I think I do need to post more on The Longest Comment In The Indian Blogosphere.
Some 2000 words down the comment, he says that Don Boudreaux “dismisses the phenomena of global warming” and then Chetan launches into a tirade on how Global Warming is in fact occurring. Except, of course, that Don wasn’t saying that global warming was not occurring. He was saying that even if it was occurring, we should not get the government involved in solving the problem, because the government will invariably make things worse.
Now I don’t have as much of a horror of government action as Don Boudreaux (no really, I don’t!), but I do find it funny that in a tirade about caricaturing people, he’s ended up misrepresenting his opponent’s words to come up with the easiest argument to knock down. There’s a word for that, but it eludes me right now. I think it starts with “S”.
Whether global warming is occurring is a scientific question. Whether it is caused by human action or it is just a cyclical change of climate, is a scientific question. What to do about it, if at all we are to do something about it are economic questions. To my knowledge, Bjorn Lomborg acknowledges that warming is occurring. No one has seriously questioned his point that the Kyoto protocol will only delay it by 6 years – a number, which when you consider that it is a 100 years from now, is actually insignificantly small. He has also proposed an alternative, which involves making the rich countries paying the poor for the harm that they are going to cause. For this, the only scientific answer he has received is that he is a rightwing nut. So, the point is that caricatures are being drawn on both sides of the debate here.
Ravi,
Why is the settled issue of ownership being beaten to death here?
If you really do mean to walk away, it baffles me as why you chose to make 4 posts on a topic that is as obvious. But, yeah – its funny. I agree. So that seals it 🙂
I think Ravikiran some 4600 words into my comment I have apologised for any mischaracterisations I did. I have explicitly stated that my post is not logical.
I have caricatured you guys and I admitted to that in my post. I have pleaded guilty to all that and more. Many of the things I did are on purpose to expose your own double standards. Regular readers of your blogs would immediately realise that this is exactly what you do to leftist positions and anyone else disagreeing with you.
Have any of you ‘smart’ guys heard about the character of Holden Caulfield from A Catcher in the Rye? The novel revolves round a theme. It is what Holden calls “phoniness.” He feels surrounded by dishonesty and false pretenses, and throughout the book is frequently picking out the “phonies” he sees around him. The irony is, he is himself a big phony.
I just thought for once lets don the Caulfield avatar which has been immortalised by guys in a slightly more erudite format and try to hammer a post. My problem was I was drunk when I was writing it (probably thats why I ever bothered to write such a long one) and try as I did, I could not come anywhere close to the way Nilu imitates Caulfield. So the point is, yes, I have done all that you accuse me of. I take full responsibility for all the hypocrisy. I did it knowingly. I thought given your intelligence you would pick on the irony and smile at it.
So after all this, what have you achieved? On your blog, you’ve been furiously apologising to Kunal about what you wrote about his post – and that was the solitary example of libertarians caricaturing their opponents that you had given. Here you are claiming that you intentionally went about caricaturing people to prove some arcane point. What exactly?
For one, I don’t see why this is a problem. My apologies in the comment itself as well as to Kunal are sincere. Kunal infact got back to me saying that apologies weren’t necessary and that he felt that although not intentional, his post does make it sound like he was caricaturing Matthews because he was leftist. And I have left links to each of the posts I have cited. Anyone interested is free to form his/her opinions on it. I have given my own but not hidden them from anybody like you guys always do, never refering to arguments that go against your theories.
And there are numerous examples where you guys have caricatured the left. In the comment section of libertarian blogs a person having any minor disagreement is termed as a socialist, supporter of corruption anti-development and what not. Maybe you personally didn’t do it, but other members of the cartel along with other Libertarian non-members most certainly did.
And the point that I am making here is not arcane. Your being blind to your hypocrisy while derisively characterising this quality as trademark of the Left is extremely pertinent to the discussion here. What I have achieved is that the next time any blogger reads your posts. He thinks critically about them. Your extreme influence, condescending toning towards anyone disagreeing with you, linking to posts only favouring your positions and intelligent logical but entirely theoretical posts, many people were getting proselytised. And the lesser intelligent ones were having a field time calling everyone who didn’t agree with you as moronic illogical fools, which is not the case!
I value difference of opinion and want to see it flourish in a democratic set-up and not be gagged because of your (not you in particular)propagadish Black and White approach to markets. I am merely bringing a little competition in the marketplace. Read this post of mine. It might clarify a few things. Though I think it will give you more ammunition to come back at me. But I don’t care about that.
RR, could the word be ‘Sophistry’?
Just trying to jog your memory, not trying to imply anything 😉