His latest triumphal hogwash post (about me in this instance) is just classic.
[I guess the whole issue's settled now that Dana has himself convinced I have been "humiliated" by the remark of one commenter. Woe is me!]
Dana also quotes a new commenter here (welcome, Beto!), but leaves out the rest of Beto's comments, which are far more humiliating to Garrett than anything I faced from any commenter :
"Garrett's post is hogwash, however, simply because he does not seem to grasp simple logic very well (I'll choose to believe incompetence instead of malice as the cause for his weak reasoning). He uses a quote criticizing paternalism that says "Opponents of paternalism [...] claim that liberty supersedes safety in terms of actions that only affect oneself" (my emphasis), and goes on to claim that this basic libertarian view would justify the Neumann couple's actions, which obviously affected mostly their daughter, not themselves."
I, too would like to think it is incompetence rather than malice. Unfortunately I think Dana is intelligent enough to know better.
After Dana recently got quite nasty, calling me a "liar and demagogue", I have to believe Dana's distortions of libertarian thinking are purposeful and malicious....but not personal. Dana is a friend, and I stand by that.
However, if I thought to write posts about every instance of Dana being humiliated on his own blog, I would have to start a whole new blog just to keep up with all the content I would have to work with.