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

Thursday, September 27, 2012

The descent from dialectic

Over the course of the discussion of female solipsism that took place at Alpha Game, HUS, and other Game blogs, the distinction between dialectic and rhetoric, and between logic and emotion, has repeatedly come up.  Two things have become obvious as a result, which is that 1) men have no choice but to accept the observable female inclination for solipsism, rhetoric, and emotion, and 2) women have to accept that those men who strongly prefer objective perspectives, dialectic, and logic are never going to look favorably upon women's rejection of those things even if they accept the fact of the female disinclination.

The problem is that emotion and rhetoric are both dishonest, the former intrinsically and the latter practically.  This is not to say that the emotions are bad, only that because they are dynamic and the truth is static, emotion-based reasoning is guaranteed to be false at least part of the time.  Rhetoric, on the other hand, does not have to be dishonest, but because it is designed to manipulate and convince those who, as Aristotle pointed out in Rhetoric, "cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning", it usually has to be at least somewhat in variance with the complete truth because it is designed to appeal to the emotions.

More at Alpha Game... including an argument for gun control and two counterarguments!  But please keep the inevitable gun discussion here at VP.

Labels:

80 Comments:

Anonymous DrTorch September 27, 2012 6:48 AM  

The part about dishonesty is what hinders most young Christian men.

Anonymous Roundtine September 27, 2012 6:53 AM  

Who knew that watching Oprah was opposition research?

Blogger Vox September 27, 2012 6:58 AM  

The part about dishonesty is what hinders most young Christian men.

In what sense? From utilizing rhetoric or from something else? Keep in mind that many, if not most, young Christian men are largely incapable of dialectic discourse themselves.

Anonymous trk September 27, 2012 6:58 AM  

I think what hinders christian men is they're white knighting of women. As Christians we have strong desires to help people ( the sick, homeless,poor,widowed etc) but this does not translate all to relationships where they put on this good guy mask and attempt to rescue the damsel in distress. I've learned that game isnt about the pick up but really it's about relationship dynamics.

Anonymous VryeDenker September 27, 2012 7:03 AM  

Christians are to help the needy, not the egotistical.

Anonymous The Great Martini September 27, 2012 7:35 AM  

The way I think about it is that rhetoric is a condensed version of an argument intended to persuade a person to favor your side of the argument. Rhetoric is not necessarily dishonest, rather it's the practical realization that time is a limited resource, and you often only have one shot at convincing a person to look more deeply into your interpretation. If you intend for a person to be convinced solely by your rhetoric, then you are dishonest, and if you intend your partial discourse to hide facts or arguments that might counter your position, then you are engaged in propaganda, which is inherently dishonest. Rhetoric is like your five minutes to convince studio executives to consider your idea.

Anonymous VD September 27, 2012 7:52 AM  

The way I think about it is that rhetoric is a condensed version of an argument intended to persuade a person to favor your side of the argument.

In that vein, what do we make of those who only ever seem to find the time to present condensed versions of longer arguments that simply don't exist?

Anonymous salt September 27, 2012 7:59 AM  

I've seen some hot women at the gun range too :)

Anonymous zeonxavier September 27, 2012 8:04 AM  

People who constantly argue in that vein tend to be supreme rationalizers, and are the most likely to be unable to detach from the solipsistic viewpoint.

It's all about their desires, you big meanie!

I'm not really sure what one could do about someone of that type imposing roadblocks to needful things. (I seem to have politics on the brain these days)

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 8:04 AM  

Here's the problem...

Most logical people would rather shoot themselves in the face than resort to a rhetorical argument.

Some of us have the ability to switch hit when we so choose... but we really... really... prefer not too.

Anonymous JartStar September 27, 2012 8:08 AM  

Could an appeal to absurdity work here? For instance claiming that locked doors are a detriment to society as it build walls and barriers between classes and ethnic groups eventually resulting in enraged people who's freedoms are restricted by a deadbolt. You could argue that if the burglar had simply been able to open the door easily and quickly remove the items nobody would be hurt and violence would decrease. If you insit on deadbolts eventually you will have a broken door and an angry person who's freedom you have restricted on the other side of that door.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 8:10 AM  

"I've seen some hot women at the gun range too :)"

firearms have the same effect as beer goggles. I will believe that till the day I die.

