Clarkoholics

Sean Gerety "responds" to my critique of Scripturalism.

"I didn't think it was possible, but I think we've hit a whole new low.

Manata compared Gordon Clark to a meth dealer complete with myself and Dr. Robbins as his pushers.

I guess people can start calling me Sean "The Pusher" Gerety and can simply refer to Dr. Robbins as 'Scarface.'"

By way of reply:

1) Notice how he's always so complimentary towards Dr. Robbins.

2) Who is "we?" Hardly anyone is a Scripturalist. Last count there were 12, I think. And, most people will have a hard time sympathizing with a Scripturalist who thinks he's been verbally assaulted. I mean, don't most people cheer when bullies get their comeuppances.

3) Gerety seeks to totally avoid dealing with the substance of the post. Instead, he tries to gain the sympathy vote. Appeals to pity.

4) I compared myself to a meth dealer, since I was one. I said the drug he was pushing was "Scripturalism."

5) Gerety doesn't take into account the disclaimer I built into the post. Quoting myself:

"But first, a word about the drug use rhetoric. First, I do happen to think that Scripturalism is dangerous for your epistemic and spiritual health. However, my linking it to drugs is just for rhetorical purposes. It’s intended to bring a bit of humor to otherwise boring philosophical debates. Second, some may say it is fallacious. Guilt by association. Poisoning the well. Well, I have already covered why I have employed drug abuse terminology, and I base no argumentative weight on styling the debate in this fashion other than it serves to make an important point by colorful metaphor. But more importantly, the above listed fallacies are not included in SC and therefore the Scripturalists do not know that I’m arguing fallaciously, and thus shouldn’t get upset at what they opine that I am doing."

6) Gerety doesn't understand metaphors and analogies. Of course I don't think those guys are really dealing illegal substances, but they are dealing something. Gerety is well known for "pushing" Clark. I actually think Scripturalism has bad epistemic effects, a sort of cognitive rot. This is also analogous.

7) Notice more similarities, I attack Gerety's "precious" and he responds back by irrationally trying to gain pity for himself rather than deal with reality. When a drug users drug is taken away, or attacked, or, more appropriately, his stash is flushed down the toilet, they frequently have irrational conniption fits. I actually can recall back in '96 when I roid raged on my brother for not wanting to inject Deca in my rear! So, there's some analogy here.

8) Reiterating: The point of the metaphor was apropos, I think. Drugs that are cut with battery acid are impure. Scripturalism cuts its drug (i.e., it's specific view of epistemology) with what they would refer to as battery acid (i.e., opinions, assumptions, extra-biblical appeals, etc.,). There conclusions are more certain that their premises, and I recall Clark harping on this in Thales to Dewey (cf. his section on Aristotle, I'm too lazy to cite the page number).

9) So, rather than throwing a temper tantrum, appealing to pity, avoiding the argument, perhaps Gerety would actually like to engage the argument(s)?

10) It's sad to see a grown man running and "telling" on other people. Appealing to schoolyard tactics. Trying to get the most kids on his side. Watch out, mess with Gerety's "precious," and here comes the rumor mill. Attempting to destroy a reputation is so much easier than destroying an argument; especially when, as Christians, we have no reputation to speak of anyway.