So, Republicans who oppose President Obama’s high-cost “Jobs Bill” are guilty of economic sabotage or pace the New York Times, “economic vandalism.”
Now once again, as Sonicfrog reports, some folks on the left are taking to calling conservatives “dumb”:
This isn’t the first time I’ve come across this silliness. I’ve also seen the same applied to Victor Davis Hanson, and to Freeman Dyson. Why are they “dumb“? Because they have differing opinions on issues than liberals do, such as Hanson’s views on immigration and Dyson’s refusal to march lock-step with the sky-is-falling global warming crowd.
Note to the smug liberal crowd – Just because someone has differing views than you do, that doesn’t mean they are dumb! You simply have differing views on things. Period.
Emphasis added. You know, they’ve been doing this at least since the 1950s. It does seem that in order to spare themselves the difficulty of answering conservative challenges or intellectual rigor of addressing conservative ideas, they just label conservatives dumb so they can have done with it.
Wonder if this attitude comes from the paucity of conservatives on the faculties of our nation’s leading colleges and universities.
Perhaps VTK might reconsider calling Serenity a Dumba** in the last thread? I don’t know. Just think there’s an irony here.
Sorry. I like VTK, but I just had to point that out. Perhaps I should have resisted.
Dan, I disagree with your line of complaint here. Because a lot of the time, people really are dumb. Especially (though not exclusively) left-liberals.
When someone speaks or behaves “dumb” – or corrupt, etc. – we should call it out. Your argument would imply that we shouldn’t. Leftists are CORRECT to lay their cards on the table and call out their opponents as dumb, -IF- that is what they truly believe. So are we.
Neither does it mean they’re smart, sf, or worthy of your admiration.
Someone might have differing views than you do, for any of the following reasons:
1) They truly have different information. The solution here is relatively simple; though time-consuming: both of you research and compare notes, until you have the same information.
2) They weigh information differently, based on different values. That *might* tie in with reasons (3) and/or (4)…
3) They are plain dumb.
4) They are corrupt. (They know on some level that they’re wrong, but don’t care.)
Serenity repeats the same dumbass talking points no matter how many times or how easily they are refuted. That’s why she’s a dumbass.
That’s a very different different thing from saying someone is “dumb” just because you can’t refute their argument.
VTK >> Hmmn. I think I can relate to you. While it would follow to ignore someone repeating themselves over and over again (which is your view of Serenity), I sometime acknowledge ND30 and engage him in debate, when it will only turn out to be an exercise in futility.
Perhaps VTK might reconsider calling Serenity a Dumba** in the last thread? I don’t know. Just think there’s an irony here.
Why?
Serenity has demonstrated that it has no grasp of economics, no grasp of intelligent dialogue, and no manners, plus the belief that it is entitled to steal copyrighted material.
Furthermore, Serenity has stated that its only purpose in coming here is to antagonize everyone as much as possible.
In short, Serenity has demonstrated that it IS a “dumba**”. Hilariously, Serenity has put you, a supposed film critic, in the position of defending a copyright violator and pirater, which is striking at the very taproot of the “intellectual property” that drives the revenue of the industry with which you would like to be affiliated.
In short, you made one (or perhaps both) of two assumptions:
1) V the K was wrong because he is a conservative
2) Serenity was right because it is an OWS Obama liberal.
You didn’t do any sort of review. You just made a snap judgment based on political affiliation.
Speak of the devil.
Yes indeed, Cinesnatch.
Of course, you blame me, rather than your tendency to automatically assume V the K was wrong because he’s a conservative and that Serenity was right because it’s a leftist liberal like you.
That’s pretty typical. Gays like yourself aren’t used to being held accountable or being responsible. I don’t think it has anything to do with sexual orientation; it’s just the fact that you are a lazy exploiter who doesn’t have the self or intellectual awareness to actually ask questions and learn.
I don’t think I’ve ever had an argument with a liberal that didn’t end with “I know you have the facts on your side, but you’re still wrong.” That, to me, is dumb.
[Deleted by Dan]
NEWT FOR AMERICA 2012
Lets play a semantics game, shall we?
Dumb: lacking intelligence : stupid (#6 a definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Stupid: dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid (#2 definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Torpid: lacking in energy or vigor : apathetic (#2 definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Apathetic: having or showing little or no feeling or emotion : spiritless (#1 definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
So if the liberals “feel” something, then those who do not “feel” it are dumb. See how it works? You work from a meaning way down on the list to a conclusion that fits the predetermined meaning from the outset.
Conservatives are so dumb they can’t even feel what is right.
