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

Sunday, September 09, 2012

A chimpanzee on Mozart

INTJ keeps digging herself deeper in her attempt to argue that Western culture is not superior by the high standards of her snowflake morality:

Hahaha. You attempted to strawman me by bringing up Hitchens. I pointed out that my type precludes me from caring what happened to Hitchens’ argument, so instead you cry “appeal to authority” where there is none.

Untrue. You didn’t point out that your type precludes you from caring what happened to Hitchen’s argument, you pointed out that your type allows you to make sure your conclusions are internally sound. You claimed that your conclusions are internally sound because you are an INTJ, but you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are, in fact, internally sound. That was the logical fallacy identified. Furthermore, you cannot reasonably claim I attempted to strawman you until you show your argument about the horrific nature of Christianity and Islam is any different than Hitchens’s argument. He makes very similar claims to yours, although he is honest enough to include Judaism. It would certainly be interesting to hear your argument that Christianity requires genocide when the only examples are Judaic.

Actually, I can appeal to the highest authority there is (and the only valid authority at that): human reason. I can convince the average person that slavery, rape, and genocide are wrong under any circumstances. All you’ve got is a book written by a bunch of uncivilized tribal barbarians.

You are a very ignorant person. So, you consider reason more authoritative than science? How very medieval of you. More authoritative than history? How very stupid of you. And to claim that science and history are totally invalid authorities only shows that you are in well over your thick little head. Reason is not an authority at all, it is simply another tool. I can use it to convince the average person that slavery, rape, and genocide are moral imperatives… nor would I be the first to do so.

If the rules condone such things, fuck the rules.

Profound, very profound. As I said, your whole snowflake morality boils down to “me no likee”.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night. Personally, I bow to no one that is morally reprehensible. Not Rob Pardo, not you, and certainly not your genocidal friend.

Non serviam. That’s hardly new. To whom do you bow?

Could there possibly have been more straw in this man?

Whoosh! No wonder you don’t appreciate Western culture. It would be like asking a chimpanzee for his view on Mozart.

Labels:

140 Comments:

Blogger Heuristics September 09, 2012 4:15 AM  

Modernity - The act of dressing up personal desires in an outfit of polemics pretending to be argument.

Anonymous Allabaster September 09, 2012 5:02 AM  

Can a woman really be an INTJ? I would have thought such solipsism was completely counter to such a nature. Maybe it manifests it's self differently in different genders.

Anonymous Allabaster September 09, 2012 5:45 AM  

Can a woman really be an INTJ? I would have thought such solipsism was completely counter to such a nature. Maybe it manifests it's self differently in different genders.

Anonymous Allabaster September 09, 2012 5:48 AM  

Double post, sorry.

Anonymous Faust September 09, 2012 6:24 AM  

Dude, I don't think you get it.
She's an INTJ. An I. N. T. J.

That means she's super smart. It's got INT in the name and everything. I don't know where you get off, thinking you can argue with somebody who's a super smart INTJ.


Anonymous Shorty September 09, 2012 6:28 AM  

"All you’ve got is a book written by a bunch of uncivilized tribal barbarians."

Why does that matter to a person to whom uncivilized tribal barbarians are supposed to be no more inferior than civilized metropolitan personalities?

She got that hamster all spun up to work then threw it straight into a wall. What a disaster.

Anonymous enna September 09, 2012 6:35 AM  

Allabaster,

I'm a female INTx, and I would rather keep my mouth shut than make such a shoddy argument.

(Tonight on Vox Popoli: one snowflake attempts to cancel out another! Get your tickets now!)

Blogger njartist September 09, 2012 6:43 AM  

Declaring you're right because you're an INTJ is like declaring you've won an argument because you're blond...wait...that does happen.

Anonymous Anonymous September 09, 2012 6:43 AM  

Vox:
"I can use it to convince the average person that slavery, rape, and genocide are moral imperatives… nor would I be the first to do so."

This is wrong. The way to derive the correct moral system is to just see wich one out of many works the best. How do we decide wich works best? the same way we decide wich economic system works best, or even what brand of breakfast cereals are best, by observing what people in majority choose. The majority always choose a free market system, the majority always choose a secular system of equality where slavery, rape and genocide is prohibited.

We never see people migrating from secular system into theocratic, fasist or communist system.

Gustaf Ingenmansson

Blogger njartist September 09, 2012 6:57 AM  

@ Anon Gustaf,
Reason is a tool used to justify lusts of fallen man. Reason is nothing if it rests on a lie.

Anonymous Shild September 09, 2012 7:22 AM  

The way to derive the correct moral system is to just see wich one out of many works the best. How do we decide wich works best? the same way we decide wich economic system works best, or even what brand of breakfast cereals are best, by observing what people in majority choose.

Well there you have it, proof that pornography is superior to Shakespeare.

Blogger tz September 09, 2012 7:28 AM  

That is an insult to chimpanzees. Who will literally rip your face off if the reports on Drudge were accurate.

I only wish to state there are arguments for natural law - that morality can be derived from reason. Or that it is written in the heart. Ayn Rand for the former, Lewis Abolition of man and other works for the latter. Also that knowing what is right is different from the will to do that and not put an individual or short-term pleasure above it. Embezzlers know 2+2=4 but put down a different answer.

I hold in no higher contemp someone whom I agree with but whose arguments are so bad to make even the clearest logic look irrational by association.

Anonymous CaptDMO September 09, 2012 7:41 AM  

Ooo...INTJ?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Is INTJ also I.S.P.E.? Mensa? Salutorian?
Certificate of Participation even?

"...boarderline retarded"?
Which side?

Anonymous RedJack September 09, 2012 7:43 AM  

Gustaf,
Your sample is very small. Rape, slavery, and genocide are becoming popular again in the West. With no Church to stop them, man goes right back to his baser instincts.

As for someone claiming "I am an INTJ! SO I HAVE TO BE RIGHT!".

No, that just means your brain is wired a bit different than most. The hamster will still lead you to follow your base desires, you just might think about it a bit more. Mankind is a fallen creature. People will and have justified everything.

Anonymous p-dawg September 09, 2012 7:47 AM  

@Anonymous: "the majority always choose a secular system of equality where slavery, rape and genocide is prohibited."

Always since when? Last Thursday?

Anonymous Jeigh Di September 09, 2012 7:56 AM  

I wonder if INTJ would rather live in pre-colonial India, where suttee was the rule of the day.

