Hounding him by, whenever his name is mentioned in any context, bringing forward example after supposed example of how he is somehow not competent enough to ever be allowed to have a receptive audience. Even though this very example you brought up is a prediction of just this kind of thing?
I've counted two instances of me bringing examples of his odd behaviour, in a total of two comments. Your assertion of "whenever his name is mentioned in any context" feels like I'm missing some cases considering how many times his name was mentioned in this sub-thread.
You’re not the only one to do this, as you can see elsewhere in this thread. But you were the first person to bring up his current US right-wing popularity and vaguely allude to “poor choices recently” and tweets containing unspecified badness. You did this as an off-topic comment to a comment which compared the topic at hand, self-control, to Adams’ “systems vs. goals” approach.
Your "hounding" accusations of me here are unproductive and your "off-topic" assertion is dishonest. Scott's wild tweets about Republicans being hunted points to someone with some "issues" -- not unspecified badness.
While he may have good points in some cases, his thinking is compromised and you cannot discount that. I don't think this discussion will be productive beyond this point and wish you well.
Again, you are, without elaborating, claiming that he has ‘some “issues”’, makes “wild tweets” and that “his thinking is compromised”, without saying anything specific or elaborating further. If that’s not alluding to unspecified badness, then I don’t know what is.
I mean, you keep pointing to these tweets and not saying what’s wrong with them, as if it should be completely obvious to everyone. Hint: It’s not. It’s probably only obvious if you’re already predisposed to interpret everything he writes in the worst possible way. Then I’m sure it’s obvious. But it’s not obvious to me, for example.
If you had ever explained exactly what you thought was wrong with them, anyone here could have argued with your interpretation, and possibly put forward an alternative, more reasonable, interpretation. You would most certainly not have agreed, but at least the argument would have been made in the open, and every reader could then decide for themselves. But as it is, since you don’t actually make an argument, only vague allusions, anyone objecting to your characterizations would have to guess what you meant, and then argue with this made-up opinion. However, this would be bad form, and you could then always claim not to have that exact opinion and cause any argument made to be irrelevant.
Therefore, please, tell us what’s wrong, don’t just say “look, look, bad thing here: <link>”. That’s not an argument. Don’t do that. Make your case explicitly.
In closing, what is and is not on topic might be a matter of opinion, but I don’t appreciate being accused of dishonesty. If you don’t think that I am arguing in earnest, then I agree that not much productive debate can be had between us.
