In which I respond to criticism

Heading thou off – Before anyone comments on my taking the time and effort to write up a full post for some minor criticism: A) I was (and am) bored; B) I could; and C) I felt like it. Good enough reasons to me.

Checking out my Sitemeter stats, I was surprised to see some traffic coming in from, of all places, Vox Day's blog. Well, wouldn't you know it – Vox has posted up some of my criticism and, well, criticized it (conveniently leaving out the rest of what I said). (Isn't there a word for criticizing criticism ...?)

And, of course, he gets it totally, embarrassingly wrong. Oy vey.

UPDATE - Almost as amusing as PZ wetting himself and running away again is the contorted illogic to which Pharyngulans resort in order to defend the coward:

Once again, Vox fails pathetically at the grasping of simple concepts and notions. The reason(s) why calling PZ an "atheist" is an ad hominem whereas calling Vox a "crackpot" isn't, is that Ham deliberately used "atheist" as a pejorative, not to mention as a way to "discredit" PZ (if such a thing were possible), whereas Vox ... actually is a crackpot, which inherently signifies he's not worth debating and any attempt at doing so would only amount to a waste of time and energy.

So, according to this teenage boy's quixotic concept of "ad hominem", PZ is actually not an "atheist" and did not use the term "crackpot" as a pejorative. It's a rather grim statement about the average intelligence of the Pharyngula readers when they not only make use of an ad hominem argument while simultaneously decrying the technique, but demonstrate that their understanding of the argument doesn't even rise to the level of Wikipedia. It's astonishing how the sort of half-educated cretin who insists that someone of proven high intelligence can't grasp "simple concepts and notions" almost invariably doesn't even know the relevant dictionary definitions.

I suppose it's true, though. I really don't grasp such "simple concepts". Of course, this is only because the simpleton has an incorrect idea of what those concepts actually are.

I wonder if I may need to purchase more boxer shorts after reading this, for I do believe I've just pissed myself with derisory ironic laughter. It's hard to count the number of ways in which Vox once again fails spectacularly at comprehending what he read before he criticized it, but just for starters:

A – I am certainly no Pharyngulan. I read the blog every now and then for amusement, and to harvest some interesting stories now and then, but in no way do I consider myself a "follower" of PZ or a member of his horde (and I do use that last term in its derogatory manner – I have very little sympathy for the majority of his commenters, for several reasons).

B – Right, "this teenage boy". No negative connotations there. Maybe he should ask why I'm not out smoking or drinking with buddies next. ;) (I'd also mention his cheerful referring to me as a "half-educated cretin", but I think I've already called Vox enough bad names today so I'll just move on. ;))

C – Now he questions my knowledge of definitions ... HOW DARE YE!!! Okay, dramatics aside: an ad hominem is the use of any word or term against an opponent to bring the opponent him/herself into question, rather than what they're saying. Calling someone an "atheist" as a means to try and discredit them over the air, as Ham obviously did – right, I suppose that's intended to be an honor card or something.

And just in case some question my certainty as to Ham using the label "atheist" as an ad hominem against PZ – first of all, I heard the damn thing myself. It's kinda hard to mistake his tone for anything else. And second, it's even harder to imagine him meaning anything else to begin with with such a phrasing. Seriously, one needs to be an utter moron not to realize what Ham meant.

D – Where in the hell did I say anything even remotely resembling "PZ is not an atheist"? Either Vox is just putting words in my mouth (in which case, "fuck you, lying asshole"), or else he really, really needs glasses (in which case, "get 'em already").

E – A pejorative is not strictly an ad hominem, just as the vice-versa is true. A pejorative is specifically an insult; an ad hominem is anything, insult or not, used against a debater to try and discredit them instead of what they're saying. "Shooting the messenger, not the message", to use the old phrasing. In that regards, "crackpot" wasn't used as an insult to Vox (not as far as I could tell anyway), but to qualify his ridiculous illogic and beliefs, how he ignores the evidence and spouts off pseudo-logic to try and contort reality into fitting his delusions. That's not an insult – it's a statement of fact. Big-ass difference.

F – Yes, we know you think you're uber-intelligent, Vox. You can stop cramming it down our throats now. Especially since your words consistently demonstrate, to the contrary of your claims, that you're not exactly Einstein. (For one thing, the the latter could understand what he read. Something you keep failing at again, and again, as I've pointed out several times.)

So, there it was: the best the (supposed) genius could throw at me. More basic reading incomprehension, false claims about stuff I didn't even say, calling me out on my age as an excuse to attack my credibility (not that I claim to have any to begin with), failing at definitions, all the while tooting his own long-suffering horn ...

This is fun – in a boring sort of way. (But then, what isn't?)