A browning 425 hanging over the shoulder of a 5 instantly turns her into a 7. All day long.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 8:12 AM  

"Could an appeal to absurdity work here?"

absurdity is an abstract concept that isn't likely to effective to someone who's main goal each day is to get a massive emotion based do-gooder buzz with as little effort as possible.

Blogger Jim, September 27, 2012 8:16 AM  

VD said: "In that vein, what do we make of those who only ever seem to find the time to present condensed versions of longer arguments that simply don't exist?"

Were you being rhetorical with that, intended or not?

But if not, the answer is perhaps that those people do not have sufficient knowledge of the subjects they are engaging in and/or they don't possess the necessary skills to argue convincingly, even if their argument is correct, so they resort to rhetoric to cover their deficiencies?

Anonymous Praetorian September 27, 2012 8:17 AM  

Proposal: since rhetorical arguments are typically not natural to most readers here, a catalog of well developed rhetorical arguments around the issues that concern us would help us advance our cause more effectively.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 8:18 AM  

"Were you being rhetorical with that, intended or not?"

That's not rhetoric. That's logic. If the longer version doesn't exist... then clearly there is no condensed version of it. Thus the whole house of cards falls apart.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 8:22 AM  

"Proposal: since rhetorical arguments are typically not natural to most readers here, a catalog of well developed rhetorical arguments around the issues that concern us would help us advance our cause more effectively."

...

To not suggest that The Dread Ilk should have a cause. You don't want.. extremely capable... creative... subversive... intelligent... and every well armed people... getting together and deciding to change things.

The world is better off if we sit about and drink.

Anonymous Stingray September 27, 2012 8:32 AM  

absurdity is an abstract concept that isn't likely to effective to someone who's main goal each day is to get a massive emotion based do-gooder buzz with as little effort as possible.

The absurdity itself may not do the trick, but a masculine man using absurdities along with the correct facial expressions and body language in talking to a woman can do wonders. It is the body language and facial expression that will like change her mind while the absurdities are used to simply embed the dagger a bit deeper.

Blogger Jim, September 27, 2012 8:34 AM  

"The world is better off if we sit about and drink."

And mock them all accordingly...

Anonymous zeonxavier September 27, 2012 8:37 AM  

Use that tactic, and she will understand that you are making fun of her. That will derail the entire topic into a new discussion about you being mean to her.

How would you advise keeping to the topic?

Blogger Vox September 27, 2012 8:38 AM  

Were you being rhetorical with that, intended or not?

It is a logical argument with a rhetorical flourish. But I am a professional and an AWCA. Don't try this at home.

Anonymous Praetorian September 27, 2012 8:44 AM  

I'm in violent agreement with you Nate that the world is better off if you simply sat around and drank.

I was thinking more along the lines of Vox doing this.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 8:48 AM  

"The absurdity itself may not do the trick, but a masculine man using absurdities along with the correct facial expressions and body language in talking to a woman can do wonders. It is the body language and facial expression that will like change her mind while the absurdities are used to simply embed the dagger a bit deeper."

See its the appearance and mannerisms that matters here... not the content. Generally speaking... the masculine male doesn't bother engaging anyway.

For example... faced with that kind of pouting from a female... generally... I simply pat her on the head and say, "you're very pretty." and go back to ignoring her.

Anonymous Jerome Horowitz September 27, 2012 8:51 AM  

This explains why Government is in the mess it is. Most politicians are female, even if they are dressed in a man-suite.

Anonymous Stingray September 27, 2012 8:52 AM  

For example... faced with that kind of pouting from a female... generally... I simply pat her on the head and say, "you're very pretty." and go back to ignoring her.

THIS, This right here. There is nothing more infuriating that a man doing this and usually one of two things will happen. 1) She gets all huffy, doubles down and makes a huge fool of herself or simply runs outs in a rage or 2) as she doesn't ever want to be embarrassed like this again, so she will really sit down and think things through and start asking more intelligent questions in an attempt to actually learn something.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 8:54 AM  

"I'm in violent agreement with you Nate that the world is better off if you simply sat around and drank. "

See?

What a gloriously selfless person I am.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 8:59 AM  

"There is nothing more infuriating that a man doing this and usually one of two things will happen."