Anonymous Bob Ramar September 09, 2012 8:19 AM  

INTJ says: "All you’ve got is a book written by a bunch of uncivilized tribal barbarians."

Ironic comment that one is. I assume that she is referring to the descendents of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob because they were as civilized as their contemporaries. And, they wrote a book which has been transmitted intact over the almost 4,000 intervening years since it was started ... unlike their contemporaries for whom we have fragmented information at best.

"INTJ" ... hmmm, she likes Carl Jung's theories or at least holds them to a very high personal standard. I wonder what she would think if she knew he was a spiritualist, from a family of major spiritualists, and that the basis of 'Jungian Psycology' was given to him by an 'angel' in much the same way that the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph Smith or that the Koran was dictated to Mohammed? If you think this is BS ... do the homework. It may surprise you. It did me.

Blogger Doom September 09, 2012 8:42 AM  

Vox comes along, sees a beast doing something it shouldn't. He throws a few rocks to point out the problem. The animal, rather than take a hint, becomes angry then enraged. It being already of lowered intellect due to it's nature, anger deepens this diminished capacity, so it acts instinctively. He circles it, throwing rocks to build it's rage and keep it's focus. Finally, the beast has had enough so it charges. Going through the cardboard figure prop trap, it goes over the cliff, landing rather harshly, unceremoniously. Rage "helps" it here, diminishing the pain or even understanding of the fall and the shame due to being tricked by it's own fallacies. Everyone gets a little snigger. Ah, but the beast isn't quite done showing Vox. Over and over.

Back in the day that was an excellent tactic for getting a little loose leg or a good round of fisticuffs going. Thanks for the show. Cheers.

Blogger Bob September 09, 2012 8:56 AM  

She's like a person who has never driven off-road and got stuck in a giant mud hole. Never learned when its time to quit spinning your wheels.

Anonymous Steve Canyon September 09, 2012 9:00 AM  

Here I thought "human reason" was to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

She's not even appealing to the human reason which she so stridently claims. All she's done is state that we should accept her arguments because she said so, and she's an INTJ, and failure to do so means we could go fornicate off.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 September 09, 2012 9:14 AM  

I wonder if INTJ would rather live in pre-colonial India, where suttee was the rule of the day.

Forget pre-colonial India, how about modern India where people use their left hand instead of toilet paper, let their animals poop everywhere, and bath in a "sacred" river that is filled with animal waste and the corpses of both animals and people?

Anonymous Wendy September 09, 2012 9:16 AM  

INTJ and CB should hang out. The sources of their appeals are equally valid.

Can a woman really be an INTJ?

Yes. But in this case I'm reminded of Mandy Patinkin's line: "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

I appeal: step away from the internet quiz, INTJ.

Anonymous Bobo September 09, 2012 9:17 AM  

"This is wrong. The way to derive the correct moral system is to just see wich one out of many works the best."

If the criterion is which system is easiest to implement, sure.

Anonymous Bobo September 09, 2012 9:19 AM  

Not really relevant, but why do so many hipster secularists have this obsession with telling everyone else to fornicate off? Is fornication somehow evil in their view? Surely to tell someone to fornicate off would be a compliment. It' would be so to say wish that one has "a nice day".

Blogger IM2L844 September 09, 2012 9:21 AM  

that morality can be derived from reason. Or that it is written in the heart. Ayn Rand for the former, Lewis Abolition of man and other works for the latter.

Ayn Rand? Seriously? That's your example of someone who showed that it is possible to derive morality from reason alone?

Ayn Rand's logical reasoning is full of holes big enough to drive a Mac truck through. She was a horrible logician and virtually no professional philosophers take her seriously as a philosopher.

Blogger wrf3 September 09, 2012 9:35 AM  

Anonymous wrote: The way to derive the correct moral system is to just see wich one out of many works the best.

This is a circular definition. Morality is about knowing what is good and what is bad; "best" is just an adjective for "most good"; so what you're saying is: "the way to derive knowledge about good is to see which is the most good."

How do we decide wich works best? the same way we decide wich economic system works best, or even what brand of breakfast cereals are best, by observing what people in majority choose.

So morality is all about numbers? You really believe that? I was once talking with someone from the Indian subcontinent. He wanted the US to nuke Pakistan. When I reminded him that the fallout would kill many thousands of his countrymen he replied, "Who cares? There are too many people already."

Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2012 9:40 AM  

> the majority always choose a secular system of equality where slavery, rape and genocide is prohibited.

A simple and brief perusal of history would indicate that you are incorrect.

> and she's an INTJ

As if something like a third of the people here aren't.

Blogger Good Will September 09, 2012 9:40 AM  

BAM, Vox! You are a world-class cruelty artist!

Anonymous willneverpostagain September 09, 2012 9:41 AM  

This woman probably thinks her "brains" make her desirable to men.

However, if they don't find her desirable, then they should probably "f*ck off".

Even so, I would be willing to bet she would be another magnitude of turnoff for about one week a month ;).

Anonymous Roundtine September 09, 2012 9:46 AM  

The majority always choose a free market system, the majority always choose a secular system of equality where slavery, rape and genocide is prohibited.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any society where the majority sanctioned slavery, rape and genocide of the majority. I can think of plenty that sanctioned the slavery, rape and genocide of the minority or of foreigners. The only reason it stopped was because a bigger foreigner with bigger guns forced them to stop.

Anonymous Godfrey September 09, 2012 9:59 AM  

She's as deep as a puddle. It's people like her - the vast majority now days - that make the world such a terrible bore.

Anonymous Godfrey September 09, 2012 10:04 AM  

"Modernity - The act of dressing up personal desires in an outfit of polemics pretending to be argument." Heuristics

Hear, hear... the perfect summation of modernity.

Anonymous stg58 September 09, 2012 10:08 AM  

INTJ+RABSTERCKEN/CORONARABBIT/CB+FEH=

The Nuclear Estrogen Apocalypse. It detonates every month with breathtaking ferocity.

Anonymous rycamor September 09, 2012 10:14 AM  

Roundtine September 09, 2012 9:46 AM

The majority always choose a free market system, the majority always choose a secular system of equality where slavery, rape and genocide is prohibited.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any society where the majority sanctioned slavery, rape and genocide of the majority. I can think of plenty that sanctioned the slavery, rape and genocide of the minority or of foreigners. The only reason it stopped was because a bigger foreigner with bigger guns forced them to stop.


