Search This Blog

Sunday, June 23, 2013

In which we learn that I am a 'misanthropic loner'

Periodically over at Victor Reppert's blog, certain fools who congregate there like to have freak-out sessions about Yours Truly. The most recent one started in this thread and spilled over into this thread.

In the second thread, it's mostly 'Dan Gillson' who just can't seem to let the matter rest -- in the first thread, the shriekers eventually (and amazingly!) concluded that I'm not quite so awful as they themselves frequently assert, but Mr Gillson just can't seem to let it go for now.

This is kind of boring, but nevertheless let's lay out some of the background for the meat of this particular post.

Dan Gillson said --
Ilíon's penchant for calling people "girl" or "girlish" betrays his single, sexless life. Perhaps if he didn't display his male chauvinism so readily he'd find a suitably insular, irrational mate.
This is, of course, just one more example of the very dishonesty about me that I had previously (in the two threads) spoken of. I don't have a "penchant for calling people "girl" or "girlish""; rather, I sometimes -- and infrequently, at that -- refer to some supposed men who behave and/or "reason" like junior-high girls do as 'girls' or 'girlish'. An infrequently made rhetorical point is not "a penchant". Moreover,
That's *exactly* the sort of thing a girl would say!

I have called certain of the pathetic persons like to freak-out and/or lie about me 'girl' because they have the psyche of a junior-high girl.
It is, after all, a characteristically feminine immaturity to judge masculine worth in terms of “getting some”: thus, I (sometimes) call males-with-psyches-of-girls, well, 'girls'.

Dan Gillson plays injured ingenue --
Please point out to me which statements that I've made about you are provably false, and I'll retract them. Until you do that, you can't say that I've lied about you without being a liar yourself.
Now, this is a game he's playing, and it's one I refuse to play. Generally, I ignore this sort of thing ... if I don't ignore it, I mock it
It would be easier for this poor little hurt ingenue to point to a single thing he has said about me that isn't dishonest in some way. To make even that easier, here are two Google searches: search 1 and search 2 The results have a great deal of crossover, but they're not identical (nor are they all-inclusive -- this very thread isn't in either list). To make it even easier, he could just limit his search to two recent threads: this very one and the prior one.

Retracting some specific falsehood this p(r)issy little girl has posted about me will never solve the problem, for the problem is his attitude. I mean, even aside from having the mind-set of a junior-highschool girl; that's a life-sized problem. But, with respect to me, his problem is that be *needs* me to be wrong (about everything), and he *needs* me to be a wicked, evil monster -- but, of course he does, he's a girl -- and until he fixes that, he's going to keep lying about me.
Rather than play that game, I mock it because as sure as night follows day, the gamester can be counted on to double-down
1. I honestly believe everything I've said about you, because you honestly manifest irrationality, insularity, incompetence, unsubtlety, … etc. So the problem isn't that I'm being dishonest, the problem is that you insulate yourself from the truth about you.

2. Vis-à-vis my attitude, trust me: it's peachy. I'm likable, funny, kind … you know, not a misanthropic loner.

3. I have the mind-set of a twenty-nine year old, physically active, working, married male. My wife wouldn't have married me if I had the mind-set of a junior high girl, nor would my boss employ me, nor would I have such a diverse, sophisticated group of friends. Trust me Ilíon: I've gotten what I deserve because I've worked for it.

4. I don't need you to be wrong. I just like it when you are because I can amuse myself at your expense.
So, having some background established, we come at last to the point of this post, my treatment of the above quoted post; this started out as a post to be made on Reppert's blog, but I decided to expand it and post it here --
intellectually dishonest ingenue: "1. I honestly believe everything I've said about you ..."

Does *anyone* believe -- does even this fool believe -- that I did not know all along that "Please point out to me which statements that I've made about you are provably false, and I'll retract them" means nothing more than "*Force* me to admit that I lie about you, and I'll pretend to strike some of those lies from the record"? As though the problem were merely what he writes about me, rather than the attitude that prompts what he writes.

Does anyone even imagine I was going to play that game?

I don't attempt the logically impossible, among which is included justifying oneself to those who *will not* be satisfied. Nothing I could ever say/write will compel the fools who lie about me to simply stop lying. Nothing I could ever say/write will compel those who wish to believe those lies to not do so; for instance, of an misrepresentation of something I'd written (used as a pretext to attack me), to simply scan up a few posts and see with their own eyes that I said nothing of the sort.

irrational little girl: "2. Vis-à-vis my attitude, trust me: it's peachy. I'm likable, funny, kind … you know, not a misanthropic loner."

Once again, this is *exactly* how a girl "reasons".

Some of the greatest minds in human history have been "misanthropic loners" ... which is, of course, utterly irrelevant to whether they were right or wrong in what they reasoned and concluded.

The same applies to me - whether or not I am a "misanthropic loner" (and I rather like that!) - is utterly irrelevant to whether I am right or wrong in what I say, and in the reasoning behind what I say.

Hint: I am right, and the (ahem) “reasoning” in which you people engage to (ahem) “prove” that I am not is *always* of just this sort of anti-rational emotionalism and/or appeal to other well-known logical fallacies. I am rational - and right - and my critics (to misuse that term in the manner it is so commonly misused) are neither.

sad, sad, little girl: "3. I have the mind-set of a twenty-nine year old, physically active, working, married male ... Trust me Ilíon: I've gotten what I deserve because I've worked for it."

