ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

A pitch on an 0-2 count

As you read this, do keep in mind that Merkur is the one accusing me of "feeble semantic evasions":

"It's true, you never said any such thing. What you said was that the two other bloggers said it couldn't be done without killing people. Obviously a complete strawman! I stand corrected."

Thank you. Unfortunately I didn't specifically support their arguments - I said it couldn't be done without a disregard for their lives and dignity. I also didn't say that the two other bloggers said it, and only one of them actually said it, and that was IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE. So unfortunately your strawman still stands.

Yes, there's a massive distinction between "disregard for lives" and "considering the costs in human lives" and "killing people". It's almost as big as the difference between the synonyms "impossible" and "unrealistic" that Merkur was previously complaining about. Of course, if one does not kill people, THEN THE COST IN HUMAN LIVES IS ZERO. Because I only referred to the one other blogger who Merkur admits made the statement, not only is there no strawman, it raises real questions about whether Merkur even understands what a strawman argument is.

Merkur's quibbling is particularly stupid because what the other blogger was saying was that there is no other way to deport large numbers of people WITHOUT DOING IT IN THE CONTEXT of the Nazi example, without doing it in the murderous way that the Nazis and Communists did. I not only rejected that contention from the very start, but have even cited current examples that prove it to be false. Of course, once I cited the Iranian example that proved my case, Merkur began distancing himself from the very statements he has been defending and quoting and echoing, though apparently not "specifically supporting", from the start.

Allow me to demonstrate the vacuity of your feeble semantic evasions. It has been empirically proven that a man can pole vault 6.14m - would it be impossible for "Vox Day" to pole vault 6.14m? Clearly not; with a high level of commitment, focused through an intensive training schedule, with the right conditions in place, it has been demonstrated that it is physically possible for "Vox Day" to do this. Is it realistic to expect "Vox Day" to pole vault 6.14m? Absolutely not; he is highly unlikely to be able to commit to this task, would probably not be able to fulfil such an intensive training, and cannot depend on the right conditions being in place. So it is possible, but it is unrealistic.

I shall certainly allow him to demonstrate away, as by doing so Merkur provides a nice analogy to show how he is dancing madly away in an attempt to avoid having to provide an answer.

The question I asked was not whether "Vox Day" could be realistically expected to pole vault 6.14m, but HOW HIGH CAN "VOX DAY" BE REALISTICALLY EXPECTED TO POLE VAULT? This is the answer that Merkur has repeatedly refused to answer, because he knows that doing so will destroy the last vestiges of his argument. We already know that we are currently pole-vaulting the equivalent of 110cm without even trying, we know that the Iranians are currently pole-vaulting the equivalent of 3.36cm, so how high can we realistically be expected to vault?

Merkur won't answer.

Moreover, the pole vault is an imperfect analogy because the height has to be surmounted in a single go. Deportation is more akin to lowering the bar by the height of the bar cleared previously. So "Vox Day" doesn't have to pole-vault 6.14m, he only has to vault 3.1m twice, which is less than the Iranians have already managed. Or 1.5m four times.

I'm not evading the question, because there isn't a question to evade. Practical issues do have practical answers, "Vox", but you don't seem to understand the practical implications of mass deportation. Your risible proposal to hire a lot of buses as if that's the only component of a mass deportation scheme shows that you have little to no understanding of what you're talking about.

"There isn't a question to evade." That's not just evasion, it's an outright lie. Of course there are other practical issues. There always are. The aliens have to be identified. The bus drivers have to be hired. The contracts for provisioning the buses have to be awarded. Congress doesn't even have to pass a law, it merely has to leave the states and localities alone to do what they want. But all of these issues are easily resolved in theory, and in any case, Merkur characteristically avoids spelling out what he believes to be the practical implications he mentions. It's so much easier to simply assert that I don't understand the complexity of logistics, which should provide regulars who were here two summers ago no little amusement.

Since Merkur so enjoys picking nits, I'll note that I never said anything about hiring buses, but rather proved that the government could afford to PURCHASE 80,000 expensive 12-passenger luxury coaches, complete with sleeping berths and TV lounges, for less money than they are currently losing on the illegal alien tax-benefit delta in a single year.

It is possible, it isn't realistic, and in most cases it does require an approach which disregards the lives and dignity of the deportees. The reason it is unrealistic is not because it is logistically impossible, but because to carry it out would require certain conditions to be in place which are simply not in place - just like a pole-vaulting Vox.

I first note Merkur attempts to sneak a weaselly insinuation that human lives are somehow at stake despite his awareness that they're not. And obviously, we'll avoid the "most cases" that require disregarding "the lives and dignity" of the deportees and utilize one of the cases which he admits do not. Although I suppose that an approach which involves comfy coaches and catering might lead to a risk of increased heart disease; perhaps we should equip the TV lounges with a PS/2 and a DDR dancepad too.

However to ask such a question would only compound the vacuity of your reasoning - for it is not a question of what is physically possible, but a question of whether you would even pick up the pole to begin with.

Merkur here is referring to the "certain conditions which are simply not in place", which involves the politicians currently in office. But this brings us full circle, since the entire discussion began with George Bush's declaration that the deportation of 12 million illegals was "unrealistic". Merkur's argument boils down to a tautology: our politicians say we can't deport aliens because our politicians say we can't. Brilliant stuff, clearly it's way over the average individual's capacity to comprehend, let alone mine. If mass deportation of criminals is "unrealistic" as long as George Bush is in the White House and anti-American politicians control the House and Senate, whatever could the solution to that intractable problem possibly be?

So, last chance, Merkur. You've avoided answering the question twice already. You've split hairs, lied and made demonstrably false accusations. You've been empirically proven conclusively wrong. Now, you have three choices. You can either admit you're wrong on this issue and survive to fight the next one, you can answer the question of how high "Vox Day" can be realistically expected to vault and list those practical implications that show my lack of understanding, or you can go away.

I don't really care which option you choose, but don't bother with any more evasions, obfuscations and accusations, they'll simply be deleted.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts