Tag Archives: Circular Reasoning

Comment Section Dialog

One of the things I find challenging about exchanges between debating parties on the internet whether it be on message boards or in the comment sections of blogs is that the parties tend to make too many points in one post. When this happens it becomes impossible for an opposing side to argue every point effectively because the chain of ideas becomes too fractured. That is why I tend to respond to only one point in any comment I make. That way the conversation stays clear and coherent (or at least that is the intent).

Over the past year a very judgmental and obsessive person has been commenting in bulk on my blog. This individual named Thordaddy identifies as a white supremacist who is not a Christian but worships Christ as a perfect man nonetheless. There is something about my writing that apparently gets his goat which makes our exchanges entertaining for me. (I am not proud of the fact that I do enjoy getting a rise out of him by the way). The comment section of my last blog post is no exception to this dynamic. In that comment section it would have been too cumbersome and ineffective to respond to every point he attempted to make. As such, I thought it would be interesting to break apart the first section of his comments by individual point and address them individually in this blog post in the form of a dialog.

The passages marked TD are his own words taken directly from the comment section of the previous post. The passages marked WS are my responses that I did not make in that comment section but attempt to address them now. Feel free to refer to that comment section for the original text of the exchange.


TD : Even in your NOW genuine quest for a more perfected self made aware by a desire to resolve all mental conflicts, YOU DELUDE YOURSELF as to the true nature of “thordaddy” FOR THE PURPOSE of a self-sabotaging. There is simply not existing within ANY OF YOUR RETORTS actual evidence of a true belief in the idea that you are “f$&king” with some “poor guy.”

WS : Don’t you think the fact that I need only mention “some poor guy” without referencing “Thordaddy” to get a huge response out of you is evidence of my ability to bait you?

TD : Stripped down to its bare naked letters, your rhetoric is, in reality, incredibly pathetic now GIVEN the size and scope of the dialogue and the informative analytics which measure the impact of my work HERE.

WS : I don’t really understand what you are talking about. However, you do sound kind of angry and full of yourself.

TD : If your take were more in line with reality then “we” would have witnessed some sort of piling-on effect by equal-minded winston Scrooges. “We” have “seen” NOTHING of the sort. And of course, AS YOU HAVE REITERATED time and again, I have no actual side ready to pounce upon you. So what is closer to reality is that your fans are mere spectators in no way prepared to engage in the dialogue as they leave you all alone to do the best you can.

WS : I don’t have an extensive readership or following. You by far constitute the bulk of the comments on my blog over the past year or so. It’s not like I have created a community of my blog readers. As such, I don’t find your argument here particularly persuasive.

TD : Then again, YOUR SIDE does not really BELIEVE in doing the best one can. Your side DOES NOT BELIEVE in the perfecting of the self. Your side only believes in the annihilation of the self AS absolute liberation.

WS : When you say “your side” do you mean the non radical, right-wing, nut job side? Also, I don’t know where you get the idea that I don’t believe in perfecting the self. I strive to improve myself every day in various areas. This blog is an effort to improve my writing skills for example.

TD : And now your continued obliviousness to the above is the very empirical evidence one would look for so as to declare this dialogue to be amongst a radical autonomist and a white Supremacist.

WS : That is a circular argument which relies upon undefined terms. All your rhetoric seems to follow this pattern which I find very interesting. You say you have defined the terms you use but your definitions are usually in the form of other undefined terms that in turn define themselves based on the first undefined terms . I have to wonder why you shun using the ordinary definitions and word usage that everyone else uses. I suspect it has to do with you wanting to “separate” from reality and live in a world of your own construction rather than in the real world that actually exists.

TD : What is clear is that when a radical liberationist meets true belief, he is at a loss, SELF-EVIDENTLY. And when that “true belief” is “Perfection as operating paradigm” then said liberationist INEVITABLY morphs radical AS HIS ONLY MANDATED REACTION. So if YOU REJECT “Perfection as your operating paradigm” THEN you will just self-annihilate. In other words, if your spirit is not put to the idea of Perfection THEN your Ego will be busy devising many ways to annihilate your Self so that its “perfection” IS SIMPLY OUT OF THE QUESTION.

