The pattern at a very general level is: his responses don't fit the post he quotes. This can take many forms. One very common form is:1) you, me, FDP, PH, FJ, anyone criticizes a particular argument or point he makes. His response quotes our post or part of it, but merely restates his opinion in a different paraphrase. To me the quote function implies that one is responding to what the other person said. But he does not rebut or accept the criticism or point included in the quote. He quotes it and basically reasserts his position.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 6:57 amWhat kind of pattern and what about it? (sorry, skipped the rest of your post)Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 6:48 am And, as I've said before, this kind of pattern on your part is,
2) Another common form. Someone criticizes his position/argument. Instead of responding to that criticism, he aims an attack on that person's person or what he thinks that person's position is. IOW it implies the following: I don't need to deal with your criticism if there is a problem with something else you have asserted or believe. Which is obviously incorrect. I could have a false belief about X, but be spot on about my criticism of something he has asserted. Note: so, again, there is a quote of something and a response that has nothing to do with the argument or point made.
3) in this specific example of a non-response posiing as a response, with quote, it's just obvious he didn't read my post. Some part of it, sure. But his response shows he missed both specifics and general intent, and much of this really obviously. I outlines some of this in the previous post.
I see these all as defensive patterns. They can be quite effective. They distract. Squirt out ink. Mislead. Require the other person to repeat themselves if they want to continue raising their points: a bit like corporate lawyers require plaintiffs to go for a decade with all sorts of delays and objections and postponements, and flooding plaintiff lawyers with unnecessary documents and so on. These kinds of aimed at attrition strategies are expensive for plaintiffs who are often poorer. The corporate lawyers know what they are doing.
I think VA sees a problem and finds ANY tool that might offset that problem. He'll grab a philosopher or philosophical position that contradicts his positions, but if it seems to ward off, in the moment, a criticism, then he uses it. He'll appeal to any authority if it seems a temporary fix. Including these non-responses posing as responses posts I mention above. This causes him all sorts of problems down the line, but then he just keeps up the practices.
There's an overview intuition that I see as lacking (or not cared about). It's all tactics. I am not saying this is Machiavellian. I think it's more impulsive. Whack-a-mole tactics. Hit it with something. And hell, I even have sympathy for this. Imagine coming here with some idea that really matters to you and presenting it. yes, you will me useful and politely presented criticism, but you'll also meet viciousness and mere dismissiveness. But, whatever the causes, we have this pattern.