“Feelings,
people who have feelings,
are the smartest people in the world
We’re children, needing our feelings
And yet letting a grown-up pride
Hide all the feelings inside
Acting more like children than children
Feelers are very special people
They’re the smartest people in the world
With one feeling one very special feeling
A feeling deep in your soul
Says you were half and now you’re whole
No more hunger and thirst
But first be a person who has feelings
People who need feelings
Are the smartest people in the world…”
Thanks Babs and all the special libs who judge us little people.
That’s exactly it, Heliotrope.
Liberals judge whether or not something is right based on whether they feel it is right.
Which is extraordinarily convenient, because it allows them to a) set aside evidence contrary to their feelings as being incorrect, and b) blame others for sabotaging them, since clearly there was nothing wrong with their feelings-based scheme or policy.
Heliotrope… Nice! I tip my hat to you….. And may just have to post that on my blog under twisted lyrics! I love that kind of thing you know.
NDT, I think it’s more basic; all liberalism is based on selfishness. It’s most self-evident in the desire of liberals to confiscate wealth they have not earned from those who have, but you can scratch most any policy and find a selfish motive for it. Welfare, for example, is nothing more than a program to let liberals feel charitable by dispensing money they forcibly take from other people.
Yikes, Eric did she reveal that? I don’t know. In general, let’s not bring people’s names out in public unless they have previously chosen to.
And here’s the winner of the day: Barack Obama-supporting “patriotic millionaires” demanding that taxes be raised — and then refusing to make an immediate direct contribution to the Treasury for the same amounts.
Brutal. And quite indicative that these liberals have absolutely no intention of paying a dime of their own money.
[Deleted as per previous]
I am also concerned ILC that info like this should be posted. Enough said.
To be sure, Cinesnatch talked the other day about having posted here as “Vince in Weho” etc. If the person themselves wants to let the cat out, then fine.
I think Serenity did post her identity in a thread a few months back… But I could be wrong.
I have to disagree. I think there is a noble purpose to want to make sure people who do not have the means to take care of themselves are provided for. Where it goes wrong is when they become blind to the reality of finite resources and opportunity cost, that creating a system without checks and balances to ensure that the impulse to prove for you fellow man does not over-ride the capability to generate wealth and the funds to do so – a la Greece.
Eek… Must go work now.
19.
[Deleted by Dan]
Comment by Eric Olsen — November 7, 2011 @ 12:34 pm – November 7, 2011
. . .
Pardon me, but I misspoke…
Make that, “Thus Spoke []
So now you descend to removing the illusion of anonymity I never even attempted to erect by publishing personal information hidden so carefully on my public-facing Twitter account.
Comment by Serenity — November 8, 2011 @ 4:14 am – November 8, 2011
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/11/04/my-major-beef-with-romney/
Fine, sf. Then *YOU* go out and do that. *YOUR* choice. You overlooked V’s key qualifier. I shall highlight it for you, below.
The use of force (which is government – government is a gun, they will throw either you or your banker in jail, if you do not pay up) makes it morally wrong and ignoble.
V is right: Left-liberalism is, at its core, selfishness (in the negative sense – the short-sighted, destructive sense). The left-liberal wants cheap grace: a feeling of moral acceptability if not superiority, that she “buys on the cheap”, by simply mouthing her “support” for money to be taken from other people and spent in some politically correct fashion.
As for whomever is who…
Either you have the courage of your convictions, or you choose to dismiss those with whom you disagree as stupid while insisting that you somehow have a right to privacy even as your opponent deserves far less respect.
This isn’t a friggin game. We are indeed speaking of a republic who’s founders didn’t hide behind aliases, for Christ’s sake.
Eric, I can’t discern the question of fact here, so please let me ask you the question directly:
Did you reveal Serenity’s name on GayPatriot? Or did she previously reveal it on GayPatriot? Inquiring minds need to know.
P.S. In point of historical fact, the Founders hid behind aliases. All the time. For example, “Publius” was the pseudonym for James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay as they wrote The Federalist Papers.
The point is whether the person themselves has chosen to reveal their personal information. Even complete jackasses are, or should be, entitled to privacy – if it’s what they want.
I revealed [deleted by Dan], nor do I offer any opprobirum for having done so.
“Publius” never signed the Declaration of Independence.
V is right: Left-liberalism is, at its core, selfishness (in the negative sense – the short-sighted, destructive sense). The left-liberal wants cheap grace: a feeling of moral acceptability if not superiority, that she “buys on the cheap”, by simply mouthing her “support” for money to be taken from other people and spent in some politically correct fashion.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2011 @ 2:01 pm – November 17, 2011
Bingo, ILC.
As I pointed out in the link above, the leftist liberal Obama supporter “patriotic millionaires”, despite demanding that taxes be raised, will not voluntarily pay the same amount even when given the opportunity.
Again, these are Obama-supporting millionaires. According to their party’s and their own rhetoric, they’ve got more money than they need and can afford to pay more. They insist that anyone who says otherwise is selfish and greedy and wants poor people and the elderly to die horrible deaths.
And when given the opportunity to actually pay more, to actually take the money out of their own pocket, they won’t do it.
The reason why is simple. They have no intention of paying these taxes. It’s why Warren Buffett can whine about how much his secretary pays compared to him while fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying his taxes. It’s why John Kerry and Charles Rangel openly dodge taxes on their yachts and vacation homes while screaming and demanding taxes on “luxury items” and “millionaires”. It’s why Obama’s primary qualification for appointment to his administration appears to be owing the IRS thousands of dollars.
No Obama supporter should ever be allowed to invoke the public good. The next time a supporter of Obama whines about “fair share”, ask them how much they’re willing to have their taxes raised — and have linked on your smartphone, tablet, or whatever internets-capable device you carry around with you the Treasury website where they can donate right there.
This is what melts their little heads down. Rusty, Serenity, Cinesnatch, Levi, and Cas have ZERO intention of ever paying more in taxes, and every intention of collecting larger and fatter welfare checks paid for by yours. Their words are nothing but rhetoric designed to shame you, the good and decent person who works for a living, into paying their bills for them.
I’ve changed my handle several times on this site until I finally settled on one. I have deliberately made the connections in the past to those handles, because I wasn’t hiding and wanted to hold myself accountable for everything I posted on this site. So, yes, my name is vince. I dont see the point in making a big deal about it, as it’s not something I’ve tried to conceal. As far as dating one of the founders for this site, Eric has a very vivid imagination. I wish him well in putting it to good use with the newt campaign.
Yes… and if they had signed it, it would have been *their choice* to reveal their names – not a case of them revealing others’.
Yikes, Eric did she reveal that? I don’t know. In general, let’s not bring people’s names out in public unless they have previously chosen to.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2011 @ 1:35 pm – November 17, 2011
It’s a good rule, ILC.
But I think the point is made by this: despite Levi’s, Cinesnatch’s, and Serenity’s identities having been known for well over a week-plus, neither you or I — or for that matter, any of the other regular commenters on this site, to the best of my knowledge — has bothered to in any way use this information to harass or attack either of these individuals in their private life.
Meanwhile, you and I are very well aware of what happens to gays who buck the left-wing trend when their identities are made public.
What Eric is doing is pointing out ironically that leftists fear most having their own weapons turned back on them. Serenity, Levi, rusty, Cinesnatch, and others know darn well what they support and do, and thus are desperate to avoid at all costs having the same done to them. Hence their hypocritical shrieking about anonymity while they themselves endorse and support the systematic destruction of gay and lesbian conservatives, including violence against them.
This is an ugly choice to make, but it is one that occasionally must be when you are dealing with the amoral. As Augustine would phrase it, there is no morality in allowing a greater evil to occur because you do not wish to commit a lesser one.
That being said, the question is if you then recognize that the lesser one IS evil, and do not try to rationalize it as good. The death penalty is an excellent example; you are committing a lesser evil if you kill someone. But in the greater perspective, if your failure to kill someone leads to many more others being killed, then you have allowed an even worse problem to occur in the name of protecting your personal morality.
Vince, if you wish to continue to insist a co-founder of this blog (and my friend) is lying, then so be it.
As far as I’m concerned, you’re only adding to the reasons why your credibility here is thoroughly shot.
NDT, I see your point – without being persuaded. Not every tactic that could make a certain point, should be used. For example, after following a link and seeing someone’s pic, I could speculate on how their appearance might affect or tie in with their politics. I choose not to (unless it’s a compliment – rusty, I still like your pic 😉 ). Sometimes, even when a tactic has a decent rationale, it shouldn’t be used – because there are other ways to make the point, that muddy the waters less.
The point is whether the person themselves has chosen to reveal their personal information. Even complete jackasses are, or should be, entitled to privacy – if it’s what they want.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2011 @ 2:11 pm – November 17, 2011
I agree with you, ILC.
But Eric makes the excellent point that this is a commitment to asymmetric warfare. It is no different in philosophy than al-Qaeda and Hamas using civilian populations as human shields becasue of our reluctance to incur additional casualties.