Just about every major moral system in history agreed one the main "do nots". However, most of them only apply those to the in-group. Everyone else is free game. In fact, this is one of the things that makes Christianity and traditional Western culture different, in that this culture was even capable of considering non-insiders as real people. Slavery in the British empire was ended by the British, due to their own realization of this. Where else has a society voluntarily ended its own system of enslaving others?

Anonymous indyjonesouthere September 09, 2012 10:16 AM  

Ann Barnhardt has a four part video on the Vendee massacre on youtube. It isn't really taught in French history much less any other history. If that represents reason and enlightenment you can have that shit. I'd prefer old fashioned tribalism.

Anonymous Geoff-UK September 09, 2012 10:18 AM  

Vox, this bores me. You're arguing with a chimp--why post this tripe? You've wasted 4 minutes of my life reading about it, and 2 hours of yours arguing with a woman. Enough already.

Anonymous jay c September 09, 2012 10:19 AM  

/sarcasm

Anonymous jay c September 09, 2012 10:22 AM  

I am pretty sure that Gustaf Ingenmansson's post was sarcastic.

Blogger Dominic Saltarelli September 09, 2012 10:30 AM  

The word "strawman" is the main reason I usually avoid the internet nowadays.

Anonymous stg58 September 09, 2012 10:44 AM  

Vox, this bores me. You're arguing with a chimp--why post this tripe? You've wasted 4 minutes of my life reading about it, and 2 hours of yours arguing with a woman. Enough already.

Most likely this is a cautionary tale, or instruction on arguing with people like this. Maybe Vox is in one of his whimsical moods.

Anonymous The other skeptic September 09, 2012 10:53 AM  

Wait until she comes into contact with those Muslims in America who want to kill her

Anonymous bix nood September 09, 2012 10:55 AM  

ahahahha, ahahahaha, i'm lolin' hard at this exchange.

"SEE I'M IN INTJ THAT MEANS I AM LOGICAL AND RATIONAL QED BIGOTS DON'T TALK TO ME AS AN INTJ I'M ALSO..."

get thee to a nunnery, little girl.

Anonymous VD September 09, 2012 10:59 AM  

Vox, this bores me. You're arguing with a chimp--why post this tripe? You've wasted 4 minutes of my life reading about it, and 2 hours of yours arguing with a woman. Enough already.

In what part of my ever-growing oeuvre leads you to believe your entertainment is part of my concern? First, it took about 15 minutes, not two hours. Second, this is the sort of thing that I find amusing.

Anonymous Stickwick September 09, 2012 10:59 AM  

We could be pleased that Christianity has managed to inculcate many of its values in the culture to the degree that intellectual chimpettes like INTJ assume they are self-evident. It was not always so, and it still isn't in many parts of the world. In Christendom, it took a long time and much suffering to get to the point where people were willing to adopt such values, let alone assume everyone else should, as well. The only danger, of course, is that in believing they are self-evident, our chimpette has no understanding of the true basis of her "reasoned" beliefs, and is doing much as Hitchens did before her (only with much more style and wit): taking a sledgehammer to the very foundation upon which she stands and proclaiming moral victory as the thing starts to crumble.

Anonymous jack September 09, 2012 11:08 AM  

Whoosh! No wonder you don’t appreciate Western culture. It would be like asking a chimpanzee for his view on Mozart.

This is probably the 'money' quote of the day [so far...it's young yet, the day]

Anonymous Eaglewood September 09, 2012 11:11 AM  

Thanks, Jay c. I was wondering when someone would see that his comment was indeed sarcastic.

Anonymous jack September 09, 2012 11:13 AM  

In what part of my ever-growing oeuvre leads you to believe your entertainment is part of my concern?

The second best 'money' quote of this day.

Have to admit I will have to look up oeuvre; it will probably be worth the effort.

Anonymous The other skeptic September 09, 2012 11:21 AM  

A chronically depressed person is giving up free-though blogging

Many of the claims of threats made by the global warming crowd have turned out to be false. Maybe hers are too. Just as many of the hate crimes perpetrated against feminists and lesbians are staged.

Anonymous jack September 09, 2012 11:32 AM  

Oeuvre:

"Accomplir de grandes oeuvres par une série de petits actes."

I suppose this qualities as sufficiently 'petit' to satisfy one of the definitions. Besides, it's a beautiful Sunday morning [here] with a meaningful break in the high temps and humidity that has qualified the last few weeks in these parts. So, a bit of whimsey helpfully supplied by this resounding example of an internet INTJ is in much appreciated.
Question: Is it too early for a libation to intensify the effect of this posting?

Anonymous The other skeptic September 09, 2012 11:37 AM  

Someone else sees Romney as one of the two representatives for the rich

Anonymous rat 64 September 09, 2012 12:00 PM  

"Actually, I can appeal to the highest authority there is (and the only valid authority at that): human reason."
I disagree,
The highest authority can most often be the Mob.
It would be the highest authority as it acts on its inclinations immediately with little reference to convention-
Immediate gratification.
Mobs will rationalize much more than they will reason.
It can be the same with individuals.
“Madman, thou errest: I say, there is no darkness
but ignorance;”

Anonymous Roundtine September 09, 2012 12:15 PM  

OT: Romney wants to keep part of Obamacare and says good things about his Massachusetts reforms.

Anonymous scoobius dubious September 09, 2012 12:18 PM  

"Wait until she comes into contact with those Muslims in America who want to kill her"

I think you could shorten this to "Muslims" without sacrificing meaning. ["Who want to kill/rape/enslave her"] is simply understood, by the general term "Muslims".

"Madman, thou errest..." You forgot to mention that these lines are put into the mouth of the Clown.







Anonymous George September 09, 2012 1:08 PM  

Shield wrote:

"Well there you have it, proof that pornography is superior to Shakespeare."

It's superior to Shakespeare as graphic diversion, but by the reasoning you mock, Shakespeare is clearly a superior piece of literature as well as a superior source of theater.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 1:14 PM  

WTF3 wrote:

"Morality is about knowing what is good and what is bad"

Actually morality is relevant when one determines what is good and THEN acts that way.

Because there exists no external, objective source of morality, that which is defined as moral usually is dependent upon the human challenges of a time and place.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 1:24 PM  

"We could be pleased that Christianity has managed to inculcate many of its values in the culture"

We can be equally happy that so many of the values endorsed in the bible have been eventually dismissed by the west including slavery and the submission of women and the submission of homosexuals.

