In Reply: The Nihilism of Donald Douglas; Not puting up, and sadly, not shutting up, either

In reply to the fact that people now recognize that Donald Douglas doesn't understand the definition of Nihilism, and the fact that Donald Douglas is rather unhappy that people now know he doesn't understand the definition of nihilism, and unsuccessfully tries to defend himself.
---

Actually, no, there's no problem on the definition, Reppy.

Professor Douglas, if you read the definition below and think that somehow applies to me--without providing a single example of my saying anything that fits that definition, of course (you never do)--there is clearly a problem with your reading or comprehension skills...

At Wiki: "Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived."

It's not whether or not you can cut and paste (Lord knows everyone is certain you can do that), but whether you can apply the definition you cut and pasted (and presumably read, one hopes) to actual situations.

As I've probably said fifty times before, if you're going to accuse me or anyone else of being a nihilist, you're going to have to actually cite them saying or doing things in accordance with the cribbed definition.

So where are the posts or comments where I argue that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value? Where are the links to my asserting that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived?

The answer, just like every time before, is nowhere. Still telling, and still not showing. Not puting up, and sadly, not shutting up, either...

Dr Douglas, I know you believe that you can just say things and have everyone nod their heads in stunned agreement, but that isn't how the real world works. If you insist on coming to the table with evidence-free assertions, you might just as well not bother. Your words are worthless, and the fact that you've come to this same table just as full of words and free of supporting evidence so many times before kinda suggests that you really just don't have the goods, at all.

You just make up some a moral code as you go, which basically ends up being totally FUBAR double-standards.

Show it or shut it, Don... Put up or shut up.

You are banned at AmPow. Do not comment there, as that is harassment, just like allegations of harassment you support at Swash.

Funny, you've consistently failed to back that allegation, as well. Same standards all around. One cannot be banned from a public blog, whether it's yours or his. Anyone can submit comments to a moderated blog from which they've been "banned," whether it's you ignoring Octo's "ban," or my ignoring yours. Unlike you, I never changed my position on moderation or banning. (And unlike you, I can provide evidence of your ignoring Octo's ban, and then whining about my ignoring yours.)

If you can prove me wrong (or even just provide anything in the way of evidence in support of what you claim), I invite you to do so. But if you're just going to repeat the same tired allegations without anything to back them up, you really ought not bother. It's only making you look more pathetic.

If you really believe I'm harassing you by submitting my big 2-4 comments/month, I invite you to report me. Otherwise stop whining, and man up.

Thanks for your support.
---

Posted July 18, 2010 6:34 PM, American Nihilist blog time