A man would have called himself a 'man', not a 'male'. This sad little girl is a eunuch - he *fears* masculinity, masculine virtues, “masculine reasoning” (*), masculine speech -- and he himself wielded the knife.

Moreover, a man doesn’t need a woman to make him a man, to create or to "validate" (a feminized "men", such as this one, would say) his worth as a man. A man is a man because he’s a man, not because he’s (presumably) “getting some”. It is, in fact, a characteristically feminine immaturity to judge masculine worth in terms of “getting some”, as I previously pointed out.

Trust me, Gentle Reader, this fool gets what he deserves from me (***) precisely because he has worked for it.

(*) of course, logical reasoning is really neither masculine nor feminine (**), but the feminists and other leftists have so labeled and disparaged it … and so this girl fears and hates it, even as he tries to wear it as a mantle.

(**) despite that an antipathy toward logical reasoning is culturally accepted, or even expected, amongst the distaff sex - and especially amongst feminized “men”, with whom it seems to be de rigueur.

(***) I mean, when I even notice him; mostly I consciously try to skip over anything he posts: it’s just not worth my time.

self-blind little girl: "4. I don't need you to be wrong. I just like it when you are because I can amuse myself at your expense."

Would a man say/write such a thing, and right out in front of God and all the angels, no less? What a silly question! Noo, a man would not.

A man (or a woman, for that matter) might find it mordantly amusing that some fellow is so consistently, and so spectacularly, wrong - as this pathetic un-man asserts of me … which claim even his fellow un-men rather walked-back last week - but a man wouldn’t seek to “amuse myself at your expense”. This attitude is reflective of an abiding immaturity, and it’s a characteristically feminine immaturity, at that.

7 comments:

Dan Gillson said...

Posted this to my wall! Thanks for the shout out!

Drew said...

He's likeable. He's funny. He's kind. He works. He's married. He has sophisticated friends. He's twenty-nine. He is physically active. He has credentials in theology with a school, *and* a church. What's not to like about this guy?

Ilíon said...

"He is physically active."

Plus, both he and his wife can beat me up. That's not how he phrased it, of course, but that's the *meaning* of one of his other recent posts.

So, think about this -- I had been faulting him for (I mean, aside from his intellectual dishonesty) acting/thinking like a junior-highschool girl, and in response, he doubles down on acting/thinking like a junior-highschool girl. THEN, when he does show a spark stereopypically masculine behavior, it's to act like a grade-school boy -- "I can beat you up!" -- and a kindergarten boy -- "My wife can beat you up!"

"What's not to like about this guy?"

Well, even aside from his irrational or illogical and fact-free and pointless "criticism" of me, there is the fact that he's a liar and a hypocrite -- as he stands condemned by his *own* words (as I'll write up in a later post).

What I'm getting at here is that I give my "critics" (*) a chance to back down, but theey generally double-down. I this OP, I could have used Mr Gillson's own "standard" (that he asserts applies to me) and "personal exception" (that applies to him) to explicitly point out that he stands condemned by his own words as a liar and a hypocrite. But, instead of doing that, I gave him the opportunity to back off and back down. And, of course, he did just the opposite.

(*) So far as know, I have no actual critics, in the sense of using the word correctly.

Dan Gillson said...

That's not how it went, Ilíon. I said that you couldn't survive my exercise routines, much less my sister's. I definitely did not threaten to beat you up, nor would I ever. Anyone can go back over the threads to confirm that.

Ilíon said...

"hat's not how it went, Ilíon. I said that you couldn't survive my exercise routines, much less my sister's. I definitely did not threaten to beat you up, nor would I ever."

Foolish little (kindergarten) boy,

That's what it *means*.

Dan Gillson said...

1. It's strange that Ilíon doesn't find it self-parodying that he's calling me the kindergarten boy, when he's been throwing around the world "girl" like it's a pejorative, much like a kindergarten boy would.

2. What I meant is easily extracted from what I said. "I'd allow him [Ilíon] to continue calling me a girl if he could merely survive my exercise routines. Or if he'd like, we can try something a little lighter and put him through my sister's exercise routines."
Surviving my (or my sister's) exercise routines is a sufficient condition, not a threat. If he could actually do so, then he can call me a girl. From this, he can infer that I don't think he can survive my, much less my sister's, routines; he can infer that I consider athleticism to be a virtue; he can infer that my sister is athletic; but he shouldn't infer that what I said constituted a threat.

3. If Ilíon won't accept the above, perhaps he'd allow me to explain something of the organization of my subjectivity. My experience is tinged with the knowledge that I've lost contests which I should've won, and I've won contests which I should've lost. I know that exogenous factors easily influence the outcomes of contests. (I know that endogenous factors do too, which is why people talk about having their heads in the game.) Given the nature of this knowledge, I would never think that the results of a contest, e.g., a fight, could be determined beforehand. I would never say that I could beat someone up, because I don't know that I could.

4. In order to prove that what I said didn't constitute a threat, I appealed to both objectivity (what the words themselves mean), and subjectivity (how I couldn't have meant what I said as a threat). In order to justify his reading of my words, Ilíon would have to appeal to some occult power he possess, viz., mind-reading. I highly doubt that Ilíon reads minds--he can't even seem to read words correctly.

Dan Gillson said...

Bu anyways, you're right that you don't have any real critics. I certainly am not. I just snark at you when you drop by to say inane things, like theology being something that men do. (And yes: I snark, not shriek. That you think I shriek proves that you are tone deaf to the emotional pitch of writing, which a fortiori proves that you don't comprehend what you read.)