the argument: Nietzche never learned science or economics, or institutions, so that he could speak in existential and operational terms, but was a literary philosopher, and lacked the ideas and language with which to express his ideas in DECIDABLE language.

The theoretical works of the persians, jews, geeks, romans, germans(french), and english constitute a spectrum of reliance upon myth, to platonism, to action, to science.

If you want to say that in each era, the genetically named indo-iranians attempted to succeed and might have had the seleucids and the byzantines not been at war with one another, making themselves vulnerable to muslim raiders, and that Persian civilization was destroyed, along with north african, levantine, byzantines, and roman trade, then this is a legitimate argument.

But you are still stuck with the question of why the earliest and one of the wealthiest civilization developed mysticism, and the later civilizations developed reason, stoicism, natural law, and science.

And the explanation is exactly what I suggest it is.

Cheers

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

PS: you have a great deal of confidence for a person who constructs amateurish arguments.