Anonymous The other skeptic September 09, 2012 1:32 PM  

And how does she feel about the lightworker promising to take Israel's side against Iran after he is elected

Anonymous stg58 September 09, 2012 1:38 PM  

George,

What's wrong with the submission of women and homosexuals? Sounds like good ideas to me. Letting women vote has been one of the most damaging decisions ever made, and letting homosexuals run rampant has merely resulted in many more of them falling prey to their own lifestyle.

Anonymous onejohn512 September 09, 2012 1:40 PM  

God often shows His mercy through the foolish who are not aware yet of their Father's love.

Anonymous Kickass September 09, 2012 1:43 PM  

Does anyone else remember that scene in Independence Day (saw it on a date...dont judge me) where a bunch of people were holding welcome signs for the aliens and they were vaporized first? This reminds me of that.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 1:45 PM  

Skeptic:

Let's assume that Bib agrees to wait on hitting Iran until after the election, Obama wins, and some sort of ultimatum is issued by Israel, the U.S. and likely a coalition of other western country.

Let's further assume that Iran doesn't meet the ultimatum, rather stalling with the promise of talks. Let's further assume that the offer of talks is denied by the coalition.

Let's assume too that in accordance with the ultimatum, a joint western air attack goes after Iranian nuclear as well as its CCC facilities.

What happens then?

How does Syria react? What about Russia and china? Will U.S. forces in Afghanistan be under constant attack as retaliation? Undoubtedly.

More importantly, what will Iran do with it's ground forces and air force, particularly where Iraq is concerned.

And finally, will conservatives demand that all these and subsequently necessary military actions be paid for?

Anonymous Godfrey September 09, 2012 1:46 PM  

Yes, sodomy and pediaphobia are wonderful "values" and proof positive of mankind's continued progression. Unfortunately slavery still exists. It's just become a more sophisticated – and less honest - form than previous.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 1:46 PM  

STG wrote:

"What's wrong with the submission of women and homosexuals? Sounds like good ideas to me. Letting women vote has been one of the most damaging decisions ever made, and letting homosexuals run rampant has merely resulted in many more of them falling prey to their own lifestyle."

I don't know what you mean by "one of the most damaging decisions" nor with "run rampant".

Anonymous JI September 09, 2012 2:05 PM  

Why debate with this flake, Vox? She's somehow both an idiot and a flake in spite of being an INTJ.

Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2012 2:17 PM  

> Because there exists no external, objective source of morality,...

None that you accept, George. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist. It's always best to keep in mind that you can be wrong.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 2:21 PM  

James:

This God you and others presume provide humanity with a definition of good....Any thoughts on its motivations?

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 2:22 PM  

Godfrey said:

"Yes, sodomy and pediaphobia are wonderful "values" and proof positive of mankind's continued progression."

How is sodomy a "value"? How is in anyway more or less valuable than kissing or caressing or "missionary" sex?

Anonymous Stickwick September 09, 2012 2:32 PM  

We can be equally happy that so many of the values endorsed in the bible have been eventually dismissed by the west including slavery and the submission of women and the submission of homosexuals.

The kind of slavery described in the OT was more like indentured servitude, and the rules governing its practice were far more restrictive and humane than for any other form of slavery practiced in the world. The Bible most certainly did not endorse the form of slavery practiced later in the Americas, which is presumably how you're interpreting it. And it's worth remembering that for all the talk about the precious enlightenment values espoused by humanists, they were not the ones to end the worldwide slave trade. You can thank the puritan Christians of England for that.

As to submission of women and homosexuals, I'm curious what case you would make for why the sort of restrictions on the behavior of women and homosexuals described in the Bible are bad for Western civilization.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 2:36 PM  

Stickwick

It was slavery, no matter how you want to characterize it. One person, subjugated with the authority of the state and a god. Ugly.

The submission of women and homosexuals are bad for any civilization, western included, for the same reason the submission of men or straights is bad: It restricts liberty for the sake of bigoted fear that, of course, exists without reason.

Anonymous Tom B September 09, 2012 2:41 PM  

This "individual" is trying to claim itself (can't call it a "her" since that would imply humanity) is the epitome of Nietzschean moral evolution.

So Vox, if you really want to show her her own morality in action, invite her to step into the octogon.

Blogger Spacebunny September 09, 2012 2:44 PM  

The submission of women and homosexuals are bad for any civilization, western included, for the same reason the submission of men or straights is bad: It restricts liberty for the sake of bigoted fear that, of course, exists without reason.

This doesn't answer Stickwick's question George. Answer it. Restating "it's bad" is not making a case for why it is bad.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 2:52 PM  

Space Bunny wrote:

"This doesn't answer Stickwick's question George. Answer it. Restating "it's bad" is not making a case for why it is bad."

Liberty is good. Submission of women and homosexuals restricts liberty for the sake of bigoted fear that, of course, exists without reason.

Sigh....

Blogger LP 999/Eliza September 09, 2012 2:52 PM  

Great post.

An INTJ female said what? A very profound henhouse kinda woman. This sort of thing happens every time any female attempts to play the credentialist card.

Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2012 2:55 PM  

> This God you and others presume provide humanity with a definition of good....Any thoughts on its motivations?

First, George, you're making an unwarranted assumption. The fact that it happens to be largely true doesn't change the fact that it's unwarranted.

Second, does the spider which builds a nest in the corner of your attic give any thought to your motivations in building the house?

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 3:03 PM  

James: I can go with just "others".

Second, Spiders. Hmmmmm. Never mind.

Blogger James Dixon September 09, 2012 3:12 PM  

> James: I can go with just "others".

Good enough.

> Second, Spiders. Hmmmmm. Never mind.

Ditto.

Blogger Spacebunny September 09, 2012 3:15 PM  

Still not an answer. It's just an emotional response. Why is it bad? And you haven't demonstrated that the submission of women and/or homosexuals is without reason. In other words, because you are painfully slow, you haven't given a reason why restricting these liberties is bad for society.

Anonymous Stickwick September 09, 2012 3:35 PM  

It was slavery, no matter how you want to characterize it. One person, subjugated with the authority of the state and a god. Ugly.

You apparently don't appreciate the irony that you're judging a practice described in the Bible by the modern standards established by people who were extremely devoted to the word of the Bible.

You are completely ignorant about this subject and just reacting in a knee-jerk way to a politically-charged word. Slavery in the OT did not involve the kidnapping and forced labor of some victim. Rather, it involved an agreement to subjugate the "slave" to another person for a specified period of time. People became what were essentially hired workers in order to pay off debts or to atone for a crime committed against another person. The rules governing this practice were very humane and always favored the "slave." At the end of the term, the "slave" was free to go -- it is a testament to the gentleness of this practice that "slaves" often elected to stay with their masters after the term was over.

