Response to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glzXtLvloVo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjdZnc8yng4
However, by your crap definition of "radical", the issue becomes a matter of which views are defined as radical. And so to define some views as radical, you have to show that the positions are baseless speculation. But in order to do that, you must engage in ON-CASE argumentation.
This goes against Spawktalk's whole shtick, which was that he would head-off the ON-CASE arguments, which devolves into a million and one disputes about roads and currency and property disputes and odd situations regarding legal agencies. But this fails, because in order to head off the ON-CASE arguments, you have to define a position as radical, by spawktalk's anti-public definition of radical, but in order to define a position as radical, you must engage in ON-CASE argumentation!
In a response to one of my comments, Spawktalk wrote:
"No, that is a complete non-sequitor. The fact that a policy hasn't been tried yet does not imply that there is no evidence for it. Lots of policies that have not yet been implemented have a substantial amount of evidence in their favor. I suspect this would be fairly obvious to you if you didn't spend so much time dealing in wild speculation.
Your misunderstanding of the logical implications of the argument suggest that your declaration of its stupidity are, to put it lightly, pre-mature."
I responded:
"Oh, so what matters about policies that have not been tried are ON-CASE arguments. And yet, you wish to dismiss all radical politics based on an OFF-CASE argument.
Because claiming that polycentric law is baseless speculation, that is an ON-CASE argument. But your Methodological Argument Against Radical Politics is more fundamental, it is meant to head off the ON-CASE arguments with an OFF-CASE argument."
Then spawktalk responds:
"This isn't complicated. I am dismissing a set of political beliefs, radical ones, on an off case basis. Because of how the term radical is being defined here that set does not include policies that have not been implemented but do have substantial evidence in their favor. The off case argument does, however, apply to polycentric law becuase it is NOT a policy with substantial evidence in its favor."
Right here spawktalk, YOU LOSE! Because in order to say that anything is radical politics according to your ass definition of "radical", meaning "baseless speculation without substantial evidence", you have to argue the merits of the position, i.e. engage in ON-CASE argumentation.
And so your attempt to make a purely OFF-CASE dismissal of radical politics (by your ass definition of "radical"), you have to define a set of views as radical, which brings you right back into on-case argumentation. This is why you lose! Your attempt to run around the gauntlet with some big simple off-case argument failed.
