Wednesday, 21 July 2010

YES! / NO!

Did I just wear out my welcome over at Michael Turton's blog in a single comment thread? The last time I tried that degree of explication was in a pub in Kaohsiung at two in the morning with some asshole who tried to hit me over the head with a pint glass out of frustration. Reminds me of this...

Update: The thread falls into disrepute after Turton thanks me for the discussion with some "Anonymous" crawling over it and Turton trashing my "Randite nonsense" as something he outgrew when he was 17, which is funny. I posted another comment, in response to Turton's praise of my "Randite nonsense" although I am not expecting him to let it through (he deleted an earlier response I made to commenter M about the morality of property rights) so I reproduce it here for anyone who may be interested:

Well if that's true Turton, then, as magnificent a rhetorical device as the ad hominem undoubtedly is, surely a point by point rebuttal of my argument ought not to have given you too much trouble, no? I can certainly imagine one or two good responses to my defense of property rights and I would hold you in some esteem if you were to take what I imagine for you would only be a requisite 10 mins or so to accurately compose one of these - if only for the value of further underscoring for your other readers why my position is so much untenable nonsense. I'm sure they would thank you for the service.

Oh and for the record, although I do have a copy of Atlas Shrugged I have yet to read it. The only other book by Rand that I have (and have actually read) is her "Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology" - which is why I chuckled when Turton said he outgrew it when he was 17. I really should get her "Virtue Of Selfishness" and maybe one or two others, but Martin McPhillips wants to me read his counter-terrorism thriller first.


  1. Actually, Mike, M. Turton was trashing my defence of you as "Randite nonsense".
    Anyway, your most recent refutation last night/this morning was quite good. To boil defence of property rights or any conservatism down to some caricature is really too much. Such behaviour is nonsense and caricature itself. Not that they have Rand right, either. There is much more to her Atlas Shrugged (and I'm sure her other work). While there is caricature in Rand, her detractors have turned much of what is not caricature in her work into some bogeyman.

  2. Well first, thank you Thoth for the sentiment in defending me over at Turton's place - but it is a point of principle to me that I be at least sufficiently capable of doing that myself.

    I don't think that last comment was as good as it should have been - it's far too large and there are little things wrong with it (e.g. "Turton-boggle" ought to have been "Turton-toggle"). Too late now.

    There are two things that interested me in this: the first is how many people I may have reached who are not sufficiently soaked in the democratic premise to simply dismiss it (aside from yourself, I have some reason to believe there is at least one other); the second is the effect, if any, it may have on Turton. He enjoyed it. Although I danced around the mulberry bush with him on Statism vs Libertarianism, he shared the basic sentiment that this "expropriation" thing was wrong on some level, and my practical point was merely to advocate a different political method of combat. He doesn't like all of the implications inherent to that method, but I don't know whether he would discount it entirely - after all, I referred to King and Ghandi (heroes to the Left) without being quite so rude as to allude to Ghandi's predecessor (he wouldn't have liked that).

    I looked at your blog briefly Thoth. I see some evidence of an interesting eye behind the lens - what camera are you using?

  3. You'll always be allowed to post. I haven't killed a single comment of yours. I even allowed your first "What the fuck is wrong with you, Turton?". Way to start off on the right foot!

  4. I use a Nikon Coolpix P1. It's old, though. I bought it back in 2005. One of these days, when I start getting a little money, I will buy a Canon. Probably a Canon. I've seen what some of the Canons can do. Very impressive. It would be nice to have more time to take photographs, too. But alas, my new job leaves me little of that. Still, I'm not complaining. It's a great job!

  5. "I haven't killed a single comment of yours."

    I retract the accusation then on your word, but there was another comment of mine (very small, just two sentences I think) about half way, specifically in response to "M", which - for some reason - didn't make it through. I had the usual "comment is awaiting moderation" blurb so I presumed it had ticked you off somehow.

    But I will make no apologies for my first post - your position is hopelessly inadequate and my choice of language appropriately reflects that. I never had any illusions about being able to see exactly eye to eye with you on it Turton, so I don't need any "best foot forward" nonsense.

    Thoth: I used to have something similar - I think I could get some pretty good pictures out of a little camera like that if I were to study the subject a little and think about composition - angle, time of day, weather etc.. and I'm no professional.

    Turton does some excellent close-ups of course and some of his landscapes are very good, but his tend to be done very well within the constraints of opportunity - so he has a lot of grey skies. Not a criticism, just an observation.


Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.