You want a cylinder of fish bits? Because I can bring it.

>> Wednesday, February 03, 2010

When I clipped a prominent conservative for the hubristic assumption that his dinner card is of general interest, it had not yet been brought.

When I criticized another for buttressing a nonsensical argument with the untenable claim that not-p could only fully realize its not-p-ness if it embraced the truth of p, it had not yet been brought.

When I mocked a third for embracing his inner Baudrillard and gushing over patriotic simulacra, I actually left it at home because I knew I wouldn't need it.

But because some of you don't know what a barrel full of riddled fish looks like, I will bring it where it's needed least. The other day Donald Douglas claimed victory over ten percent of me. His evidence consisted of two typographical errors and a string of comments in which he demonstrated the truth of his humble estimation of himself:

I also abhor irrationalism in argumentation. I welcome comments and debate, and I'll defend my positions vigorously. Yet in friendship, you'll find no one more trustworthy nor loyal; in battle you'll find an umatched competitor whose tactical elan would make Machiavelli proud.
Those of you present for the epic thread that followed this post already know that examples of "tactical elan [that] would make Machiavelli proud" include:
  1. "You f**king tool, all of this is quite amusing."
  2. "You're pwned already, so you're just scratchin' bottom."
  3. "F**k you, you ignorant prick."
  4. "I have a Ph.D. you puerile buttfreak smear-merchant."
  5. "Your Ph.D. can be abbreviated to 'piled high and deep,' which is just more of your f**ked up shit."
  6. "Get a life, dickhole."
To untrained ears, his "tactical elan" sounds like "profane blundering," but that's only because he prefaces his discursive genius with salty language in order to soften up opponents for the logical thunder:
And you would not, despite expected denials, attempt bad mockery of an academic unless you assumed having a Ph.D. yourself would grant authority, despite the self-said speciousness in your case of the latter. And since this is an academic blog, and your cohorts are professors, this dodge basically makes you a liar.
I'm not sure what I'm lying about, but since Douglas "abhor[s] irrationalism in argumention," there must be some rationale behind what he says, right?
I'm block-quoting his entire post at Lawyers, Guns and Money, just in case he decides to proofread later and make corrections in a belated attempt to appear less an asshole than he is.
I'm "an asshole" because I made typographical errors? Douglas does know that "abhor" means "to shrink back from with shuddering, to view with horror or dread" and not the opposite? Because while his argument may be "shuddering" here, those twitches you see? Those would be an annoyed neuronal protest against the gunman who aimed at the enemy and shot himself square in the head.

His brain may not know the idiopathy of his idiocy, but it's pissed that it has to die with him next to a barrel of exit wounds that were fishes not but two minutes ago. I don't need to bring it for those fish because no one ever needs to bring it for those fish: they'll always find a way to suicide themselves.


Post a Comment

About This Blog

  © Blogger template Simple n' Sweet by 2009

Back to TOP