[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Austrians use these terms in very precise, very circumscribed ways, and make it eminently clear in what ways they DO NOT mean them. Nor do they claim that these terms cannot be meaningfully used in other ways, in other disciplines. They just have very particular meanings in the science of praxeology, the study of purposeful action as such, which is what Austrian economics is all about. So you can blather on about "action not always being purposeful", and that's fine; it's just that those aren't the kinds of actions that Austrian economics is interested in or applies to. Similarly you can claim that actions don't reveal preferences, and that's great. That's just not the sort of preference Austrian economics applies to; Austrian economics applies to the kind of preference that is revealed by purposeful action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the rest of your post yet, so I'll say this for now:

1. Read the paper. I'm doing the same thing. I think it's interesting. Perhaps afterwards we can have a reasonable discussion about said paper, instead of pointlessly arguing about the abstract.

2. Nowhere in this thread did anyone say "Austrian economics" or even "preference/choice/action/rational as defined by the Austrian school". This isn't Vienna, and the goalposts I'm aiming for are right here in good 'ole America, where the OP made a post using regular 'ole English. See, I'm not interested in having a discussion where your side of the debate is automatically correct because you have castrated the English language to the point where the language used makes only your theory intelligible.

[/ QUOTE ]

My God what an insufferable prick you are.

Your entire ridiculous attack on myself an pvn was about preference, action, choice, and rationality. Did you forget that? You accuse me of a bunch of bull [censored] in your ridiculous rant, I point out that you are squalling about a bunch of stuff that has NOTHING to do with any of my positions or anything that I've ever posted and explain *exactly* where the foundations of my positions come from and what their context is, and you churn out another stream of condescending, incindiary, insulting, point-dodging bull [censored].

Perhaps capslock will help you comprehend:

I NEVER SAID THAT MY SIDE OF THE "DEBATE" IS AUTOMATICALLY CORRECT. THERE ISN'T EVEN A DEBATE EXCEPT THE ONE YOU ARE TRYING TO MANUFACTURE OUT OF THIN AIR BY ACCUSING ME OF SAYING THINGS I HAVEN'T SAID. I SAID IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER'S DEFINITIONS.

But you aren't really interested in having a discussion, are you? You're interested in your preconceived (incorrect) notions and not losing an argument on the intarwebs.