I mean, I could go through his wall of verbal diarrhea and methodically annihilate everything point by point, but good lord, it's just such a waste of life at this point. This is a case of someone who is simply impervious to evidence - it'd be like trying to reason a scientologist out of their religion. The bit where he refers to anything with more than three syllables as an "SAT word" gave me a laugh, though. So I'll just keep pointing out that someone like Soeki surely isn't capable of conducting meaningful research of any kind based on his erratic, anything-but-reasonable way of "arguing", and his completely false inerrancy, but actually engaging with him at this point is just intellectual suicide.
|