Actually there is a third option... which is not common but not totally rare either... more common amongst the southron girl types... they get this big smile on their face. I mean they light up. They wanted attention... they got attention. everyone is happy.

Anonymous RedJack September 27, 2012 8:59 AM  

To not suggest that The Dread Ilk should have a cause. You don't want.. extremely capable... creative... subversive... intelligent... and every well armed people... getting together and deciding to change things.

The world is better off if we sit about and drink.


Good one.

Anonymous Stingray September 27, 2012 9:05 AM  

Nate,

Ah, yes. That and the slap on the arm with the twinkle in the eye. I can't believe I forgot that. One can become quite skilled in this over time. Both men and women. It can be very fun.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 9:08 AM  

"That and the slap on the arm with the twinkle in the eye. "

Absolutely. The Scarlett O'Hara manual for Getting Anything You Want.

It should be more widely read.

Anonymous Outlaw X September 27, 2012 9:10 AM  

Are all politics rhetoric by definition?

Anonymous Preatorian September 27, 2012 9:11 AM  

You are very pretty.

Anonymous The Great Martini September 27, 2012 9:17 AM  


In that vein, what do we make of those who only ever seem to find the time to present condensed versions of longer arguments that simply don't exist?


Well, those people are fishing, if they are not willing to even enter a dialogue to resolve the argument. It's OK not having a complete argument, so long as you're willing to honestly enter a debate open to the possibility that you will lose should the back and forth turn against you, but most people will never allow things to progress that far once they detect errors in their reasoning or evidence. This process is of course compounded by the fact that the party that finds itself winning will almost always immediately turn obnoxious by juicing things for all they're worth, making a graceful defeat impossible.

Anonymous Josh September 27, 2012 9:17 AM  

The dread ilk have a cause?

Other than guns, booze, football, and esoteric debates on the nature of the monetary supply?

Anonymous Josh September 27, 2012 9:19 AM  

What a gloriously selfless person I am.

What did you score on that narcissism test?

Anonymous revrogers September 27, 2012 9:19 AM  

I've noticed for awhile now postings from a "Vox" and from "VD." I've assumed they are both from Vox, now I'm wondering if it's two different people or two different personalities emerging from the same encapsulated mind.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 9:21 AM  

"You are very pretty."

" 1) She gets all huffy, doubles down and makes a huge fool of herself or simply runs outs in a rage"

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 9:24 AM  

"What did you score on that narcissism test?"

Same as vox.... down right humble.

Anonymous The Great Martini September 27, 2012 9:33 AM  

...and of course, there's also the factor that many debates are just not going to be definitively resolved to the satisfaction of a "losing" party. For a debate to actually have a solid resolution, there has to be one side that knows it has won, and another that accepts that it has lost, and there are few debates that will end this way, and for genuine reasons. Some will, but now many. This is the reason debates are judged by outside parties or by audiences. The debate exists to sway the audience, which of course is another function of rhetoric. Look at political debates. A candidate or incumbent is not going to leave a stage thinking he or she has lost on so much as a single point.

Blogger JDC September 27, 2012 9:38 AM  

"cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning

Bill Burr does a great bit about reason and domestic violence. I know, one would never think the two are connected. He was reacting to someone on the View (or some other show) making the statement - "There is never a good reason to hit a woman."

His response? Really? I know hitting women is wrong, but can you say there is never a reason? How bout this - you marry a woman, you work hard everyday, buy her a wonderful house and come home and she's banging the next door neighbor. The next day she hands you divorce papers, you have to move out and sleep on a futon, and still pay for that house that she's going to stay in. No reason??

You could almost feel the surge of aggressive estrogen laden hate (from females and males) in the room. It's just logic and discussion, but for some reason you can't go there. (I watched it with my wife who merely smiled - although secretly I think she was seething).

Don't ever hit women...but then to say there is never a reason???

Anonymous Outlaw X September 27, 2012 9:42 AM  

This is making sense now.

Hope and change
Yes we can
Patriot act
Islamo fascism
No fly zone
Quanitative easing
Green shoots

Anonymous Josh September 27, 2012 9:43 AM  

I've assumed they are both from Vox, now I'm wondering if it's two different people or two different personalities emerging from the same encapsulated mind.

The new upgrade for the internet super intelligence came with a multicore processor.

