The thing is that you're actually raising legitimate points in your thesis, but you're not treading any new ground.
At a pretty general level that's true, but I never denied that nor did I ever have the illusion that what I'm arguing for is new. In fact, I
very clearly start the argument by pointing out that the conclusion has been argued for elsewhere. What I am doing is tackling a
specific writer's defense against that conclusion and showing why it doesn't work and why no such defense can work. It's a response to a conversation between several philosophers that occurred in the literature over several decades. I'm taking one side of that conversation and arguing more rigorously in favor of that side. I have neither the intention nor the desire to come up with a
new conclusion.
Pointing out how one claim contradicts the other, especially within the very narrow margins you're working within, does nothing new.
That claim is transparently stupid. What possible reason do you have for saying that? The mere fact that the claim has been argued for already does not yield the view that you're putting forth here. That reasoning, applied consistently, would entail that nobody does anything new when they adduce new empirical support for a proposition that has been argued for before. But that's a stupid conclusion and you should be able to see why. Also, I have no idea how the "narrow margins" that I'm working within have any relevance whatsoever to what you're saying.
I am sure it'll be a solid thesis when you're all done with it, but I am suggesting, in a round about way, that you might want to push the boundaries a bit with it.
You actually don't know a whole lot about what's in my thesis because the characterization I gave of it is incredibly vague. So maybe you should refrain from shooting your mouth off.
Also, I find libertarian philosophy extremely tedious, so I don't feel like getting engaged in a lengthy debate about something I don't really have a vested interest in.
That's fine. If you have no interest in it, then stay out of the thread.
On a personal basis, I have always found you an obnoxious little prat and have never actually bothered being cordial with you, so I don't know why this is suddenly a surprise to you.
You already made it abundantly clear to me in the past that you don't like me. What I wanted to know was why you decided to be a dick despite the fact that I did nothing to provoke you, and the fact that I was not even engaging with you at all.
