tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post8058845576084751076..comments2008-12-24T00:39:25.954-05:00Gene Callahanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-24145615786862095362008-12-24T00:39:00.000-05:002008-12-24T00:39:00.000-05:00Welcome to our game world, <A HREF="http://gameim.com/product/Habbo_Coins.html" REL="nofollow"> habbo credits </A>, <A HREF="http://gameim.com/product/Habbo_Coins.html" REL="nofollow"> habbo gold </A>, <A HREF="http://gameim.com/product/Habbo_Coins.html" REL="nofollow"> habbo coins </A>, <A HREF="http://gameim.com/product/Habbo_Coins.html" REL="nofollow"> buy habbo gold </A> and <A HREF="http://gameim.com/product/Habbo_Coins.html" REL="nofollow"> cheap habbo credits </A> , they are very interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-34918509089456848772007-05-02T18:20:00.000-04:002007-05-02T18:20:00.000-04:00It was actually about a minute, Gene.A mannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-86479399599858417462007-05-01T18:45:00.000-04:002007-05-01T18:45:00.000-04:00I am fine with argument by contradiction -- when it works! See the article by Bob and me in the <A HREF="http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf" REL="nofollow">JLS</A> for why Hoppe's argumentation ethic <EM>doesn't</EM> work.Gene Callahanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-46150979790448045012007-04-29T09:40:00.000-04:002007-04-29T09:40:00.000-04:00Oh, I agree, Eamon's argument is correct. But I was not aware you were a proponent of Hoppeian style arguments by contradiction--this one is similar to the criticism made by Hoppe of Popper (see e.g. http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae3_1_16.pdf ) and also similar to Hoppe's argumentation ethics which you are a critic of.Stephan Kinsellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07986650653184633661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-40771876966419005682007-04-27T22:01:00.000-04:002007-04-27T22:01:00.000-04:00I love to get my English Popperian friends worked up. I'm of course grossly exagerating -- Popper should be taken seriously for longer than 15 seconds! -- but I do think Eamon got a key argument against Popper right -- either the claim that justifying a theory is impossible is justified, and self-refuting, or it's not, in which case why can't I just adopt a different standard?Gene Callahanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-43828891095306757032007-04-26T11:37:00.000-04:002007-04-26T11:37:00.000-04:00Gene, I don't detect a note of sarcasm in your reply to Eamon, do I? :)Stephan Kinsellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07986650653184633661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-22412412862607139952007-04-24T08:51:00.000-04:002007-04-24T08:51:00.000-04:00Oh, I'm going to point Tony Hollick from the LeftLibertarian2 group here and watch the fun. He's a bit of a Popper fan boi and slightlyly mentally unstable (redundant, I know...)Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06941875334878452635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-74068941213598981992007-04-24T08:13:00.000-04:002007-04-24T08:13:00.000-04:00Eammon is right but that doesn't make Popper wrong !!!<BR/><BR/>JuliusJulius Blumfeldwww.20six.co.uk/juliusbnoreply@blogger.com