re: #424 haakondahl

Bolshii Slovos. You won’t respond thoughtfully or address points made, so up yours. You’re a blowhard, Sal, a pompous pinhead with a mind warped by standing on the University too long, sucking up all that Marxist thought without critically examining where it comes from and how it came to be there. I’ve seen your list of publications, and it’s not impressive—the putative philosopher’s version of the vanity press. You throw big words around until I’m convinced that your spell-checker is really an auto- thesaurus, but you obfuscate rather than illuminate. That crap may fly in the philosopher’s vanity press, where quality of writing seems to be measured with a ruler, minus the sum of CHR$(32), but I am not impressed by the appeal to authority. I made a thoughtful case, you appealed to authority. The difference between you and a bunch of other self-important, condescending windbags is that I like the other ones.

I DID effectively address your points, which is why you are now reduced to resorting to illegitimate ad hominems.

And the list of people and publications I reference are the very ones that originally outlined the systems in question - Hitler’s Mein Kampf for nazism and Marx’s Das Kapital and Communist Manifesto for communism. To which I might add Jon Stuart Mill’s On Liberty for liberalism and Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France for conservatism.

Why am I not surprised to discern a strain of anti-intellectualism in your post? Resentful much?