The OT practice of slavery was not all that different from how enlistment in the military works today. An enlistee promises to provide labor for a specified period of time in exchange for certain compensations, and there are fairly strict rules governing the agreement. The enlistee is considered government property, has to follow every order given by his superiors, and can be severely punished if he fails to meet his obligations. Do you consider that "ugly"?

Anonymous Stickwick September 09, 2012 3:38 PM  

Liberty is good. Submission of women and homosexuals restricts liberty for the sake of bigoted fear that, of course, exists without reason.

Spacebunny got there first, but here is exactly what I want to know:

Which fear exactly is the submission of women and homosexuals based on, and why is it bigoted / without reason?

Also, define exactly what you mean by liberty, and explain why it's good.

Anonymous stg58 September 09, 2012 3:39 PM  

The restriction of homosexuals is for their own good. As a result of loose societal mores and the lack of stigma on homosexual behaviors, they have been able to achieve a 40 times higher HIV infection rate than the straight population, even as the CDC says gay men comprise only 2% of the population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/nyregion/25aids.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/12/health/12safe.html

As for the submission of women, I will allow a prime example of the fairer sex, Spacebunny, to address that.

Anonymous stg58 September 09, 2012 3:40 PM  

As for the submission of women, I will allow a prime example of the fairer sex, Spacebunny, to address that.

Stickwick too!

Anonymous Stickwick September 09, 2012 3:51 PM  

Also, going back for a moment to the slavery topic, consider the humaneness of slavery in the OT with that of the modern system of justice in the West. A person who committed a nonviolent crime against another person and could not afford to recompense his victim was offered the option to work off his debt in a relatively short time and under favorable conditions. Is that less humane than the modern conception of justice, which is to imprison the thief like an animal and most likely ruin the rest of his life?

Anonymous Shild September 09, 2012 4:08 PM  

Now folks are saying Gustaf was being sarcastic. Nevertheless:

It's superior to Shakespeare as graphic diversion, but by the reasoning you mock, Shakespeare is clearly a superior piece of literature as well as a superior source of theater.

If you actually endorse that metric then you're obliged to believe in God. The majority choose to after all.

But your response reveals another problem with the "majority rules" metric. You artificially define pornography as a diversion and Shakespeare as lit/theater, even though there's no objective reason to say that pornography isn't lit/theater or that Shakespeare isn't a diversion.

You get two opposite conclusions using the same metric by arbitrarily changing definitions.

Blogger wrf3 September 09, 2012 4:45 PM  

George wrote: Liberty is good.

Excellent. Does that extend to religious liberty? Does that extend to freedom of speech? Does that extend to religious claims that homosexuality is an affront to God, like adultery, theft, and atheism are an affront to God?

For each question, please explain the reasoning behind each answer.

Anonymous The other skeptic September 09, 2012 4:52 PM  

In the spirit of answering direct question:


Let's assume that Bib agrees to wait on hitting Iran until after the election, Obama wins, and some sort of ultimatum is issued by Israel, the U.S. and likely a coalition of other western country.

Let's further assume that Iran doesn't meet the ultimatum, rather stalling with the promise of talks. Let's further assume that the offer of talks is denied by the coalition.

Let's assume too that in accordance with the ultimatum, a joint western air attack goes after Iranian nuclear as well as its CCC facilities.

What happens then?


I can only speculate that all will not go according to plan and things could get out of hand.

How does Syria react? What about Russia and china? Will U.S. forces in Afghanistan be under constant attack as retaliation? Undoubtedly.


Asked and answered.

More importantly, what will Iran do with it's ground forces and air force, particularly where Iraq is concerned.

I don't know. I guess it will depend on how much of their infrastructure, particularly, their missile arsenal, survives the attack.


And finally, will conservatives demand that all these and subsequently necessary military actions be paid for?


It seems that you think only conservatives have anything to answer for. Which seems strange in light of the fact that the lightworker seems accede to the notion that an attack on Iran is necessary and simply wishes to postpone it to a more politically acceptable time.

Also, the butcher's bill always gets paid.

Anonymous DrTorch September 09, 2012 4:56 PM  

Haha, she is destroying you, Vox. She is making a far bigger fool of herself, than you are making a fool of her.

Blogger IM2L844 September 09, 2012 5:30 PM  

Because there exists no external, objective source of morality, that which is defined as moral usually is dependent upon the human challenges of a time and place.

Are you asserting this as an absolute truth, George?

Anonymous Shild September 09, 2012 5:40 PM  

IM2L844, there is a difference between objective truth and objective morality, after all. Are you suggesting that the existence of absolute truth requires the existence of objective morality? If so, I would love to read more of your reasoning.

Anonymous stg58 September 09, 2012 6:02 PM  

An absolute truth that there is no such thing as absolute morality?

Interesting..

Blogger IM2L844 September 09, 2012 6:02 PM  

Are you suggesting that the existence of absolute truth requires the existence of objective morality?

No. Can't you read? I was simply asking George if he regarded the assertion that "there exists no external, objective source of morality" as an absolute truth since it was stated with such unequivocal certainty.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus September 09, 2012 7:49 PM  

Look, can we cut to the chase and just boil this down to what's really the issue?

She doesn't like the Bible because it makes her feel bad when she fornicates with her girlfriend.

Anonymous p-dawg September 09, 2012 8:35 PM  

"It was slavery, no matter how you want to characterize it. One person, subjugated with the authority of the state and a god. Ugly."

This is how I feel about my brothers locked up in the War on Some Drugs. Forcibly subjugated with the authority of the state. Ugly. Of course, it turns out that even modern societies have customs and practices which include involuntary servitude. I suppose it's only the societies to which you don't belong whose practices of that sort are "bad" to you.

Anonymous MachoMan September 09, 2012 9:26 PM  

Vox you understand game and yet you are trying to reason with a woman? I've fallen prey to it too but you really shouldn't. Whenever I see a woman being irrational I get the urge to explain to her why she is wrong. It is futile. You should fight the urge.

Anonymous Anonymous September 09, 2012 9:44 PM  

"Can a woman really be an INTJ?"


