The tactics of our (jref's) "new right"

[jj]

Below, captured for posterity (I swear, I almost said posteriority) we see some of the gems from the new right:

Rikzilla, addressing me in http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32308&pagenumber=2
Hey jerk,

Either go back, look at the post in question and address the points I brought up...or shut the f up.

The problem is you and your leftie friends can't. You a-holes have been cheering every soldier killed or maimed for months now and you can't stand it that your little myth of the evil US government is blowing away on the winds of actual revealed reality.

Too damn bad,...that mantra of yours had been catching on for a while among the gullible.....pretty soon the only folks still clinging to it will be the liars and the terminally stupid people who keep believing them.

-z


(Note, nowhere have I cheered the death of a single soldier. I am not a leftie, and very few of my friends are lefties. I tend to set "lefties" livid with fury.)

Corplinx, same thread:
jj isnt a leftie, he says so all the time! He is a moderate! He says so all the time!


(he neglects to mention that happens only when he or one of his buddies like RIk or JK calls me a "leftist" or a "pinko")

To Thanz, same thread:

Keep working Thanz....

There was alot more in that post than just that. But if you like you can bail with the poisoned well caveat....just say that since some item isn't 100% sure, that none of it is worth investigating.

Such tactics have worked well for holocaust deniers. Find something to debunk,...then use it to deny the mountain of evidence you wish would go away.

How 'bout addressing every one of those points I made,..the problem is that you are not going to be able to refute them all....and the ones you can't refute will just add up because I know of more too.....and in the coming days I'd guess ever more will come to light.

FACT: Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism
FACT: Saddam not only possessed WMD, but used them on his own people. (unless you think those thousands of Kurds faked it)

-z


(Thanz did NOT deserve any implied relationship to a holocaust denier in this thread, at least, but out the words came. Pure vilification.)

Tony, same thread:

Is this hyperbole, or are you really this senile?


(Pure vilification when facts fail the author.)

Rikzilla again, in the thread http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32326 says

Hey JJ,

Boo ***** hoo.

How sad you must be that your hero is soon to be dead. Now is the time for you to join the jihad and go avenge him.

-z


(what do we see here? Well, first an accusation that I'm an overt, actual traitor, coupled with an invitation to engage in traitorous activities.

Their words are ill-intended and false at first examination.

There's one common thread here, it's exactly like one Goebbels used in 1930's Germany, and that's "vilify your enemies".

I wonder why they are doing the same thing as Goebbels, they haven't seemed to be particular admirers of his Reich.

[Grammatron]

So jj your calm and rational response to this is to compare them to Nazis? Have we not been over this "Two wrongs don't make a right" talk before?

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron
So jj your calm and rational response to this is to compare them to Nazis? Have we not been over this "Two wrongs don't make a right" talk before?

Typical of you, as well, to misrepresent what I said in a more sophisticated fashions. (edited to add: this isn't the first time, but perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, you don't do it all the time, only sometimes when something rubs your politics the wrong way.)

First, was there part of "they haven't seemed to be particular admirers of his Reich" that you missed? That's hardly comparing them to Nazi's, now, is it?

Do you disagree with that?

They haven't. I said they are using the same method, that of the "big lie" and vilify, vilify, villify until (*&*( freezes over, and frankly, sir, the quotes I've shown BY THEMSELVES prove this entirely.

Their argument tactics are unquestionably very similar to some of Goebbel's methods. DO YOU DENY THIS? (Note, that does not make them Nazi's, it means they USE THE SAME ARGUMENT TECHNIQUES.) DO you deny that they routinely vilify their opponents? Do you deny that they routinely state untruths about their opponents? Do you deny that they routinely engage in ad-hominem behaviors?

YES OR NO?

You would appear to think that I'm "wronging" them by pointing out their egregiously hideous behavior.

That's absurd and hypocritical on your part, sir.

[corplinx]

I feel so honored to be part of the vast right-wing jref conspiracy. I made a sarcastic claim and I'll defend it (sort of).

To me:
leftist communist/anti-theist
liberal progressive/secular
conservative traditional/religious
fundamentalist religious law/theocratic

So no, you are not a leftist by my definition. However, I haven't seen really progressive viewpoints from you or religious ones so it is hard to classify you so simplisticly. To me, you fall into that region I call the "tagalongs".

You show an utter disdain for anything that smells vaguely conservative but show no real liberal tendencies except secularism. The "tagalong" gets their political compass from whoever they think "smart" people listen to for humor. They show barely any understanding of rights/priveleges, duty, or the basic principles of ethics. Instead, their viewpoint seems to be hinged on whatever is currently en vogue for other secularists.

As a liberal myself, I don't see you as a moderate as much as you are simply another anti-Bush reactionary. If there is one thing for sure, its that you are not a conservative.

Happy?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by jj


Typical of you, as well, to misrepresent what I said in a more sophisticated fashions.

First, was there part of "they haven't seemed to be particular admirers of his Reich" that you missed? That's hardly comparing them to Nazi's, now, is it?

