 You still don't get it do you. While you throw the word "critique" around you miss it’s meaning completely, being able to comment on a posted subject is not the same as "critiquing" an author. If you want to slam someone for their beliefs, do it elsewhere. In these forums, go ahead and read posts made by OTE, Dom, or many others, you'll find one common thread. Commenters restrict their posts to the subject at hand, not the author. You seem to be incapable of distinguishing the difference.
"I critique Kunstler because he repeatedly advocates going back to a world made by hand, his own words -- notwithstanding the millions that would die from lack of food or medical attention. "
No you don't. You drag up something that JHK has said at some point and never address, post a contrary point, what he says in the article. You lambast him for voting for Obama even when Obama isn't in the topic. You slam him for this even though he has admitted he was wrong. You sthate that you voted for Ron Paul yet you slam him every chance you get. What's wrong with you that you don't see the hypocrisy of this? At least JHK has the balls to admit he was wrong. Have you got any balls? Admit you were wrong and leave JHK alone already. You slam JHK for his leaning towards a "world made by hand" yet you have prepared for exactly that, you and he are one and the same except he as the balls, again, to sthate what he believes is going to happen. You just silently prepare for it. Has he ragged on the medical advances humans have made? If so please post where. What I've seen is that he is happy that these advances have happened.
"I critique DiLorenzo because he never attacks the South for Slavery -- only Lincoln for ending it. He hates Lincoln so much for his big government efforts to win the war that he appears blind to the atrocity of slavery. He belongs to the Lew Rockwell group which advocates the complete abolishment of the sthate. Such an abolition would, as with Kunstler, condemn millions to, at best, a third world existence similar to the one in Somalia."
What's wrong with you? If DiLorenzo wanted to write about how bad the south was because of slavery he would. Get it through your cement head that he is writing about Lincoln and not the south. Both these things are very different and distinct subjects. Lambasting him simply because he doesn't write about the south is like accusing a lawyer of being a hypocrite because one day they may be defending one client and the other trying to get money out of someone for another client. They are two distinctly different things. Who cares what group he belongs to. Does he ever bring the "group" into one of his articles? No. You do! He writes about Lincoln, I'm sure there are many who also write about the south, do you attack them because they don't write equally critical content about Lincoln?
"I critique Ron Paul for his foolish sthatements about America being responsible for the 9/11 terrorist's because, as Paul has said often, "we have bases in other countries, so what else can we expect." I critique him the many racist's articles that have appeared under his banner for which he has never adequately explained. I also critique him for denigrating Israel, a nation who has repeatedly suffered from attacks by her neighbors."
Let’s take this particular post from Dr. Paul. Where does he say anything about who was responsible for 911? Where did he make a racist remark? Where did he say one thing about Israel? Give your head a shake, your continually dragging things into a thread that no one has mentioned. Why can't you simply address the subject being discussed? If you want to expose someone as clueless ten do so by posting a valid argument that will negate what the person has said, IN THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLE. You mention “." I critique him the many racist's articles that have appeared under his banner for which he has never adequately explained.” Without his explanation you have made an assumption that he is racist. If he were to explain his point and it were obvious that he is indeed racist I too would condemn him for it but he hasn’t.
"I critique Doug Casey, a self-admitted anarchists, for urging investors to move to some sort of Galt-like community he is organizing in, of all places, Argentina -- that land of financial turmoil, murder, and disappearances."
I believe you envy Mr. Casey. If he is so wrong then why is he so wealthy that he can afford to start a community in Argentina? Do you really believe that you smearing him every chance you get will hurt his finances? You've become nothing more than 'that idiot' that is always hurling insults at those who have done more with their lives than you have. If it was full of such turmoil then why are smart people moving there? Have you set foot in the country in the last 5 years? If not then where are you getting the information that there is so much turmoil, the same talking heads that you oppose as a prepper?
"My critiques may have been harsh, but the ideas of those I critique, if implemented, would detrimentally affect millions. Should I be expelled from this site for such I'll respond to their articles wherever I can find them."
What an arrogant assumption. You have not presented one item for discussion that can be taken as an attempt to address the suffering of millions. All you've done is whine, made some farting like noises and thrown dirt in the air. Where is your master plan? If you deride someone for their beliefs then have the decency to post an alternative. Anything less is a cowardly act. If you were expelled many would breathe a sigh of relief, that's all.
"As for personal insult, I don't believe I have ever INITIATED any personal attack against a commenthator -- though I have and will respond in kind. The big boys -- Kunstler, Paul, DiLorenzo, Casey, can take care of themselves -- and could care less about a lone voice crying in the wilderness."
Wrong, very wrong. In every example above you have done exactly that. You drag up things that the authors may have said a very long time ago and now accuse them of still believing these things or acting upon them. You have a very inflated opinion of yourself, as if everything you believe is correct. You’re getting a god complex like Vox.
 Commenté il y a 4111 jours |