Women will claim any status with positive connotations. But in reality, it's almost always the case that: they're just aping it.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 11:04 PM  

Spacebunny said:

"Still not an answer. It's just an emotional response. Why is it bad? And you haven't demonstrated that the submission of women and/or homosexuals is without reason. In other words, because you are painfully slow, you haven't given a reason why restricting these liberties is bad for society."

All people, regardless sex and sexual orientation are equally capable of contributing to the maintenance, or even creation, of a society that provides a framework for individual freedom of action, cooperative endeavors, ever increasing standards of living, and individual pursuit of happiness. Restricting liberties of women and homosexuals to something less than those retained by men and heterosexuals, restricts the potential contribution of these folks. Society suffers as a result of all of its members not having the same opportunity to contribute to the society simply because they don't have the same opportunities.

Sigh.....

I find it revealing that anyone would actually take serious issue with the idea that women and men ought to be treated equally. I can't be sure, it's only a guess, but I think those that would support subjugating women are reacting to an extraordinary amount of failure in their own lives and haven't found a way to live up to it and face it head on. Women who would support subjugation of women, I think, are simply dangerous and need to be watched carefully. They clearly have fascistic tendencies. I think they probably should be watched carefully also just so they don't hurt themselves with pointy objects. I don't think they have much in the way of intelligence.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 11:08 PM  

Stickwick said:

"Also, going back for a moment to the slavery topic, consider the humaneness of slavery in the OT with that of the modern system of justice in the West. A person who committed a nonviolent crime against another person and could not afford to recompense his victim was offered the option to work off his debt in a relatively short time and under favorable conditions. Is that less humane than the modern conception of justice, which is to imprison the thief like an animal and most likely ruin the rest of his life?"

What I find really funny is that this all knowing god of goodness couldn't find a way to note that slavery is bad. Rather this god chose to set down the rules for slavery and instruct slaves in how act.

If there is any better evidence that this god is either not good or a figment of the imagination of those that held slaves, well....It's just funny.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 11:11 PM  

wtf3 wrote:

"George wrote: Liberty is good.

Excellent. Does that extend to religious liberty? Does that extend to freedom of speech? Does that extend to religious claims that homosexuality is an affront to God, like adultery, theft, and atheism are an affront to God?

For each question, please explain the reasoning behind each answer.

Yes, religious liberty is good. But I'm not sure what you are asking. If someone wants to adhere to a religion that teaches that homosexuality is bad, I'm not certain how that kind of private profession hurts those in the world who know better.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 11:15 PM  

IML2 wrote:

"Because there exists no external, objective source of morality, that which is defined as moral usually is dependent upon the human challenges of a time and place.

Are you asserting this as an absolute truth, George?"

The part about the lack of external, objective source of moraltiy....yes. As for the rest, that's more complex.

Anonymous stg58 September 09, 2012 11:26 PM  

I can't be sure, it's only a guess, but I think those that would support subjugating women are reacting to an extraordinary amount of failure in their own lives and haven't found a way to live up to it and face it head on.

You guessed it, George. I only advocate the subjugation of women and homosexuals because I am reacting to an extraordinary amount of failure in my own life. It can't possibly be because women are fascistic and totalitarian by nature, or that homosexuals are walking disease vectors.

Anonymous George September 09, 2012 11:33 PM  

STG,

Is the person advocating for the subjugation of women really accusing the women of being fascistic and totalitarian? Funny.

As for your fear of homosexuals with disease, just don't offer up your ass to them any more and you'll be just fine. You know, you can't catch aides from door handle.

Anonymous stg58 September 09, 2012 11:41 PM  

It is funny, isn't it? I am an evil white man, so oppression and subjugation are in my genes.

I didn't know you could catch aides from a door handle. It is sad you jump right to the typical liberal assumption that since I am opposed to homosexuals, I am afraid of them. I don't fear homosexuals, I feel sorry for them.

Anonymous p-dawg September 09, 2012 11:52 PM  

"All people, regardless sex and sexual orientation are equally capable of contributing to the maintenance, or even creation, of a society that provides a framework for individual freedom of action, cooperative endeavors, ever increasing standards of living, and individual pursuit of happiness."

You enjoy deep-sounding sweeping statements, it seems. All people are equally capable? At what measurable endeavor are all people equally capable? Please name one.

Blogger wrf3 September 09, 2012 11:54 PM  

George wrote: Yes, religious liberty is good. But I'm not sure what you are asking. If someone wants to adhere to a religion that teaches that homosexuality is bad, I'm not certain how that kind of private profession hurts those in the world who know better.

It isn't necessary for you to be sure about what I'm asking, unless the three questions I asked you were to hard for you to understand. I'll repeat them. All three are predicated on your statement that "liberty is good":

1) Does that extend to religious liberty? For this one, you answered, "Yes, religious liberty is good.", although you didn't say why.

2) Does that (i.e. your claim that "liberty is good") extend to freedom of speech?

3) Does that extend to religious claims that homosexuality is an affront to God, like adultery, theft, and atheism are an affront to God?

You answered #1 simply. I would hope the answers to #2 and #3 would also be in the affirmative, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Anonymous oregon mouse September 09, 2012 11:58 PM  

"Women who would support subjugation of women, I think, are simply dangerous and need to be watched carefully. They clearly have fascistic tendencies. I think they probably should be watched carefully also just so they don't hurt themselves with pointy objects. I don't think they have much in the way of intelligence."

Please define equality. what exactly about men and women are you refering to as equal? You don't seem to favor the christian god so I'm guessing equal in the eyes of God doesn't apply. By what standard are you measuring this equality?
Perhaps what you refer to as subjugation others would refer to as recognizing that men and women are innately different. Like apples and oranges, similair qualities but certainly not interchageable. If we recognize innate gender differences then is it so wrong to recognize that men and women thrive in different environments? That women contribute to society best when they are raising children and managing the domestic of affairs of a family and home?

Anonymous George September 10, 2012 12:05 AM  

STG wrote:

"I am opposed to homosexuals"

How can one be "opposed" to homosexuals? It's a bit like being opposed to ironworkers or crossing guards or tall people? What's to oppose?

Anonymous George September 10, 2012 12:07 AM  

pdawg wrote:

"At what measurable endeavor are all people equally capable? Please name one."

Voting

Anonymous George September 10, 2012 12:14 AM  

WTF

I'm going to to with yes, freedom of speech is good...if for no other reason than it protects us all from the consequences of concentrated power.

With regard to "religious claims" of any sort, these need not be described as good or bad. However, I think you are asking if religious claims ought to be protected. If that's what you are asking, then yes. Religious claims, like shit, is something that nearly everyone makes at some point or another and can't be stopped. And, equally like shit, various religious claims take various form.

