Tooting One\'s Own Horn

Will Wilkinson calls me "indefatigable." At first, I thought this meant that I could eat as much as I wanted without gaining weight. After a quick trip to the ice cream shop, followed by an even quicker trip to the dictionary, I realized this was sadly not the case.

I've been keeping Will's blog warm these last few days by ceaselessly annoying various other commenters in this thread about libertarian foreign policy.

Participating in message board and blog comment thread discussion is a guilty pleasure of mine, but one which detracts from time spent blogging. I find it much easier to debate directly and informally with someone than to find articles of interest online or to respond to other people's blog posts. This suggests that my purpose in writing is not entirely or even primarily to spread ideas to the largest number of people, but to argue for argument's sake. This is irrational, given my limited amount of time to spend online and my ultimate goal of making everyone agree with me.

Share this

Ah, your stated preference

Ah, your stated preference may be to make the people of the world intellectual clones of Micha Ghertner, but, based on your post, your revealed preference shows otherwise.

My, God, you're going to be

My, God, you're going to be one hell of an attorney! :)

-Diana

That's indefatigable, not

That's indefatigable, not indigetfatable
Catallarchy'sMicha Ghertner eerily echoes my own frame of mind: Participating in message board and blog comment thread discussion is a guilty pleasure of mine, but one which detracts from time spent blogging. I find it much easier to debate directly

This from one of McClain's

This from one of McClain's posts in the thread:
If and whenever the question comes up "Should we go to war against this evil dictator or not?" the answer is always yes.

Oh dear. :wall:

How can one do anything but feel that this guy is beyond reason and simultaneously feel compelled to try to verbally slap him enough times to shock him into a sensible discussion? Bravo for your valiant attempts to patiently parse apart his ridiculous, admittedly circular reasoning. Sad that the simple logic of your posts was utterly lost on him.

Robert Grudin said that "[i]deology enables us to pass judgements on a variety of issues while lacking adequate information or analytical skill or commitment to discovering the truth."

To the extent that your interlocutor even has a cognizable ideology, that statement clearly applies to him.

"This suggests that my

"This suggests that my purpose in writing is not entirely or even primarily to spread ideas to the largest number of people, but to argue for argument’s sake. This is irrational, given my limited amount of time to spend online and my ultimate goal of making everyone agree with me."

No, it's quite rational in that you implicitly realize that rational evangelism doesn't work - instead you argue to provide yourself with higher values.

You are right. I've gone

You are right. I've gone thru the argumentative
stage of my life and now find much more satisfaction
in being the 'lone' voice.

But I see a bright future for you.

I think you'll overcome your current addiction
and get down to 'business'.