Kevin's Watch

aliantha wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Zahir wrote:We on the other hand are not your students, nor you our teacher. We are equals, at least in terms of this forum and this discussion. You have zero authority over any of us, and your treatment of us as if we were errant schoolchildren is insulting, counter-productive and inherently inaccurate. Does this mean all of us have the same knowledge? No. It means we do not have the kind of teacher/student relationship that allows or even encourages the way you seem to treat everyone with whom you disagree. You are not better than us. We have not given you the role of teacher. It is presumptuous of you to take on that role, not least because it is a transparent attempt to turn a discussion into a lecture.

This is a brilliant paragraph.

I agree. And I have to tell you, rus, that Zahir's point occurred to me, too, when I read your analogy. Here at the Watch, you're not a teacher, lecturing to students. The Close is not a classroom. It's more like a pub where we're sitting around a table, sharing our thoughts with friends.

And now I realize why you've been so upset with the folks who won't read GKC: you've given us all homework and we've refused to do it.

To some degree this makes sense. Rus is a teacher by trade after all, so it makes sense that if he were to try and deliver something meaningful to us here, that his tone and methodology would be similar. I'm not sure I'm quite yet willing to take him to task on it because it seems like he's just acting naturally (to him), and the volume of his posting here has been nothing short of astonishing. I suppose one could make an attempt to understand that Rus is a teacher and that's how he delivers his arguments and we should understand that and not take it personally when he gets all condescending and holier-than-thou.

Although a change in tonality of post might make me more inclined to respond than to grit my teeth and move on to the next diatribe...

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:I am willing to take Rus' word at face value when he says he is not claiming to be better than the rest of us.
I do, however, believe that he is firmly and unequivocally insisting that his Church *is* better than the rest of us. His didactic tactics reinforce this feeling at the same time that it has very little convincing power.
It does seem as if Zahir and Rus are speaking about two different Churches -- Rus would say that is because Zahir is behaving in a most un-Orthodox way. I'm not convinced of that. I'm no philosopher, and I'm not much of an academic, but I can recognize zealotry when I see it. Earnest, for certain, honestly well-intentioned, and conducted with a strong sense of internal-reasoning (based on a series of faith-assumptions that I do not share) but zealotry nonetheless.

dw

Thanks, Dukkha!
The complement may be unintended as such, but I take it, nevertheless, a complement. There are quite a few things, that, if we believe are true, we will support 'zealotry'. The modern assumption that it means being unreasonable is contradicted by your other kind adjectives. Certainly Frederick Douglass was a zealot. So was Patrick Henry. And so was (a long list of people) who reasonably fought against what they were convinced was wrong and for what they believed to be true. If that's zealotry, then I accept the charge with pleasure.

But when I don't say 'the Church is "better" than the rest of us'. Its members see themselves as chief among sinners - and that means worse than you. But logically a divine institution - one not purely human but really instituted by God - would certainly be more authoritative than the claims of any individual.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Zahir wrote:We on the other hand are not your students, nor you our teacher. We are equals, at least in terms of this forum and this discussion. You have zero authority over any of us, and your treatment of us as if we were errant schoolchildren is insulting, counter-productive and inherently inaccurate. Does this mean all of us have the same knowledge? No. It means we do not have the kind of teacher/student relationship that allows or even encourages the way you seem to treat everyone with whom you disagree. You are not better than us. We have not given you the role of teacher. It is presumptuous of you to take on that role, not least because it is a transparent attempt to turn a discussion into a lecture.

This is a brilliant paragraph.

It would be better, rus, to tell all what you believe, rather than tell all of us what is wrong with what we believe. I suggested a thread along the lines of "The joy of rusmeister's faith." You said that's not the type of attitude you work with. And that's fine. Not all are the type to sing and dance in church, and not all are the type to take a vow of silence and live in a monastery for a year. Neither is wrong. So give us a thread that isn't going for a joyous feel. Just tell us what you believe.