Blogger JDC September 27, 2012 9:45 AM  

Quote: For example... faced with that kind of pouting from a female... generally... I simply pat her on the head and say, "you're very pretty." and go back to ignoring her.

Adding sweetheart to your statement further fuels attention seeking behavior.

Blogger JDC September 27, 2012 9:52 AM  

I don't know if this is an example of female solipsism - but I have noticed over the years that I have to be careful when working with couples going through a divorce - especially when infidelity is involved. I live and work in a small town where it seems that everybody knows everybody else's business.

I have noticed that many women, when talking about another man's infidelity to his wife - internalizes it as if it happened to her. They get angry and desire to strike out at the nearest male, innocently and cluelessly getting drawn into the conversation.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 9:54 AM  

"Adding sweetheart to your statement further fuels attention seeking behavior."

Agreed. I prefer "darlin' " myself... but not everyone can pull that one off.

Anonymous Wild Thing September 27, 2012 9:54 AM  

I know hitting women is wrong, but can you say there is never a reason?

I think Sam Kinison said it best:

I don’t condone wife-beating. I UNDERSTAND IT!

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 9:58 AM  

"I have noticed that many women, when talking about another man's infidelity to his wife - internalizes it as if it happened to her. They get angry and desire to strike out at the nearest male, innocently and cluelessly getting drawn into the conversation. "

Its not just infidelity. Everything relates to them. so they mentally photoshop themselves over the people you are discussing. Which... is why one shouldn't bother going down that road.

Anonymous Praetorian September 27, 2012 10:00 AM  

" 1) She gets all huffy, doubles down and makes a huge fool of herself or simply runs outs in a rage"

Oh, c'mon now kid, don't run off. You're doing a great job of demonstrating rhetoric rather than dialectic.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 10:12 AM  

"Oh, c'mon now kid, don't run off. You're doing a great job of demonstrating rhetoric rather than dialectic."

Really?

given that there isn't a debate taking place... it indicates you don't understand the concept of either. In fact... what you originally asked was for advice on how to best handle the rhetorical female injection in a debate. I provided that answer... and it was further supported by Stingray.

Look... how about I just take you out back and slip it up your keister. Its clearly what ya want... you've been asking for it all morning... and that's obviously your persuasion. I mean come on... why else would you pick a handle that refers to gladiator types with a legendary appreciation of bath houses? I'm guessing the hormone injection will do help your attitude... and the protein will clear up your face too. And hey don't feel bad about that... all teenagers go through it.

Anonymous VD September 27, 2012 10:14 AM  

I have noticed that many women, when talking about another man's infidelity to his wife - internalizes it as if it happened to her. They get angry and desire to strike out at the nearest male, innocently and cluelessly getting drawn into the conversation.

Yes, that is a very typical example of female solipsism.

Blogger SarahsDaughter September 27, 2012 10:19 AM  

Solipsism - the mental photoshopping of oneself over someone in every situation or conversation.

That helps.

Anonymous Stingray September 27, 2012 10:22 AM  

Oh, c'mon now kid, don't run off. You're doing a great job of demonstrating rhetoric rather than dialectic

She just won.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 10:26 AM  

"She just won."

Well... I tried to explain it to the kid darlin'. Ya can't teach someone something until they are ready to learn it.

Anonymous Stilicho September 27, 2012 10:33 AM  

Does the use of rhetorical arguments actually persuade the rhetorically minded, or is it just used by them to rationalize whatever decisions their emotions have already led them to?

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 10:34 AM  

"Solipsism - the mental photoshopping of oneself over someone in every situation or conversation.

That helps."

Remember analogy is a great tool for teaching... and a much lesser tool for debate. The photoshop thing will help one understand the concept who wants to understand... but in a debate it will just be a faux-strawman for them to attack.

Anonymous Stilicho September 27, 2012 10:35 AM  

I should have stated it this way to avoid confusion:

Does the use of rhetoric actually persuade the rhetorically minded, or is it just used by them to rationalize whatever decisions their emotions have already led them to?

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 10:37 AM  

"Does the use of rhetorical arguments actually persuade the rhetorically minded, or is it just used by them to rationalize whatever decisions their emotions have already led them to?"

This is presupposing that the rhetorical minded can be persuaded in the first place. Virtually all people make all decisions on impulse... then over time invest emotionally into those opinions. Once that initial investment takes place... you will never persuade them until they first decide that they will persuade themselves.

Anonymous praetorian September 27, 2012 10:38 AM  

There you go projecting again, Nate.

Anonymous Stilicho September 27, 2012 10:41 AM  

Fair enough, Nate. That would mean that rhetoric is merely an ex post facto tool used to justify emotional decisions.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 10:43 AM  

Take George for example. George probably still thinks he's pro-choice. But he has already decided he is going to persuade himself to be pro-life. He many not realize that yet... but its happened. You can tell in the tone of the debate about it that he had with me. He had already started withdrawing his emotional investment in the position. We had the debate... he heard a simple argument that he admitted appealed to him. He didn't admit anything in the debate as far as changing sides... but the decision has already been made. He made it before the debate started. What happens now... is time passes... and one day he has what alcoholics call a moment of clarity. He will decide for himself... the reason and logic will just click. It will make sense. Then he'll start investing in that position emotionally.

I'm just using George as an example here and am not attempting to disparage him in anyway. This is just the process. Its how it works. He may not have any idea this is what's going on. Never the less... it is.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 10:43 AM  

"Fair enough, Nate. That would mean that rhetoric is merely an ex post facto tool used to justify emotional decisions."

ding ding ding

Anonymous a good ROI September 27, 2012 10:48 AM  

""Could an appeal to absurdity work here?"

absurdity is an abstract concept that isn't likely to effective to someone who's main goal each day is to get a massive emotion based do-gooder buzz with as little effort as possible.""

I am not sure if it is the same thing, although I think similar, agree and amplify to the extreme which ends up, at least in my mind, to be absurd. I have used it pretty successfully with my wife who is quite solipstic.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 10:57 AM  

"I have used it pretty successfully with my wife who is quite solipstic."

direct engagement is not how I would handle these things. perhaps privately... but never publicly. absurdity is an argument that is easy to deflect.

in private... simply point out that she's photoshopping herself into the situation in her head.. and then remind her of what she already knows. She's special. Since she's special... she cannot expect others to feel the same way she would... or react the same way she would.

When doing this... remember you're talking to her the way her father spoke to her when she was an adorable little 7 year old girl. You're patient... and firm.

As sting ray pointed out... mannerism and masculinity are FAR more important than what you actually say.

Anonymous a good ROI September 27, 2012 11:04 AM  

"Agreed. I prefer "darlin' myself... but not everyone can pull that one off."

You gotta be Southron to pull that off, or at least have one of them Southron accents.

Blogger RobertT September 27, 2012 11:22 AM  

Oddly enough, it has been shown that rhetorical questions give you a bit of an edge in negotiations.

Blogger James Dixon September 27, 2012 11:32 AM  

> The world is better off if we sit about and drink.

Not just the world. We're better off too.

> Don't ever hit women...but then to say there is never a reason???

well, to be fair, those weren't reasons to "hit" the woman.

> Virtually all people make all decisions on impulse

Well, to be fair, there are good reasons for this. Most decisions aren't important enough to deserve anything else (if you in town and need something to eat, which restaurant you choose probably isn't worthy of a long reasoned debage) and in many cases time is too limited to allow for a reasoned decision. And in many cases your emotions are a shortcut which takes you to the same place your reason would lead you to eventually.

But, as Vox points out, emotions aren't a trustworthy guide. You can't make the important decisions of your life using emotion alone.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 11:38 AM  

"But, as Vox points out, emotions aren't a trustworthy guide. You can't make the important decisions of your life using emotion alone."

The emotions come second. Even the important decisions are made on impulse. More often than not. People simply do not think before they act.

Anonymous Curlytop September 27, 2012 11:45 AM  

Nate September 27, 2012 11:38 AM
"But, as Vox points out, emotions aren't a trustworthy guide. You can't make the important decisions of your life using emotion alone."

The emotions come second. Even the important decisions are made on impulse. More often than not. People simply do not think before they act.

Agreed, Nate.

I think the numbers are: 90% of the population makes their decisions on emotion, rather than logic. And speaking of logic, over 75% of the population has never learned how to reason with logic bc the skill was never taught.

The ability to reason is like having a sense of humor, everyone thinks they have it when given the stats above, that is certainly not possible.

Blogger James Dixon September 27, 2012 11:55 AM  

> The emotions come second. Even the important decisions are made on impulse.