Do you disagree with that?

They haven't. I said they are using the same method, that of the "big lie" and vilify, vilify, villify until (*&*( freezes over, and frankly, sir, the quotes I've shown BY THEMSELVES prove this entirely.

Their argument tactics are unquestionably very similar to some of Goebbel's methods. DO YOU DENY THIS? (Note, that does not make them Nazi's, it means they USE THE SAME ARGUMENT TECHNIQUES.) DO you deny that they routinely vilify their opponents? Do you deny that they routinely state untruths about their opponents? Do you deny that they routinely engage in ad-hominem behaviors?

YES OR NO?

You would appear to think that I'm "wronging" them by pointing out their egregiously hideous behavior.

That's absurd and hypocritical on your part, sir.

Calm down.

Firstly you are misrepresenting me as I in one part of your argument right here: Note, that does not make them Nazi's, it means they USE THE SAME ARGUMENT TECHNIQUES. Well yes, that is why I said you are comparing them to Nazis, Goebbel being a Nazi and you are comparing them to him, ergo you are comparing them to Nazis.

Secondly, I never said they were right in skewing people's point of view. I never personally seen anyone here (with the exception of Huzzington but we are not going to count it as a person) that was happy over the death of US soldiers in Iraq. But those posts are slightly out of context and represent a point in the debate when it's at the end at they stopped arguing and start becoming angry because other people take their facts and transform them to something else. This happens a lot on this bored to the point where stating a fact becomes an hour-long debate.

The point of it all is both sides are guilty of this and singling out seldom quotes by either is kind of pointless because in the end only the facts remain and it's up to the individuals to make whatever they want out of them

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
I feel so honored to be part of the vast right-wing jref conspiracy. I made a sarcastic claim and I'll defend it (sort of).

To me:
leftist communist/anti-theist
liberal progressive/secular
conservative traditional/religious
fundamentalist religious law/theocratic

So no, you are not a leftist by my definition. However, I haven't seen really progressive viewpoints from you or religious ones so it is hard to classify you so simplisticly. To me, you fall into that region I call the "tagalongs".

You show an utter disdain for anything that smells vaguely conservative but show no real liberal tendencies except secularism. The "tagalong" gets their political compass from whoever they think "smart" people listen to for humor. They show barely any understanding of rights/priveleges, duty, or the basic principles of ethics. Instead, their viewpoint seems to be hinged on whatever is currently en vogue for other secularists.

As a liberal myself, I don't see you as a moderate as much as you are simply another anti-Bush reactionary. If there is one thing for sure, its that you are not a conservative.

Happy?

You're a liberal?

Well, let's examine your list:


leftist communist/anti-theist

(Now that's simple McCarthyist nonsense, Rik, that's all it is. Atheism, or antitheism are unrelated to communism except in that Marx wanted to replace all other religions with his own. Anti-theism can come from a lot of other places.)

As to me, I'm a flat-out atheist. I just don't believe. No evidence, no need to hypothesize the idea in the first place.


liberal progressive/secular


Yeah, I sure am secular, you got that one right.
On the other hand, I'm pro-abortion-rights (in other words I support the rights of every pregnant woman to decide for herself, EARLY IN THE PREGNANCY, but I'd rather not support abortion itself, except as a necessary evil), and anti-gun-control.

No idea where that puts me in your world.


conservative traditional/religious


I support tradition. Even though I told my kids the trVth about Santa Claus the first time they asked seriously, we still pretended just because it's fun to do so. I support, for the most part, a code of courtesies, just because it makes sense to do so. I am conservative because I conclude that the values that are incorporated into this constitution (as opposed to those in this administration, which are blatantly anti-constitution) are a very good idea.

I am not religious, and that's all there is to it. There is no reason to associate conservativism with religion. Right now, the religious "right" has taken over the conservative part of the political process, but in fact they are not conservative, they are radical reactionaries, just like the imams in Iran, people who wish to enforce their will on everyone.

But conservative, when I grew up, meant that you thought Barry Goldwater was a lot better choice than LBJ. I did then and I still do now. Barry Goldwater was a conservative. He wanted smaller government, a strong military, and little intrusion of government into private life. The issue of using the military or the "Homeland Security" agency to track down lawmakers who were being civilly disobedient would have appalled Goldwater. Goldwater was a strong proponent of scientific research (and also rather an opponent of waste, but not a Proxmire luddite of any sort).

Goldwater was a conservative by anyone's definitions. My positions today are very, very similar to his, and have been very similar to his for quite a while.

Let os compare:

What does the Bush administration want? They want:

The biggest government in history. They've outspent FDR and LBJ by so much you can't even compare the numbers sensibly.

Control of private lives by the government.

Control over political speech.

This administration dismisses the scientific for the politically expedient (the report on CO2, etc.

This administration gives at least some hearing to "creation science".