And he also makes a great point. Dan and Bruce are decent to a fault in terms of what they allow people who loathe them to do. There is no site out there on the gay left that would allow the type of abuse of the moderators themselves or difference of opinions that they do. Even someone like Serenity, who acknowledges publicly that it has no interest whatsoever in dialogue or discussion and is in fact coming here solely to antagonize other people, or someone like Levi who insults every commenter regularly and also hopes for violent harm to come to Eric and the other site bloggers, are allowed to post.
That is truly above and beyond. And when you look at the bigot gay sites like Rob Tisinai’s that ban anyone who disagrees with them while publishing calls for Sarah Palin to be imprisoned, the contrast is even more stark.
Eric, I’m pretty sure that Dan, Bruce (or whomever else constitutes as a GP cofounder) would care to have misinformation spread about them, especially from a “friend.” Nor do I think they would want their private life to be made public by a “friend.” ND30 has pointed out that using information to threaten or attack someone is a tactic of the left. I usually don’t agree with him, but I wonder if he has a point here or doesn’t.
Thx, ILC, and I hope that my plan to travel to CA will also end up in a chance to meet over coffee or cocktail.
Ciao
No argument there!
rusty, whoa when? Write me, (the pseudonym I use) at hotmail.com.
Hey, it’s pretty simple, actually…
Either you dated Bruce or Dan, or you didn’t.
Which is it? Yes or no, Vince?
I’ll let Dan and Bruce comment on that since one (or both) of them can back up the claim that you are making, as you have intimated.
Woah, Levi got outed and I missed it? Damn, all the fun things that go on…
More seriously, I find the rotating nicknames funny. I’ve been ‘The Livewire’ in various things since 1988. Heck I predate the Superman character. 🙂
ND30 has pointed out that using information to threaten or attack someone is a tactic of the left. I usually don’t agree with him, but I wonder if he has a point here or doesn’t.
Comment by Cinesnatch — November 17, 2011 @ 3:12 pm – November 17, 2011
As I have pointed out, it is a tactic of the left.
Which makes the left’s attempt to bleat and scream and complain about it when Eric does it to them an example of complete and utter hypocrisy.
This is no different than al-Qaeda complaining about their wives, husbands, children, and fathers being blown up when they sent thousands of wives, husbands, children, and fathers to their deaths in the WTC.
When you are dealing with the amoral who have already demonstrated nothing but contempt for morality, you are bound by it only if you choose to be.
Eric chooses not, and chooses to use back on lefties the same gutter tactics they so gleefully employ against him.
The difference is that I know Eric can, has, and will continue to restrain his tactics. He can do better, he has done better, and he will do better.
Levi, Serenity, Mike Rogers, and the like? Nope.
Vince, dear…
Had you read my post on the front page, perhaps you may have realized that Dan, Bruce and I are clearly playing by differing sets of rules.
As such, I have no problem disclosing your relationship with Dan, especially since you clearly felt it necessary to evade the question once asked (as is typical of a leftist).
Having now revealed such, and having proudly proclaimed my intent to raise whatever amount of money becomes necessary to defeat the idiot you apparently will support come hell or high water, I have no problem calling a spade a spade, as it were.
I was specifically asked to allow you to continue to comment here without interference directly from Dan, who cited your having dated him previously.
While I respect Dan’s approach with regard to manipulative little shits such as yourself, I personally would have preferred to banish you back to whatever little island you come from, given the ridiculously transparent stances you seem to take. Of course, the multiple ISP’s you use to establish whatever “cred” you feel like maintaining do nothing other than reveal your complete lack of intellectual honesty.
You are a fraud, Vince, and were it not for your relationship with Dan, rest assured you’d be relegated to bitching about us all back on your own sad, lonesome site.
Now that you’ve whittled it down to Dan, I’m sure he’ll back up the veracity of your claims if there is any truth to them. As it stands I’m looking forward to the possibility to Ron Paul running against Obama, so I will have the opportunity to vote for Paul. I wish you luck with Newt. I’m sure they are happy to have a man of your character on their campaign as it reflects on them.
Eric: NOT COOL. Get a grip.
Yeah, so that’s your position?
Typical leftist asshole…uses what he can then disavows it when it becomes inconvenient.
As for you, ILC…
This is a war, ILC, in case you happened not to have paid attention during the 8 years of the Bush administration wherein we were regularly derided as self-hating, violent f*gs.
I’m sick to death of squishes who stubbornly insist upon clinging to a code of ethics that they alone stand by and by which are condemned as criminals by their opponents.
ILC, I love your commitment, but am growing weary of the weakness that commitment exposes to those who would cheerfully grind you under the wheels of egalitarianism.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Otherwise, get the hell out of the way and let us work.
And you let it get to you?
And regardless of any difference in tactics between you and Dan… did you obtain his prior permission to talk about any aspect (real or perceived) of what woiuld be **his** personal life?
ILC, my dearest friend…
Did the Soviet dissidents “let it get to them?”
Did the East Germans who risked their lives to cross the border “let it get to them?”
Did the Cubans who escaped Castro “let it get to them?
Did the Cambodians who ran from the Khmer Rouge “let it get to them?
Did the French Resistance who fought against the Nazi occupiers “let it get to them?”
I suppose the millions who were murdered under socialism’s long pursuit of “social justice” didn’t let it “get to them,” choosing instead to play nice.
No more than he obtained my permission to allow the ill-informed idiotic followers of a destructive worldview to continue spewing their diarrhetic propaganda in threads I composed.
Yes, Dan and I went on a date. But I fail to see why that is pertinent to sharing on this thread.
Just for the record, my father was one of them east Germans who risked his life to cross that border you use to make your point. And you come nowhere near his character.
Then it becomes a matter for you guys to sort out. I’ve made my stand clear.
Just to summarize my stand and be done: IMO, GP ought to be a place where personal info about people is not bandied about… not without them having volunteered it themselves in some way… no matter how odious commentors X and Y may be, and no matter who composed the thread.
Good on you, then, for having been born to a man who clearly had the strength of character to make his life his own.
And you come nowhere near his character.
I’m heartbroken at the thought of your disapproval.
Exactly, Eric.
The East Germans imprisoned and tortured people for disagreeing with them politically, just like Serenity and Levi want to do with Sarah Palin.
And what was Cinesnatch’s response to that?
To call them the voices of reason.
Ah well. Won’t be the first time the child longed for the Marxist regime their parents gave up.
Well said ILC @51.
Just to summarize my stand and be done: IMO, GP ought to be a place where personal info about people is not bandied about… not without them having volunteered it themselves in some way… no matter how odious commentors X and Y may be, and no matter who composed the thread.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 17, 2011 @ 5:15 pm – November 17, 2011
And ILC, I agree with you in general.
However, when a commenter like Serenity or Levi has stated on record that their sole purpose in coming here is to antagonize and offend others, at that point, you have violated the idea of what GP ought to be, and are thus outside the bounds of politeness and respect.
Eric did go too far, in my opinion, especially in regard to Cinesnatch. But I also thoroughly respect Eric and his decision to do so, even if I don’t agree with the ultimate outcome.
Ron. . Paul. . is. . a. . joke. . .and not a particularly good one.
“However, when a commenter like Serenity or Levi has stated on record that their sole purpose in coming here is to antagonize and offend others, at that point, you have violated the idea of what GP ought to be, and are thus outside the bounds of politeness and respect.”
Then let Dan or Bruce ban them.
Eric, I know or rather, it seems you are quite jacked up with your work for Gingrich, but I’be commented before and hope it brings another smile:
Step back and take your hands off your hips.;)
Rusty, I love ya, baby boy. 😀
Thanks so much for the grin. I promise I’ll let the rest of this thread slide in return.
I don’t think revealing a first name is a big deal. It’s really not enough information to hunt someone down with, provided one would even want to hunt down anyone else on this forum.
Then let Dan or Bruce ban them.
Comment by David in N.O. — November 17, 2011 @ 5:47 pm – November 17, 2011
Or let the rest of us figuratively nuke them into glass. It works just as well, and has the added side benefit of giving them the lesson that their parents and teachers should have years ago, if they actually had given a damn.
Eric, if possible, I will buy you a cocktail on 11-7-12, or some date there after. 🙂
“Or let the rest of us figuratively nuke them into glass.”
Which most of you do with great efficiency. And that is fine, but if a commentor wishes to remain anonymous, that should be respected completely with no exceptions.
David…
To tear a page out of Bill Clinton’s playbook…
That, of course, would depend upon the meaning of the word “commenter.”
Eric, I am not trying to bust your balls. . .but I do remember this from
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/08/02/military-chaplains-the-end-of-dadt/
49.
C’mon, give us your real name, if you’ve got the balls.
Jim, do me a real solid and don’t try to berate our commentators into revealing personal info, ok?
Just because you and I can do it, doesn’t necessarily mean that all of our visitors are so fortunate.
Thanks.
Comment by Eric Olsen — August 4, 2011 @ 3:59 pm – August 4, 2011
and then this was so sweet on NDT’s part. . .
from the same thread
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/08/02/military-chaplains-the-end-of-dadt/
58.Sonic, upon reading that again, I apologize; that was a very unfair and wrong statement to make about you. In all the time we’ve interacted, you’ve never behaved that way, and it was wrong for me to say that about you. I got upset and said something about you that wasn’t true, and for that I am very sorry.
I usually picture something like this when a lefty is getting walloped on this forum.
I know I am jumping on the bandwagon here but I have clicked on rusty’s picture in the past and it’s a good picture. You seem like a swell guy.
The dating issue. Vince and I went out to dinner on two occasions. Since we’re both single gay men, it seems those count as dates.
Whatever the case, I know Vince and like him personally, don’t always agree with him, but he has always be a stand-up guy whenever we get together.
I’ve just now reviewed this thread, deleting personal references.
Please friends, disagree without being disagreeable. If you think someone has made a weak argument, then challenge the argument not the person.
PS I think it’s not very courageous when someone comes to this blog, challenges us all the while hiding behind any alias. But, if they choose to hide their name, I think we should respect the choice.
Just got home…. Holy Crap! What did I miss????
Just got home…. Holy Crap! What did I miss????
Just a little drama, sugah;)
It was better than a Dynasty episode. (dating myself)
@Sonicfrog: Damn, same here. All this happened while I was asleep?
@NDT: Brilliant. Mock the idea that I’m one of the “voices of reason” while at the same time saying I’d imprison and torture Sarah Palin just for disagreeing with me politically.
Who is the voice of reason then, you?
Also, when did I ever employ the sort of tactics Eric has been using here? I don’t even know who any of you people are, nor do I care. It’s just not relevant.
Finally, yes I am here just to antagonize you. Saying that is really more of an acknowledgement that we humans do not debate to change minds or discover facts, we do so to win. We do so for our own sakes, to make ourselves feel better, to feel superior. So I decided not have any illusions any more. If I change any minds here, then that’s great, but it’s not why I’m here. I’m here to enjoy myself, and I enjoy myself by knowing I’m being an annoyance, and that’s that.
@Cinesnatch: I am so totally subscribed to your site now.
Which brings me to one of my annoyances… Why does it ALWAYS have to be a debate? Why can’t people just discuss things without getting threatened by a stance that disagrees with yours? I mean, really, am I the only one who gets tired of the constant hyperbole.
Most of the time, you’re probably right. However, you never know when it might tip the balance. Also, let’s face it, the point of revealing any of someone’s info (without them having done it first) is to exercise power… to try to intimidate (however it may be euphemized). As Dan has suggested, it is better to just answer their points.
Also and FTR, part of what was objectionable in this thread was going beyond first names – bringing in last name in one case, “dating” life (whether real or perceived) in another.
A bit rich, coming from you sf who use hyperbole whenever it suits you (which is as often as anyone, I daresay).
Pomposity, sorry but that explanation does not wash. I mean, it can’t apply to you. Because you are SO. BAD. at it. You lose so often!
Which brings me to one of my annoyances… Why does it ALWAYS have to be a debate? Why can’t people just discuss things without getting threatened by a stance that disagrees with yours?
People certainly can, Sonic.
But the problem here is that this requires two things: self-esteem and the ability to admit that you are not always right.
But as we see, Serenity believes that people cannot discuss things without being threatened because it can’t discuss things without being threatened. Rather than examining its own stances, it simply has to antagonize and silence anyone who disagrees with it.
You can either settle for Serenity’s way, or you can work for better. Which do you choose?
“Serenity Now!”
George on Seinfeld (I’m dating myself)
Interesting. Why would you do that? Your use of the word “just” translates to mean: “the sole reason.” What is the ethical or moral advantage to you or to anyone to antagonize or be antagonized? Or, to put it differently, what is your earthy purpose for being antagonistic?
More interesting. When you refer to “we humans” are you differentiating yourself from us or are you proclaiming a fact about every human past, present and future? And debating to win is not a bad thing at all if you actually use the rules of logic and prepare an honest argument. Perhaps you misunderstand how honest exchange of ideas works. Perhaps you are too caught up in the thrill of the smear and the demagogic chicanery of splitting hairs over an abstraction.
Fascinating. What rush does the human get by “feeling” superior. Why not go ahead and be superior, rather than just be antagonistic? It sounds like you aspire to be jock itch.
Excuse me? Transitory “feelings” of superiority are not illusions? Explain that to me, if you can.
Of course not. You are here to be antagonistic. How can you or anyone confuse that with changing minds?
I guess you are right. That’s that. From here on out, when anyone reads the name Serenity, he can just skip the comment and move on. After all, the author herself admits there is no purpose to the comment other than to annoy.
Pathetic. You go to the party just to float a turd in the punch bowl. Have you no self esteem? Have you no dignity? Can you not find it within you to have a higher purpose than to annoy and antagonize?
We are advised to direct our comments to the substance, not the person. I generally agree. But your comments are your stated reason for being and thus, I am forced to address your person. I have read your comments and I find you to be vacuous. I am disappointed that any person would decide to expose himself so thoroughly.
Perhaps you would like to try again.
It must be very disappointing that your insipid arguments and hackneyed talking points just end up making us feel even more superior when we easily refute them. We invariably end up more amused than antagonized. More certain in our convictions.
So, fail, I guess.
Yes, but unlike yours, my hyperbole is witty and clever, with a smattering of Chuck Norrisish toughness thrown in to make it Ford tough!!!!! 🙂
I don’t know about witty hyperbole, but I gotta say when it comes to witty analogy, Heliotrope leave the all others in the dust. To wit:
“You go to the party just to float a turd in the punch bowl.”
I just about peed! Man I love the way you write!
I think you’re confusing ‘debate’ with ‘argument’. Civil discussions are possible in debates, but what we have here typically descends into undignified argument before long.
A corollary to what I said is that the criteria for ‘winning’ in a debate is so vague and open to interpretation that 99% of the time both sides will declare victory.
Really, if the criteria for winning is changing the other persons mind, then neither of us has even won here since neither of us has changed our minds. Meanwhile if the criteria for winning is feeling that you were the one with facts on your side and better arguments than your opponent, then neither of us ever lost a debate here.
Personally, I view the former criteria as the correct one. This is a game with no winners.
So when have you been wrong?
I see we are birds of feather, your putting words in my mouth is most antagonizing and not constructive in the least.
If only you knew…
I have never silenced you. You know that, I know that, everyone else here knows that. We couldn’t possibly not know that.
Enjoyment? Why do I need an ethical or moral advantage? Part of my statement was discounting the idea that I had either.
The latter. It’s part of the human condition. I found out about it from an article on Cracked.com. If you think you’re doing this for different reasons, you’re probably just in denial.
Oh come off it. How many people go into a debate not thinking that they’re the honest one? I think about as many people who would think of themselves as being actually evil. No one does that! We all think we’re being honest, and most of us are! That doesn’t make any of us right. Honesty isn’t what makes our views align with fact or our policies produce actual benefit.
I understand it perfectly well and wish it happened more often.
There’s no ‘perhaps’ about it, we are constantly caught up in that thrill. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
You can’t just ‘be superior’! Think about it. Superior to what? To be superior you must be superior to something, usually someone. Someone who you feel is inferior to you. Like you see me as inferior to me, and I see you as inferior to me. Feels good, doesn’t it? It’s meant to, you seek it. We all seek it. We’re programmed to, at a very fundamental level. That’s why we’re doing this.
Alright then. I said that I will not have any illusions to mean that I will no longer think that I’m doing this to enrich my mind or change other peoples’ viewpoints, I’m just doing it to derive enjoyment for myself.
In other words, you misunderstood what I said. See, there’s the superiority again! It does feel good!
How can you confuse a side-effect with a primary goal? Good thing I’m not here to change minds, I might be wasting my time if I were…
You were always able to do that! You chose not to! Why? Please think.
I may find a higher purpose elsewhere in life. But right here, right now? No.
There it is again! There’s the feeling of superiority! It really is more addictive than nicotine.
I am currently laughing at you. Read the above. Try to understand some of it.
You’re a really bad liar.
That’s not a lie, but it is complete vindication. The whole damn reason I became wholly about antagonism and enjoying myself is because you’d end up more certain in your convictions no matter what I said because everything in your mental programming is designed to that end. Of course, it’s the exact same thing for me too, so we just end up driving each other towards holding to our convictions even more firmly than before. So what’s the point of trying to change minds? None, that’s what. So why should I bother?
How so? I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m trying to enjoy myself. If you enjoy yourself too, that’s fine. My enjoyment is orthogonal to yours. I only fail if I keep posting while not enjoying myself, and if I stop enjoying myself, I stop posting. So how could I ever fail?
And then, as usual, Serenity comes along with a post that’s longer than all the previous ones that came before.