Anonymous George September 10, 2012 12:23 AM  

Oregon Mouse...

Im not sure in what context you are referring to "equality".

You might be referring to the notion that both men and women are equally able to vote. You might be referring to the notion of equal protection of men and women under the law. But I can't be absolutely sure what you mean.

You also wrote:
"If we recognize innate gender differences then is it so wrong to recognize that men and women thrive in different environments? That women contribute to society best when they are raising children and managing the domestic of affairs of a family and home?"

I think I'd argue that women are capable of contributing to society quite wonderfully when raising children or when cooking for their family or when serving on Corporate Boards or when protecting the public in the role of police officers or when building homes.

The idea that women are best contributing to society only or primarily as mothers or in managing domestic affairs seems to limit the truth a bit too severely.

Blogger wrf3 September 10, 2012 12:31 AM  

George wrote: With regard to "religious claims" of any sort, these need not be described as good or bad.
Except, of course, that they are. One side says that the claims are just, true, and good; another side claims that they are unjust, false, and evil. In any case:

However, I think you are asking if religious claims ought to be protected. If that's what you are asking, then yes. Religious claims, like shit, is something that nearly everyone makes at some point or another and can't be stopped. And, equally like shit, various religious claims take various form.

So if religious claims ought to be protected, then what is your take on repression of Christian speech and practice in Canada wrt homosexuality?

Anonymous George September 10, 2012 12:40 AM  

"So if religious claims ought to be protected, then what is your take on repression of Christian speech and practice in Canada wrt homosexuality?"

It is absurd in every respect. Not only is it a fundamental violation of personal liberty, it just isn't necessary if your goals is to protect homosexuals. Let's face it, the number of folks that still believe there is something inherently wrong with homosexuals or the prohibition in the bible is anything other than bigoted nonsense is diminishing quickly.

What exactly what said that the public needed to be protected against?

Anonymous oregon mouse September 10, 2012 1:10 AM  

You might be referring to the notion that both men and women are equally able to vote. You might be referring to the notion of equal protection of men and women under the law. But I can't be absolutely sure what you mean....
Im refering to equality in whatever sense you used the word in your previous comments. Its your term. How did you mean it?

"think I'd argue that women are capable of contributing to society quite wonderfully when raising children or when cooking for their family or when serving on Corporate Boards or when protecting the public in the role of police officers or when building homes."
Let's be honest here, feminist equality hasn't exactly flooded the job market with female cops and home builders. However we do presently enjoy phenomenal divorce and illegitimacy rates that we didn't see when most women stayed home. Should women be free to work those jobs if they desire? sure. But lets not pretend that there arent' hugely negative consequenes to society when women abandon their traditional roles in favor of traditional male roles.
"Women who would support subjugation of women, I think, are simply dangerous and need to be watched carefully. They clearly have fascistic tendencies. I think they probably should be watched carefully also just so they don't hurt themselves with pointy objects. I don't think they have much in the way of intelligence."
Funny thing, this is how I feel about women who support the "liberation" of other women.

Blogger IM2L844 September 10, 2012 1:11 AM  

George: ...there exists no external, objective source of morality...

IM2L844: Are you asserting this as an absolute truth, George?

George: The part about the lack of external, objective source of morality...yes.


Do you believe that you know all that is knowable, George?

Blogger Spacebunny September 10, 2012 2:16 AM  

Society suffers as a result of all of its members not having the same opportunity to contribute to the society simply because they don't have the same opportunities.

This is just more tautology - it's bad because it's bad. Please, give us ten examples of how society has suffered because not everyone has the same opportunities. Be specific.

Blogger Spacebunny September 10, 2012 2:17 AM  

As for your fear of homosexuals with disease, just don't offer up your ass to them any more and you'll be just fine. You know, you can't catch aides from door handle.

No, but you can from blood transfusions among other things. Another swing and miss from George.

Anonymous p-dawg September 10, 2012 4:29 AM  

'"At what measurable endeavor are all people equally capable? Please name one."

Voting'

Sorry. You're hilariously wrong on this one. Or are children and non-registered voters no longer considered people?

Anonymous Anonymous September 10, 2012 5:01 AM  

'"At what measurable endeavor are all people equally capable? Please name one."

Stamping out reality.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 10, 2012 9:41 AM  

I find it revealing that anyone would actually take serious issue with the idea that women and men ought to be treated equally.

Because it is impossible for anyone to treat men and women equally. It is even impossible for anyone to treat anybody equally. One will favor someone more than others. This is a basic truth.

Even when laws are passed to force people to treat others equally it still does not happen.

Anonymous Bobo September 10, 2012 9:53 AM  

George, please explain why you are not a bigot when you refer to religious claims as "sh-t". Do you think you are a person of HATE, George? Do you think your own claims could be called s-ht and do you think all secular claims could likewise be s-hit even claims such as right to liberty or equality?

Secondly, if objective morality does not exist, and as Hume said there is no OUGHT that can be derived from IS, why should we listen to you? I've never heard a good answer from an atheist regarding that. I really see no reason to think there is anything worth listening to beyond sophistry --not that that's worth listening to. ;-)

Anonymous Bobo September 10, 2012 9:59 AM  

George, does voting create a framework for a liberal and equal society? Or does it perhaps sometimes lead to protections and inequalities - perhaps quotas if you will thereby limiting individual freedoms?

Blogger James Dixon September 10, 2012 11:48 AM  

> All people, regardless sex and sexual orientation are equally capable of contributing to the maintenance, or even creation, of a society that provides a framework for individual freedom of action, cooperative endeavors, ever increasing standards of living, and individual pursuit of happiness.

Well, I'll have to disagree about that "ever increasing standards of living" thing, as history indicates that there's no such thing. Aside from that, I guess it depends on your definition of capable. In an abstract sense, I guess you are correct. The fact that some people never do so doesn't change the fact that they are theoretically capable of doing so. Now equally is also arguable, but I'll let others deal with that.

> The part about the lack of external, objective source of moraltiy....yes.

Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. I hope you won't mind sharing the basis of your belief in this absolute truth with us, or exactly how you know it to be an absolute truth.

You see, while I accept some things as absolute truths, I don't feel that I can necessarily prove them to someone else. That makes me hesitant to claim them as such.

> Voting

Of course, not everyone is equally capable of voting. Didn't the butterfly ballots in Florida prove that?