I'm not certain it's possible to separate impulse and emotion that cleanly, Nate. But it's not a point worth arguing about.

Anonymous Anonymous September 27, 2012 12:47 PM  

Dialectic is simply the intellectual's tool for manipulation. There was a quote attributed to Marx regarding his ability to use dialectic to make a case for anything, but I can't find it. A search on dialectic Marx will provide plenty of information. For example: Deceived by the Dialectic Process.

Anonymous scoobius dubious September 27, 2012 12:49 PM  

"Does the use of rhetoric actually persuade the rhetorically minded, or is it just used by them to rationalize whatever decisions their emotions have already led them to?"

Rhetoric is used to persuade people who are naive about things like rhetoric, which is invisible to them. Most people are not rhetorically-minded, nor logically-minded, nor even minded. This is what makes rhetoric so devastating and/or useful, depending on your level of cynicism. One man, one vote. Thar's gold in them thar hills!!

"I prefer "darlin' myself... but not everyone can pull that one off."

Back when I was a young pup, I lived for a time in a rather rarified environment, and I had a LTR with an absolutely lovely young lass who was my intellectual equal, probably superior. We started out having a sort of inside joke where in private we'd sometimes talk to each other using Shakespeare quotes (yes, it was that rarified). After a while we started using the Shakespeare lines as surrogates, whenever we had a lovers' spat.

It took me a while to notice, dullard that I am, but I finally figured out that she always selected her lines so as to give her an opportunity to address me as "my lord." Granted those lines are statistically spread out with a high probability for Shakespeare's women characters, but still. We ranged freely throughout the canon, and she picked what she picked.

After I figured it out, the number of spats got less and less.

Shoulda married that gal, if I'd had a brain in me head.

Ah, but we were young, and what does Fred Flintstone say? Youth is wasted on the young.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 1:39 PM  

"Ah, but we were young, and what does Fred Flintstone say? Youth is wasted on the young."

Amen.

Praise God... I was born 80 years old...

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 27, 2012 2:07 PM  

Don't ever hit women...but then to say there is never a reason???

If a guy doesn't swing back at a crazy bitch who's trying to kill him, there's something wrong with him.

Blogger Vox September 27, 2012 2:08 PM  

Dialectic is simply the intellectual's tool for manipulation.

Marx's dialectic is not Aristotle's. We're not Marxists here. Also, please utilize a name, as Anonymous comments are not permitted.

Anonymous Athor Pel September 27, 2012 2:27 PM  

" Nate September 27, 2012 11:38 AM
...
The emotions come second. Even the important decisions are made on impulse. More often than not. People simply do not think before they act.

___________________
Nate September 27, 2012 1:39 PM
...
Praise God... I was born 80 years old...
"





I'm not saying that I'm some kind of prodigy or was some kind of exemplar of maturity as a child but I was always mystified by the antics of many of my classmates growing up.

Lord help me... I just started writing a damn snowflake comment.


Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 27, 2012 3:14 PM  

I'm not saying that I'm some kind of prodigy or was some kind of exemplar of maturity as a child but I was always mystified by the antics of many of my classmates growing up.

Lord help me... I just started writing a damn snowflake comment.


Nothing wrong with being a snowflake in a snowstorm.

Blogger Nate September 27, 2012 7:58 PM  

"I'm not saying that I'm some kind of prodigy or was some kind of exemplar of maturity as a child but I was always mystified by the antics of many of my classmates growing up"

My claim has nothing to do with maturity... its about attitude. I was born jaded. I have been a pessimistic curmudgeon since... forever.

well... in truth... I'm optimistic in my pessimism... that is to say... I am convinced terrible things are going to happen to the nation and the world... and there will be great and terrible suffering.

But I'll be fine.

In fact...

I'll thrive.

Anonymous Outlaw X September 27, 2012 8:10 PM  

"Marx's dialectic is not Aristotle's. We're not Marxists here."

Lot's of conservatives like Rush Limbaugh's dialectic.

I think we need a clear definition. Marx, Rush or Aristotle.

Anonymous Outlaw X September 27, 2012 10:00 PM  

Lest anyone is confused I was not the anonymous poster.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 28, 2012 10:19 AM  

Outlaw. I was gonna say "Aha!"...

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts