4 ms·

Only in passing.

by CrazyStat 4y ago

Only in passing.

lapcat 4y ago
Thereby admitting that you actually know nothing about readers of Jacobin, and your slur was completely unjustified.
- CrazyStat 4y ago
  Bad reasoning. I bet you don't watch Newsmax, but you probably know some things about people who watch Newsmax. I wanted to make a joke about it being exactly the kind of reasoning a Jacobin reader would use, but I'm refraining.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > I bet you don't watch Newsmax, but you probably know some things about people who watch Newsmax. I don't, and I don't. > I wanted to make a joke about it being exactly the kind of reasoning a Jacobin reader would use, but I'm refraining. I'm not a regular Jacobin reader, "only in passing" as you say. In any case, you're just spouting stereotypes invented in your own mind.
    - CrazyStat 4y ago
      No, I've had enough Jacobin readers misinterpret Adam Smith to me to form an informed opinion.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        Have you? How many, exactly? In any case, it's not clear why interpreting Adam Smith (1723-1790) is an appropriate criterion here. Of course, I don't grant without evidence that you possess a correction interpretation of Adam Smith. FWIW (not much) I read The Wealth of Nations many years ago, though I don't claim to be a Smith scholar, and I have no wish to debate the matter with you. I just find it strange that you feel the need to drag him into this discussion.
        CrazyStat 4y ago
        > Have you? Yes. > In any case, it's not clear why interpreting Adam Smith (1723-1790) is an appropriate criterion here. Because it speaks to both their reading comprehension and grasp of economics.
        lapcat 4y ago
        >> Have you? > Yes. You didn't answer my crucial follow-up question: "How many, exactly?" > Because it speaks to both their reading comprehension and grasp of economics. Not really. There's actually been quite a bit of work on that subject since the 18th century, if you hadn't heard.
        CrazyStat 4y ago
        What makes that follow-up question crucial?
        lapcat 4y ago
        The claim was "I've had enough Jacobin readers misinterpret Adam Smith to me to form an informed opinion." So the question is, how many do you believe is enough to justify the claim that your opinion is informed? Otherwise it would appear to be an unjustified overgeneralization based on extremely limited anecdotes. "The print magazine is released quarterly and reaches 75,000 subscribers, in addition to a web audience of over 3,000,000 a month." https://jacobin.com/about https://jacobin.com/about I would guess that the number you've had Adam Smith specific conversations with is one, possibly even zero, but unlikely more than two. After all, since you're an "Only in passing" reader, it's unclear how you would get into large numbers of conversations of any kind with large numbers of Jacobin readers, much less specific conversations about Adam Smith interpretation.
        CrazyStat 4y ago
        Your guess would be incorrect. One doesn't need to be a Jacobin reader to meet Jacobin readers. Also you didn't explain why this question is crucial.

Only in passing.

lapcat 4y ago

Thereby admitting that you actually know nothing about readers of Jacobin, and your slur was completely unjustified.

CrazyStat 4y ago
Bad reasoning. I bet you don't watch Newsmax, but you probably know some things about people who watch Newsmax. I wanted to make a joke about it being exactly the kind of reasoning a Jacobin reader would use, but I'm refraining.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > I bet you don't watch Newsmax, but you probably know some things about people who watch Newsmax. I don't, and I don't. > I wanted to make a joke about it being exactly the kind of reasoning a Jacobin reader would use, but I'm refraining. I'm not a regular Jacobin reader, "only in passing" as you say. In any case, you're just spouting stereotypes invented in your own mind.
  - CrazyStat 4y ago
    No, I've had enough Jacobin readers misinterpret Adam Smith to me to form an informed opinion.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      Have you? How many, exactly? In any case, it's not clear why interpreting Adam Smith (1723-1790) is an appropriate criterion here. Of course, I don't grant without evidence that you possess a correction interpretation of Adam Smith. FWIW (not much) I read The Wealth of Nations many years ago, though I don't claim to be a Smith scholar, and I have no wish to debate the matter with you. I just find it strange that you feel the need to drag him into this discussion.
      - CrazyStat 4y ago
        > Have you? Yes. > In any case, it's not clear why interpreting Adam Smith (1723-1790) is an appropriate criterion here. Because it speaks to both their reading comprehension and grasp of economics.
        lapcat 4y ago
        >> Have you? > Yes. You didn't answer my crucial follow-up question: "How many, exactly?" > Because it speaks to both their reading comprehension and grasp of economics. Not really. There's actually been quite a bit of work on that subject since the 18th century, if you hadn't heard.
        CrazyStat 4y ago
        What makes that follow-up question crucial?
        lapcat 4y ago
        The claim was "I've had enough Jacobin readers misinterpret Adam Smith to me to form an informed opinion." So the question is, how many do you believe is enough to justify the claim that your opinion is informed? Otherwise it would appear to be an unjustified overgeneralization based on extremely limited anecdotes. "The print magazine is released quarterly and reaches 75,000 subscribers, in addition to a web audience of over 3,000,000 a month." https://jacobin.com/about https://jacobin.com/about I would guess that the number you've had Adam Smith specific conversations with is one, possibly even zero, but unlikely more than two. After all, since you're an "Only in passing" reader, it's unclear how you would get into large numbers of conversations of any kind with large numbers of Jacobin readers, much less specific conversations about Adam Smith interpretation.
        CrazyStat 4y ago
        Your guess would be incorrect. One doesn't need to be a Jacobin reader to meet Jacobin readers. Also you didn't explain why this question is crucial.