Anonymous George September 10, 2012 11:52 AM  

space bunny said:

"Please, give us ten examples of how society has suffered because not everyone has the same opportunities. Be specific."

I can't think of 10 examples. This is clearly a reflection of my own capabilities. On the other hand, there may not even be 10 examples. I don't know. The only one I can think of is that when a particular group is denied a particular opportunity (ex: blacks not having the opportunity to possess personal liberty) society is denied any potential positive contributions that equally bestowed opportunity could provide.

For example, in 1820 in Georgia, it's entirely possible that a black man denied liberty could have, by virtue of instead possessing the liberty to pursue whatever line of experiment and research they chose rather than being denied this liberty, invented the camera.

But this idea that denial of liberties and opportunities withholds from society the potential good that could have resulted from more generous extension of opportunities is all I have at the moment. The fact is, there may not be ten examples. The societal benefits may be extraordinarily limited.

Blogger Spacebunny September 10, 2012 12:04 PM  

And example of how it affects society is not answered by talking about possibilities George and it is exceedingly stupid to continue to assert that it is. Now, come up with a concrete example or retract your assertion.

Anonymous George September 10, 2012 12:25 PM  

SpaceBunny said:

"And example of how it affects society is not answered by talking about possibilities George and it is exceedingly stupid to continue to assert that it is. Now, come up with a concrete example or retract your assertion."

So it's a matter of answering direct questions in the manner that satisfies the questioner? That's how it appears.

Given this odd rule, I'll simple do as you say and retract not merely this assertion, but every other assertion you prefer me to retract. Please make a list. It's the easiest path.

Anonymous Bobo September 10, 2012 12:37 PM  

George: "For example, in 1820 in Georgia, it's entirely possible that a black man denied liberty could have, by virtue of instead possessing the liberty to pursue whatever line of experiment and research they chose rather than being denied this liberty, invented the camera."

Speculation. And this can be countered that currently many more able minded men are denied to opportunity of success because they're white, male or the wrong religion. Heck the cult of Gnu atheists, of which George no doubt is one, would love to see those who merely question Evolution or Global Warming - heck even religious people - the right to work in the sciences regardless of their personal success, IQ or lack of evidence that religiosity hampers scientific work. Just look how much flack that Christian astronomer got into and how much hell Behe gets for his ID views.

Anonymous George September 10, 2012 12:40 PM  

Bobo wrote:

"Speculation. And this can be countered that currently many more able minded men are denied to opportunity of success because they're white, male or the wrong religion"

It's an interesting line of reasoning you have there. But, if you'll note my most previous comment, you'll see that I've retracted any claims I've made on this specific point as well as any others that Space Bunny prefers I retract. Given this, and despite the interesting comments you've made here, a dialogue on this would be fruitless. My apologies.

Blogger Spacebunny September 10, 2012 1:05 PM  

So it's a matter of answering direct questions in the manner that satisfies the questioner?

No, it's a matter of actually answering the question you dimwit. You didn't answer the question, you evaded it by babbling on inanely about possibilities.

Anonymous George September 10, 2012 2:39 PM  

Spacebunny wrote:

"You didn't answer the question, you evaded it by babbling on inanely about possibilities."

uh huh....sigh....

Anonymous Even 3! September 10, 2012 3:12 PM  

George, how about 5 examples (I realize this is contrary to SB's request - but throw us a bone Georgey boy!).

Blogger Spacebunny September 10, 2012 3:17 PM  

"You didn't answer the question, you evaded it by babbling on inanely about possibilities."

uh huh....sigh....


That you are unable to recognize that you did not answer the question is a reflection on your base and amply demonstrable stupidity, dear. Attempting a passive aggressive *sigh* only underscores it.

Anonymous Longstreet September 10, 2012 6:35 PM  

Sigh. Isn't it pathetic when, sigh, some twit "answers" a question, sigh, by repeating the same proposition that provoked the question, sigh, in the first place, only with, sigh, more and bigger words?

Really deep sigh.

Anonymous George September 10, 2012 6:42 PM  

Space Bunny wrote:

"That you are unable to recognize that you did not answer the question is a reflection on your base and amply demonstrable stupidity, dear. Attempting a passive aggressive *sigh* only underscores it."

Okey dokey!!

Anonymous Longstreet September 10, 2012 6:48 PM  

As regards the OP, reading through INTJ's contributions brings to mind a quote from that great 'Murrican Harry Callahan, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Blogger James Dixon September 10, 2012 10:37 PM  

> uh huh....sigh....

George, you're trying. I'll give you that. But you're outgunned here, both in numbers and (in some cases) caliber. There's no shame in that, most of us are.

It's because you're trying that I've toned down my normal snarkiness somewhat and am trying to only make legitimate complaints or questions about your points, plus the occasional minor correction to what I feel is an error.

However, you usual premises, suppositions, and talking points that pass unopposed in more normal haunts don't cut it here. They are being and will be challenged, and you're expected to back them up when questioned.

You can probably alleviate that quite a bit by stating your positions as considered opinions rather than facts. The fact that it's also more likely to be true is a nice side benefit.

Blogger Spacebunny September 11, 2012 3:48 AM  

George, you're trying.

No he's not and he's extraordinarily dishonest on top of it.

Blogger James Dixon September 11, 2012 7:51 AM  

> No he's not and he's extraordinarily dishonest on top of it.

Well, duh. He's a liberal SB. They don't know how to be honest. :)

But he is granting the occasional point, and seems to be learning a thing or two. That's better than 99.9% of the type. He doesn't even know what he doesn't know yet. It's a slow process.

Anonymous George September 11, 2012 2:26 PM  

Spacebunny wrote:

"No he's not and he's extraordinarily dishonest on top of it."

yaaaawwwwn!!!

Blogger James Dixon September 11, 2012 3:19 PM  

> yaaaawwwwn!!!

As for your part, George, you would be well advised to re-read rule number 7. Listening and withdrawing the occasional statement will only get you so far.

Blogger Spacebunny September 11, 2012 5:08 PM  

George, perhaps you are familiar with the phrase "trying to hard" or "thou doth protest too much"?

Anonymous George September 12, 2012 12:38 AM  

Space bunny said:

"George, perhaps you are familiar with the phrase "trying to hard" or "thou doth protest too much"?"

Okey dokey!

Anonymous George September 12, 2012 12:41 AM  

James:

Given everything and the apparent natural course of things in this neck of the woods, it's both a curious and an obviously necessary rule. But I hear you.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts