Comments on: Meridianfrost as Jim Taggart: Contrived Laughter in Lieu of Rational Counter-argument

By: notadothead

notadothead — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:21:50 +0000

Dear Maira,
“…hardly above the same kind of behavior that his critics are guilty of…” Your opening argument here is an example of the ad hominem, Tu Quoque.
I will illustrate to you why I think islam “should only exist in books”.
Get out your Koran and substitute Jew ,infidel, kaffir or whatever the non muslims are called for whatever muslims are called wherever these words occur. Not very pleasant is it?
Are sharia courts, barbaric laws and punishments only the preserve of a “violent minority” in islamic states?
Perhaps they are.
Cropper dismisses his critics because he can find no reason in their critiques.

To apply your own reasoning from your last two sentences to islam and muslims would lead to the conclusion that muslims are “not really secure in their own beliefs”.
Regards

By: Maira

Maira — Thu, 21 May 2009 00:03:51 +0000

I have recently come across Mr. Cropper’s videos and did a little bit of background reserach on him to figure out exactly who he is. What I discovered is that he is hardly above the same kind of behavior that his critics are guilty of. How may we categorize his decision to post fliers around his alma mater that reprinted Muslim caricatures and the words “F**K Muhammad”? That he was expressing his belief in unrestricted free speech is obvious. The real question is, do we place it in the category of rational debate or ad hominem attacks? What is so rational about continuing to maintain the belief that there is something fundamentally wrong wrong with Islam, when all of the evidence indicates that the real problem lies with a violent minority? To say nothing of the way he dismisses his critics in his videos as morons that are incapable of reason. My point is that both Mr. Cropper and his critics are feeding into this circus of dilettantes. If he were half as reasonable as he purports to be, he would have long since ignored most of his critics because that’s what reasonable people do when they recognize that dialogue is degenerating. People who are really secure in their own beliefs do not feel the need to churn out a “video response” to every trite, hackneyed accusation that comes their way.

By: Elisheva Levin

Elisheva Levin — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:37:59 +0000

Hi, Paul,

Now I am not an Objectivist, and to be honest, I cannot even say that I am currently a student of Objectivism, although I have become interested in it due to reading some of Ayn Rand’s fiction. So please excuse my ignorance about some tenents of Objectivism. A person must start somewhere in learning, and I am starting by reading Jenn’s blog and her links.

What I notice is that Objectivists are not the only target of this kind of smear in the place of argument. I have seen such non-arguments in the political scene, as well as in any other forum in which a person attempts to argue or discuss POMO or POMO-influenced ideas rationally.

When I see such non-arguments, I judge the (non)arguer to be ignorant and uneducated in discourse or worse, deliberately attempting to discredit without evidence their opponent’s discourse. I wonder why people are taken in by this?
Perhaps viewers want to remain ignorant?

About humor: There is another purpose to humor, one that I am familiar with due to my cultural background. Black humor is not so much an attempt to deny metaphysical importance to an event, as to deal with absurd and/or terrifying and hopeless situations over which those doing the humor have no power. I believe that it provides a momentary break from an overwhelming situation. Thus all of the “we did too crucify him” jokes told among Jews. In general, black humor is kept within the group, and not shared with those who have made the situation so dire.