Replies

Here's the problem, in post#736 you said,

"Well it's incredibly easy to criticize Marx & Freud now that they have been largely discredited and act as if it's oh-so-obvious that they were phonies, but at the zenith of their movements, every respectable member of the fields of economics and psychotherapy, respectively, consider them to be almost beyond criticism, their theories not just theories, but the most compelling organized understandings of their subject matters."

I asked for evidence that EVERY respectable member of their fields believed as you said. You went into a big huff and blew smoke out yer butt, but you didn't provide any evidence. Then, later, you CHANGED the conditions of the evidence by changing what you said,

"You want evidence that virtually every economics department in this US, Canada, Britain, eastern and western Europe was dominated by Marxists for most of the 20th century?"(post#853)

That is NOT what you asserted earlier; if you had, I would not have complained. I was challenging your original claim that EVERY RESPECTABLE economist was a fervent Marxist who didn't allow dissent. You retreated from what you said originally, then claimed victory. That's intellectual dishonesty.

I was challenging your original claim that EVERY RESPECTABLE economist was a fervent Marxist who didn't allow dissent.

Let me get this straight: you're whole point was based on some sort of hyper-pedantic reading of my original post because I didn't say "almost every"? You'll notice that the point is independent of the precise percentage of individuals involved: you know, it may have been 90%, maybe 95, maybe 98.2%. I'm not quite sure.

This sort of pedantic silliness is a complete red herring.

Why is it that evolutionists on this board can never (note, this is an exaggeration: never is not intended to be taken absolutely literally!!!) seem to address the substance of the arguments being made but nearly always have to go after side issues?

The original argument was that Marx, Freud, and Darwin were embraced by very much the same types of people at about the same time for very much the same reason, in very much the same way. As it turns out, Marx and Freud have since been completely discredited. Does this mean Darwin, by association, was wrong? No. Perhaps there was something fundamentally different about Darwin. But for just about everything Darwinists would say today about how great Darwin , you can replace "Darwin" with "Marx" or "Freud" and find the exact same things said historically about those 2 folks.

It's really not that hard an argument to understand. Care to respond to it, or do you want to parse words and bandy semantics?