WS : But I don’t reject perfection. I know that does not fit in your circular, “logical” scheme which is probably why you continue to write as if I do reject it.

TD : And this is exactly where the masses “stand.” Perfecting their selves is out of the question… Out of their minds… A real absurdity… And you stir this pot THROUGH your anti-white Supremacy.

WS : I admit that I do not self identify as a white supremacist but that is a good thing. A great deal of evil has been wrought throughout human history under the banner of racial supremacy.




Filed under Uncategorized

Monolog of a [W]hite Supremacist Part IV

CIOne of the many recurring themes in his writing is his concept of “God-ordained Free Will.” Like all of his concepts he seems to have this underlying belief or expectation that I should know what he is talking about even though it is not a common term. If I express that I do not know what he is talking about he typically accuses me of feigned ignorance. As I said in Part III, I wonder if these terms are a part of a belief system with multiple adherents or if this is something he came up with on his own. There seems to be at least some overlap between his beliefs and what I could find about the Christian Identity movement. I suspect he would deny an association with them. As yet he has not clarified whether he is part of a larger movement or organization.

If one sincerely rejects God-ordained free will THEN he CANNOT POSSIBLY act as though he had it in his possession.

Here he seems to imply that I reject God-ordained free will. I do reject it to the extent that I do not know exactly what he means by it. He has never adequately defined this term to my satisfaction. As best I can tell, it seems to imply a relinquishing of actual free will (i.e., to act as one wishes to act) and instead to act according to God’s will. The problem here (in addition to being confusing) is that he seems to assume that it is perfectly obvious just what God’s will is. He rejects the notion that scripture is a reliable source of this knowledge when it conflicts with his ideology. Instead he falls back on notions that racial supremacy is a natural consequence of being born into a particular race. So from the outset this concept is illusive but he continues to talk about it as if it is not.

Let’s assume I do know what he means by God-ordained free and proceed from there. He says that if I then sincerely rejected God-ordained free will then I could not possibly act like I had it in my possession. By “reject” I assume he means that I do not believe God-ordained free will exists at all. It is unclear what he means by I could not possibly act as if I had God-ordained free will in my possession. I can assume he thinks his racial theories are in accordance with God-ordained free will and according to his radically circular logic, because I do not accept his racial theories I would not only therefore reject God but I would also not be able to act as if I did not reject God.

BUT, if one did believe in God-ordained free will THEN he could certainly ACT as though he did not.

But on the other hand if I do believe in God-ordained free will then I would be able to fake not believing in it. I hate to sound like a broken record but again, it is unclear why he makes these assumptions that one person could pretend to be other than he is convincingly and the other could not. It is also unclear why he feels this distinction is important.

Accordingly, whether this was attributable to his god… This false front was mandated by his god? That’s a question to be asked and answered by the rival worshippers of the competing gods.

I am ultimately not convinced this false front he describes exists. In essence he is castigating non-existent people for holding non-existent beliefs and worshiping non-existent other gods. This is why I wonder if he belongs to a larger movement. It would shed light on whether he is living in his own self-created fantasy world. If so, it would explain a great many things, chief among them, why he finds it so hard to believe that his concepts are not self evident to me.

For the white Christian, God-ordained free will is that “free will” which does not provoke the shame of the self-annihilating ethos NOR provides a false “peace of mind” for the toleration of said self-annihilation.

Here we find a clue (albeit an indirect clue) as to what exactly God-ordained free will means in his mind. If I read him correctly, a person knows when he acts in accordance with God-ordained free will because he does not feel shame. However, he must be on guard because he could merely be in a state of not feeling shame but still not be acting in accordance with God-ordained free will because he has somehow been able to undeservedly side step this shame.

So where does that leave us? I still do not know what he means by this term but I am sure in his mind this only confirms that I am a radical autonomist because a white Supremacist would know what this means. Circularity wins the day in his mind apparently.


Filed under Uncategorized