Hi Fist,
If I am speaking to another person who is also claiming to be an Orthodox Christian, as I do, then a central assumption is that we both accept the authority of the same Church, unlike the rest of you. Therefore, statements made about what that organization teaches - most especially when it concerns what a person must accept to even be considered a member of the organization - are not to be applied to those to whom they don't apply. We know this to be true anywhere else. The Boy Scouts work with boys, not girls - or they are not Boy Scouts, but something else. It's silly for a group of girls to complain that they are not allowed to be members. It is also foolish for a given Boy Scout to begin to talk of his doubts in the rightness of the Boy Scouts in so discriminating against girls. The organization was founded on the assumption that male and female are different, and that certain things especially fulfill the needs of one or the other, and so we have Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. It's fine to question the organization; it is even encouraged. But you are also supposed to consider the answers when you have questioned. And if, in the end, you cannot accept that the Boy Scouts are not going to be "inclusive" when their stated aim is to be exclusive, then continued involvement in the Boy Scouts is only going to result in a constant tension. (Analogies only go so far, of course)

My faith is precisely not my own, in the sense of being personal. Its nature is that it is universal and NOT "rusmeister's". It is a thing that is true for everybody.

I believe in one God, the Father, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He arose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets.
And in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.


I think what you want me to say, Fist, is that this is my opinion, but I may be wrong - that it is only what "I" (on a purely individual level) "believe" (as a fallible opinion).

The Orthodox Church is one Thing - an objective Thing. It has many members and a great deal of diversity. But it is not many Churches. It is one Church. and as an objective thing, it can be defined. And definitions that say the individual can decide what is Orthodox on his own without reference to the authority of the Church is outside of that definition. It's much like saying that I am an abolitionist, but I want to keep a few slaves for myself in my private household. If another person claiming to be an abolitionist says that one cannot hold that view and be abolitionist, then he is right to rebuke the other would-be abolitionist.

Of COURSE things are brilliant if we agree with them.

Boil it all down to its essence and you're saying the Church is never wrong, ever infallible, and everyone within the Church must obey the Church hierarch.

You are aware the Church has committed murder, right? Endorsed and encouraged Anti-Semitism, as well as the torture and murder of heretics? And by your avowed beliefs, disagreeing with those hideous acts at the time was unacceptable.

Call that Christian? Christ-like in the slightest way?

Zahir wrote: You use the most un-useful analogies, all in the name of banishing nuance from any conversation. You insist on defining everything in terms of a specific world-view

Yes, I do. It's one that you, too, ought to embrace.

Zahir wrote:with (and this is CRUCIAL point) zero effort to even consider one iota of any viewpoint than your own. You analyze arguments to tear them apart, rather than listening to try and understand.

False. I insist that it is not my own, have posted numerous links to authoritative sources SHOWING that it IS the position of the Church, not li'l ol' me.
I DO understand what heresy and schism are, Zahir. Once we recognize something for what it is, and refer to the Church so that we are not simply running off half-cocked on our own, then we must cease listening, precisely because we DO understand. The fact that you offer ZERO evidence from the Church - statements made by authority that would support your position - is evidence that you are off on your own, and that the Church is not with you on these matters (Church authority and homosexuality, so far).

Zahir wrote:For the record, it does seem as if Rus and I represent two very diametric extremes of how people live their lives as members of the Orthodox Church. Rus functions along a strict interpretation of every word the Church utters, sublimating his own opinions and emotions to that authority and seeing every other opinion as inherently wrong to be corrected.

I don't think any Orthodox Christian could be accused of "functioning along a strict interpretation of every word the Church utters". The Church has uttered so many words that this is not possible. But when teachings have been hammered out over centuries, you bet your booties I insist on strict interpretation. The Symbol of Faith IS a strict interpretation - playing it liberal and loose with "opinions" there is the door to Arianism, Nestorianism, Montanism and a host of other 'isms'. Things that would destroy the Church - above all, the Orthodox Church.

Zahir wrote:I on the other hand adhere to the bedrock of the Faith but see a large "gray" area when it comes to actual practice, recognizing the collective fallibility of the priests and bishops amidst their great wisdom. My guess is that Rus thinks you must be baptized in the Orthodox Church to be saved. I don't think you even need to have heard of Jesus (although that would make things much, much, much easier). All hand-waving aside, Rus clearly feels the Church to be infallible and without error. This seems mind-bogglingly stupid and a denial of facts to me. I am a person of the modern world, with its pluralism and the mind-expanding wonders (and problems) created by science. He frankly comes across as a believer in some kind of idealized past where certain questions are never asked, while separation of (his) church and state is simply unconsidered. That is how it seems to me.

But I would most like to point out that Orthodox Christians actually run the gamut. We are but two samples, and taking either one of us as typical is misleading.