Yeah… kinda wondered as I went on how long it could possibly get.
Well, I suppose that if there were a pissing contest and one reached the farthest distance but another one kept peeing because of bladder size and dribbled on through the night, you would have to say that since no rules were established, the leakiest one “won.”
In truth, I “enjoy” Serenity as a fount of pomposity. She does have alienation down pat. We are honored, your serenity, to have you abuse us.
My two C-bills,
I do think that Eric gets too, um, passionate, sometimes, but for various reasons, reason is much stronger than passion in me. Having a code means sticking to it, even when it’s not easy. But hey, I’m a Captain America fan, so take that for what it’s worth.
I’ve said before that it doesn’t take much work to match my name to my nick. I don’t feel the need to change it. (My nom de kink is different, because I believe in truth in advertising.) I don’t worry about what I say, as I stand by it. Bruce likely feels strongly about ‘outing’ because of the attacks on him however. My only concerns from my preferences is how it would impact my sister were I outed to her work.
As to Senility/Amy. I find her trite comments so beneath notice, I don’t even bother to keep a ‘greatest hits’ to bludgeon her with like Levi.
LOL 🙂 I love how that combines 2 phenomena in one:
– the left-liberal’s classic “subjectivist” epistemology
– Pomposity’s cluelessness as to what she actually achieves here. (Hint, see V #83)
I think it’s kind of pathetic that she thinks trolling here is some sort of accomplishment. It’s almost enough to make me feel sorry for the dizzy bint.
So since you can’t impress folks with content, you go for long windedness?
Conservatives in America today propose with a straight face to combat falling test scores by cutting funding for education … citing their fear of the same massive deficit they created via their “borrow-&-spend” economic folly, to ignore its track-record of universal failure & advocate harsh austerity in a time of high unemployment … to fight a rising deficit with tax-cuts & spending cuts that demonstrably will wind up costing exponentially more than their initial savings … & to fix high unemployment with even more tax & regulatory lolly for the rich – because THIS time maybe instead of simply pocketing the free loot & proceeding with business as usual, they’ll start hiring more people, unlike every single other time in recorded history up to now.
To say nothing of the magic thinking behind trickle-down theory, Reagan declaring that ketchup is a vegetable, the mythology of the Cadillac Welfare Mom, or of conservatism being oppressed by a “liberal media” universally owned by the exact same corporate clique that funds the GOP (the same “liberal media” that treated the Tea Party with kid gloves where it now casts every aspersion it can on the OWS protestors it can no longer willfully ignore), the Laffer Curve as economic gospel, shrugging away the threats to democracy inherent in the MCA & Patriot Acts I & II with “if you’re innocent you have nothing to fear,” no matter how often history refutes this perilous leap of faith … & oh so many more.
At the same time, they display utter hostility & contempt for the “elitists” in academia who keep disproving their talking-points, while one candidate for POTUS publically states that intelligence isn’t a prerequisite for the job, to the delight of right-wing bloggers aplenty … & the last GOP president chose to “go with his gut” in the face of massive evidence to the contrary (with predictably tragicomic results) while those who voted for him applauded.
Yes, surely it is a mystery where this nefarious “meme” could have come from.
Thank you for that fact-free rant, Jim; meanwhile, all it takes is one link to show just how monumentally stupid Obama Party leaders, OWS supporters, and Ivy League graduates are.
In short, someone like you who thinks we landed astronauts on Mars and that North and South Vietnam coexist peacefully is here saying conservatives are uneducated and unintelligent.
BWAHAHAHA !
Actually both Liberals, and Conservatives are dumb, as is the average voting American. Both Liberals, and Conservatives get too hung up on the lines of their ideology, or the lines of their party, and become too emotional and irrational; and sound like morons. George Washington also warned against this sort of thing, when he talked of the dangers of parties.
As for the average voting American… I don’t even know where to begin, except for that if I had the power to do so, I’d make it so you needed to take a twp part exam before you could vote. REAL American history, and current events; because most Americans don’t know a damn thing about their own country, or what’s going on… But they can name everyone on Jersey Shore.
If you fail the test, you’re unable to vote in that election. Part of why we have garbage politicians, is because we have idiots who vote them in, and then will re-elect them.
The only people who I listen to, who’s opinions matter- and who are forward thinking. Are people who don’t care about parties, or the left vs right rubbish, and only care about the truth, and actually pay attention to what the hell is going on. You’re not gonna find any truth if you’re hung up on either side, and if you’re one of those people who really don’t pay much mind to anything, then just don’t vote and don’t talk.