With this last, I agree wholeheartedly - on the individual level. It is quite true that on the level of individual opinions - where one is free to have an opinion - I am no better than Zahir or anyone else.

It seems that the only thing you recognize is "collective fallibility". It is precisely in the collective that fallibility is corrected, and by not referring to it that one errs. It's easy and cheap to speak of fallibility when you won't prove what the Church DOES teach. And you continue to confuse the Church's teachings with its sinful membership. People have always done evil, in the Church as well as out. That does not disprove the teachings of the Church. The Church has always said that murder is evil (and it is frequently listed in a row with the homosexual act - which you, on your own authority, deny is sin). I make the distinction the the Church's membership very frequently violates Church teaching, and that the former is fallible while the latter is not. You do not. (Edit: When I say "teaching", I mean what has always been taught and agreed upon, not what someone comes up with today).

No I do not think that membership in the OC is a guaranteed ticket to salvation. I think Fist will be fair enough to acknowledge that I have expressed the private opinion that Furl's Fire is probably a genuine saint in the eyes of God - and she was decidedly not Orthodox. I don't think you've followed my posting over the years, so I can understand how you could imagine such things based on brief impressions.

I have said, repeatedly now, that the teachings of the Church ARE infallible, but its members are very fallible. Individual members? Yes. The collective authority of the Church? No.


But again, anyone who actually approaches a canonical (valid) Church, be it the Greek, Antiochian, Russian, or OCA is going to find that regarding Church teaching, they say what I have been saying (and much better than I do) and NOT what you say regarding Church authority (or homosexuality, for that matter). The test? To GO there and ask - and if you can't do that, then at least to ask them online. I have yet to see Fist or anyone else reporting back on what they find. I'm not at all impressed with brilliant defenses of Zahir by others if they do not do this. It suggests that they do not WANT to conduct this simple test to prove who is right, but merely to opine about it here without asking the organization what it says.

I'll ask, with little hope of answer, what archdiocese you are in, Zahir? (You indicate Los Angeles - that would be Diocese of the West? Do you acknowledge the authority of the Bishop to correct you, if you are in error? If not, then you are simply schismatic. if you do, then take your case to the Bishop and report on the results - or simply post what the archdiocese has to say on the topics.

Unless or until you do so, I am no longer going to respond to you. I think that only the Father of lies can win on this one. I'll insist on correcting errors if you say that the Church teaches things that it does not teach, but I won't respond to sophistic argument. If you don't accept Church authority I'll have to say that you are not, in fact, being Orthodox. A person who professes one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church without accepting its holy, catholic and apostolic authority is not in communion with it, no matter how often they approach the chalice.

I'll ask for forgiveness if I have erred, but will accept the Church's judgement, not your private judgement, on that question.

Show us the money. Show us what the Church says.

aliantha wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Zahir wrote:We on the other hand are not your students, nor you our teacher. We are equals, at least in terms of this forum and this discussion. You have zero authority over any of us, and your treatment of us as if we were errant schoolchildren is insulting, counter-productive and inherently inaccurate. Does this mean all of us have the same knowledge? No. It means we do not have the kind of teacher/student relationship that allows or even encourages the way you seem to treat everyone with whom you disagree. You are not better than us. We have not given you the role of teacher. It is presumptuous of you to take on that role, not least because it is a transparent attempt to turn a discussion into a lecture.

This is a brilliant paragraph.

I agree. And I have to tell you, rus, that Zahir's point occurred to me, too, when I read your analogy. Here at the Watch, you're not a teacher, lecturing to students. The Close is not a classroom. It's more like a pub where we're sitting around a table, sharing our thoughts with friends.

And now I realize why you've been so upset with the folks who won't read GKC: you've given us all homework and we've refused to do it.

OK, Ali. Can a friend, sitting at the pub, insist that the Boy Scouts' policy has always been to induct only boys? Or must he fall silent at another's claim that it may have inducted girls in the past and is certainly wrong to be exclusive and not induct them today?

If I refuse to ever try to examine any pagan claims, could you respect my own claims about paganism? Would you not be irritated and want to correct them when you see them to be in error? Would you not ask me to do some homework and be upset if I simply won't do it?

Can anyone insist that others are factually wrong - are wrong about fact - or truth? Or is the guiding principle that no one can be wrong?

I knew Rus would miss the point.

rusmeister wrote:Thanks, Dukkha!
The complement may be unintended as such, but I take it, nevertheless, a complement. There are quite a few things, that, if we believe are true, we will support 'zealotry'. The modern assumption that it means being unreasonable is contradicted by your other kind adjectives. Certainly Frederick Douglass was a zealot. So was Patrick Henry. And so was (a long list of people) who reasonably fought against what they were convinced was wrong and for what they believed to be true. If that's zealotry, then I accept the charge with pleasure.

But when I don't say 'the Church is "better" than the rest of us'. Its members see themselves as chief among sinners - and that means worse than you. But logically a divine institution - one not purely human but really instituted by God - would certainly be more authoritative than the claims of any individual.

My point is the old joke about the three people you should never argue with: drunks, women, and zealots. Because you rarely win, and even when you do, you end up losing anyway.
But seriously, you already have the answers to every question. So you have a hammer in your hand, and every problem you come across looks exactly like a nail. Despite the fact that resistance is futile, I will at least for the moment, continue to resist.

dw

So did I, Zahir.

rusmeister wrote: OK, Ali. Can a friend, sitting at the pub, insist that the Boy Scouts' policy has always been to induct only boys? Or must he fall silent at another's claim that it may have inducted girls in the past and is certainly wrong to be exclusive and not induct them today?

Actually, the Boy Scouts *have* inducted girls in the past. For one, me. I was a member of a journalism Explorer Post in high school.

If you'd used the Girl Scouts as your example -- then yeah. But even the Girl Scouts allow men to join as leaders (tho the arrangements on camping trips get kind of interesting -- Dad has to have his own separate tent, one latrine has to be set aside for him, etc.).

rusmeister wrote:If I refuse to ever try to examine any pagan claims, could you respect my own claims about paganism? Would you not be irritated and want to correct them when you see them to be in error? Would you not ask me to do some homework and be upset if I simply won't do it?

Positively, I don't care whether you do any homework to investigate my claims about Paganism or not, rus. I'm not trying to convert you.

But as long as we're on the subject: You do the same thing in terms of Paganism that others do when confusing Western and Orthodox beliefs. I've seen you make incorrect claims about pagans, and Paganism, *months* after I've tried to set you straight. Does it upset me? Nah -- at this point I just sort of shake my head and say, "There goes rus, cleaving to his beliefs again, no matter how wrong they are."

rusmeister wrote:Can anyone insist that others are factually wrong - are wrong about fact - or truth? Or is the guiding principle that no one can be wrong?

Can't say. We haven't yet defined fact and truth.

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:If I refuse to ever try to examine any pagan claims, could you respect my own claims about paganism? Would you not be irritated and want to correct them when you see them to be in error? Would you not ask me to do some homework and be upset if I simply won't do it?

Positively, I don't care whether you do any homework to investigate my claims about Paganism or not, rus. I'm not trying to convert you.

Precisely. We're not insisting that you're wrong, rus. We don't care if you embrace our worldviews. The conflict here is this:
You insist that we're wrong --->
We won't take your word for it --->
We refuse to read thousands of pages that you insist will convince us (especially when the pages we have read strongly indicate that the other thousands will not) --->
You get mad, and call us stubborn; lazy; indoctrinated; insane; etc

Fist and Faith wrote:

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:If I refuse to ever try to examine any pagan claims, could you respect my own claims about paganism? Would you not be irritated and want to correct them when you see them to be in error? Would you not ask me to do some homework and be upset if I simply won't do it?

Positively, I don't care whether you do any homework to investigate my claims about Paganism or not, rus. I'm not trying to convert you.

Precisely. We're not insisting that you're wrong, rus. We don't care if you embrace our worldviews. The conflict here is this:
You insist that we're wrong --->
We won't take your word for it --->
We refuse to read thousands of pages that you insist will convince us (especially when the pages we have read strongly indicate that the other thousands will not) --->
You get mad, and call us stubborn; lazy; indoctrinated; insane; etc

Not mad, Fist. More like sad.
I don't call you names. It's one thing if you draw inference from syllogism - that can be called "If the shoe fits". It's another to say that I do say that Fist is stubborn, lazy, etc" - Only I DON'T say that. I don't know everything about your lives, and so only speak about stubbornness and laziness et al in general terms - for their are such things, and they some of them doubtless apply to some - or even all - of us.

The conflict is more correctly expressed in this:
We don't care if you embrace our worldviews.

I wish you did. Because the fact that you don't means you don't care about what is true. If you did, then you would see that real human beings actually going in wrong directions ought to be cared for - warned if possible and turned in the right direction (whatever you see that to be). Not caring what someone believes (in this sense) means not caring about that person at all.

I think the truth matters.

You don't. That's why I have to leave you alone. And it makes me sad, rather than mad. because I DO like you, inasmuch as it's possible to like people that we do not ever meet. (I like your mind, that you do express things on a certain level and think about them in ways that relatively few people in the world do, something that I relate to, etc. But the barrier of truth (Pilate's "What is Truth?") is something that in the end cannot be responded to. It will always be "my psyche", "my preferences" AFAYC. As long as we can speak of true and false, it can be like McIan and Turnbull - one might convince the other, and they fight desperately, to convince, and to seriously and honestly counter each other's points on their own terms - to actually prove truth. But the Pilatian "What is truth?" ends that. It's all in "The Ball and the Cross", which you, alas, will never read (just as GKC will remain, for you, a closed book). That's a source of sadness and regret, not anger.

rusmeister wrote:I think the truth matters.

You don't.

No Rus...we just don't think that your truth is true for us. There's a difference.

--A

I think the truth matters.

You don't.

Actually we do, despite the wildly arrogant assumption behind this quote. We do not however accept the premise that you have a monopoly on it.

As they're saying, we all think the truth matters. We just don't agree that it's what you think it is. Not everyone needs to see it the same way. You have some blind spots in your logical thinking, which makes you unable to understand certain things. Unable to follow certain thoughts when they veer from the path of yours. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say you can't comprehend that thoughts can veer from the path of yours, and still be valid. Meaninglessness and this "fish to be thrown away" idea are two big results of these blind spots. A very clear post demonstrating this is here:

rusmeister wrote:

"If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today....Because if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world."

Angel's quote does express sentiments that we know to be good, but it is self-contradictory and illogical.If nothing we do matters, then it does NOT matter what we do. No logician could agree with Angel's statement and pretend to be logical. It's like saying, "What you eat does not matter because it matters what you eat."

I used to think you were being stubborn and arrogant. It seems that those who don't perceive certain ideas and those who dismiss them express it the same way. But one day I realized it was simply that you don't get it. Zahir hasn't been having these discussions with you as long, and doesn't understand this.

Seems like we're in a pub, discussing things over a beer, unless the topics get too serious, then you'd better not disagree too strenuously, especially if you're outnumbered. Yep, sounds like the American idea of pub talk.

aliantha wrote:But as long as we're on the subject: You do the same thing in terms of Paganism that others do when confusing Western and Orthodox beliefs. I've seen you make incorrect claims about pagans, and Paganism, *months* after I've tried to set you straight.

'Tried to set him straight'?? Uh-oh, sounds a bit like rus there. See, we all don't just sit idly by when someone makes claims about something we know about (we could use journalism as an example in the 'Tank), instead, we inject what really is. You in particular ali have been accused of trying to tell others what journalism is, so I guess from your comments to rus, you were in the wrong there? I mean, were you teaching or just talking in a pub?

I see this as a pretty big problem. People just don't want to accept authority in any thing, or spend time to research anything, instead, we attack others who try to present any ideas. I see it in regards to MMT, myself, ali, vraith and a few others have read very limited amount of material regarding it, and see its truth. That's how our currency works. Others haven't read anything, and just keep making statements or throwing questions at us, as if we're qualified to answer these questions, from a knowledge standpoint. We can make guesses based on little we've read, or hope for brinn who's spent alot more time, or we can actually hope (!) that some of these people who question go read the material written by people who study these things, like, as a job.

No, instead, we want cliff notes, and just tell me what you think. Then, once you do, I can rip you to shreds or question you out the wazoo, and somehow feel like I'm knocking down MMT and showing all how much nonsense it is. As if a real proponent, like Mosler or Wray or others, would be as unable to express the ideas or answer questions.

To me, its all a little pathetic, lazy, and bogus.

That ramble is not to say expressing things from a personal viewpoint, and what things mean to me and how that affects my life has no value. But there's a separation. This is what MMT is, this is what I do about it.

Wow, what am I missing in the MMT thread?!?

Cybrweez wrote:'Tried to set him straight'?? Uh-oh, sounds a bit like rus there. See, we all don't just sit idly by when someone makes claims about something we know about (we could use journalism as an example in the 'Tank), instead, we inject what really is. You in particular ali have been accused of trying to tell others what journalism is, so I guess from your comments to rus, you were in the wrong there? I mean, were you teaching or just talking in a pub?

What got me going in the Tank was when people treated me as if I didn't know what I was talking about. Was I lecturing? Maybe by the end of it, I was. At first I was only giving my opinion and explaining why I held it, given the parameters of the profession.

As for my discussions with rus in the Close, there's a world of difference between, "Y'know, rus, pagans didn't disappear after the fall of Rome, and you're wrong about X, Y and Z bits of Christian propaganda as well," and then seeing him repeat the same mistaken comments later on -- and someone who says not just, "This is what my religion teaches," and "This is what my religion teaches, and it's Right, because my religion has The Truth and yours doesn't, and if you don't get that then I feel really sorry for you because mine is Right and yours isn't." The first is an example of correcting factual mistakes. The second is -- well, you figure it out.

Cybrweez wrote:Seems like we're in a pub, discussing things over a beer, unless the topics get too serious, then you'd better not disagree too strenuously, especially if you're outnumbered. Yep, sounds like the American idea of pub talk.

aliantha wrote:But as long as we're on the subject: You do the same thing in terms of Paganism that others do when confusing Western and Orthodox beliefs. I've seen you make incorrect claims about pagans, and Paganism, *months* after I've tried to set you straight.

'Tried to set him straight'?? Uh-oh, sounds a bit like rus there. See, we all don't just sit idly by when someone makes claims about something we know about (we could use journalism as an example in the 'Tank), instead, we inject what really is. You in particular ali have been accused of trying to tell others what journalism is, so I guess from your comments to rus, you were in the wrong there? I mean, were you teaching or just talking in a pub?

I see this as a pretty big problem. People just don't want to accept authority in any thing, or spend time to research anything, instead, we attack others who try to present any ideas. I see it in regards to MMT, myself, ali, vraith and a few others have read very limited amount of material regarding it, and see its truth. That's how our currency works. Others haven't read anything, and just keep making statements or throwing questions at us, as if we're qualified to answer these questions, from a knowledge standpoint. We can make guesses based on little we've read, or hope for brinn who's spent alot more time, or we can actually hope (!) that some of these people who question go read the material written by people who study these things, like, as a job.

No, instead, we want cliff notes, and just tell me what you think. Then, once you do, I can rip you to shreds or question you out the wazoo, and somehow feel like I'm knocking down MMT and showing all how much nonsense it is. As if a real proponent, like Mosler or Wray or others, would be as unable to express the ideas or answer questions.

To me, its all a little pathetic, lazy, and bogus.

That ramble is not to say expressing things from a personal viewpoint, and what things mean to me and how that affects my life has no value. But there's a separation. This is what MMT is, this is what I do about it.

I'd vote this for post of the year in the Close. Certainly it hits the center of everything I've encountered.
(Of course, we tend to discount thanks or praise from people who agree with things we disagree with...)

Seems to me that no one is trying to say Rus doesn't have a right to his opinions, to expressing his opinions, and to doing so as he sees fit.

We object to his rudeness. We object to the way he simply refuses to listen. We object to the way he talks down to us about...well, pretty much everything. Not to say the rest of us aren't sometimes rude, sometimes arrogant, sometimes myopic. But the unrelenting habit of all that is bound to create a fantastically negative impression--and it is simply not rational to expect any other response.

Seems to me, "insulting", "arrogant" and "talking down to us" are just nice ways of saying I disagree, and I don't like what you're saying (IOW, being "insulting", "arrogant" and "talking down to someone"). Its not rus' tone, or what he says, its the simple fact that he thinks you're wrong. And people hate that (that's why Jesus said the world will hate you, b/c you'll claim the world is wrong). Its why we can say, "well, I just gave my opinion", b/c then I don't think its a fact, so no one should get upset about it. B/c what all the complaining about rus sounds like? A bunch of people telling him he's wrong for thinking they're wrong. Bah! This is the nonsense of relativity, and the hypocrisy too. I know, I sound insulting.

Fist and Faith wrote:Wow, what am I missing in the MMT thread?!?

Well, if you have any interest in economics, then you should go find out! If you don't, stay away, you'll be bored to tears...