So, Rik, this administration isn't at all conservative, I frankly don't know what to call them, other than
(edited to add, sorry, corps, you surely aren't Rik)

REALLY REALLY BAD


Please don't take that as an endorsement of Gore. (blah!)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by jj

So, Rik, this administration isn't at all conservative, I frankly don't know what to call them, other than


I'm not Rik. At least you can blame senility since from your post it seems your really old.

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Calm down.


Don't much feel like that, I fear.


Firstly you are misrepresenting me as I in one part of your argument right here: Note, that does not make them Nazi's, it means they USE THE SAME ARGUMENT TECHNIQUES. Well yes, that is why I said you are comparing them to Nazis, Goebbel being a Nazi and you are comparing them to him, ergo you are comparing them to Nazis.



No, I'm comparing their ARGUMENT TACTICS to those of Goebbels. I am not comparing THEM.

Yes, I think there's a big difference. Perhaps we disagree.

I will insist that the people I quoted (and some others, the list is hardly exhaustive) routinely poison the well here when the debate starts.

I presume that some people think that I do that as well. If so, I dare say (and no, this is not a threat, it's not generally worth the time, or the ethical breach) you've never seen me try to poison the well.

The only time I've said anything that I didn't feel like particularly backing up was when I parodied these guys. It was a parody, the position was laughably indefensible, JUST LIKE THE ONES THESE GUYS WHAP US WITH. I think they still haven't managed to grok that it was a parody, either, I dare say that in their conciousness, I really do believe things like that.
(sheesh!)

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx


I'm not Rik. At least you can blame senility since from your post it seems your really old.

Sorry, you're right, you're not Rik.

Simple brain fault. Now, lay off on the senility. You can blame it on dyslexia all you want, you'd be right about that...

Have anything to say about the meat of the discussion?

[Mr Manifesto]

I guess the new tactic of JREF's ineffective centrists is to start a whiny thread every time they get dissed by a GDFM.

:D


(aw, c'mon- you thought it was funny, too!)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jj
Below, captured for posterity (I swear, I almost said posteriority) we see some of the gems from the new right:

Rikzilla, addressing me in http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32308&pagenumber=2


(Note, nowhere have I cheered the death of a single soldier. I am not a leftie, and very few of my friends are lefties. I tend to set "lefties" livid with fury.)

Corplinx, same thread:


(he neglects to mention that happens only when he or one of his buddies like RIk or JK calls me a "leftist" or a "pinko")

To Thanz, same thread:


(Thanz did NOT deserve any implied relationship to a holocaust denier in this thread, at least, but out the words came. Pure vilification.)

Tony, same thread:


(Pure vilification when facts fail the author.)

Rikzilla again, in the thread http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32326 says


(what do we see here? Well, first an accusation that I'm an overt, actual traitor, coupled with an invitation to engage in traitorous activities.

Their words are ill-intended and false at first examination.

There's one common thread here, it's exactly like one Goebbels used in 1930's Germany, and that's "vilify your enemies".

I wonder why they are doing the same thing as Goebbels, they haven't seemed to be particular admirers of his Reich.

The first time I complained about this attitude, I was given the same response. Fair enough, I thougt, if that's how you want to play the game. It does degrade the value of the forum, and repels people who may be interested in participating. I have been told in PMs by people that they agree with some of the things I say, it is just that they won't say it because they don't want to be attacked and vilified. These same people like to point out that they certainly don't agree with everything I say, but I would be worried if they did.

The loony left here appears to be anyone who doesn't agree with the doctrine of superior firepower and the superiority of the American nation.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The loony left here appears to be anyone who doesn't agree with the doctrine of superior firepower and the superiority of the American nation.

Careful, dude, I agree very much with the idea that superior firepower is a d**n good thing, and that this is a pretty good country, even with what's going on now.

And I'm part of the loony left, remember?

[jj]

Oh, and I apologize to Larspert, who richly deserved a place in this thread, but who I forgot to include.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The loony left here appears to be anyone who doesn't agree with the doctrine of superior firepower and the superiority of the American nation.

Sounds fair if you are a native born US citizen. EuroTrash & AussieScum only appear in 2 flavors; loony left, and loonier left.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
You show an utter disdain for anything that smells vaguely conservative but show no real liberal tendencies except secularism. The "tagalong" gets their political compass from whoever they think "smart" people listen to for humor. They show barely any understanding of rights/priveleges, duty, or the basic principles of ethics. Instead, their viewpoint seems to be hinged on whatever is currently en vogue for other secularists.


You know I was trying to be polite, but this is incredibly insulting.

Just because I don't accept your justifications for the meaning and reasons for/about rights does not mean that I haven't any understanding. Furthermore, the fact that you can't understand the reasoning behiond my positions does not mean that they are unsupported, inconsistant, or variable.

I've been in the "out group" since I started to grow up, I was a "conservative" when LBJ's crowd went for "IN your guts you know he's nuts", and now I'm a "leftie" when the other side is dominant. Oddly enough, my position on anything but religioun has changed very, very little. (Like most in the USA, I started out being told that I believed...Obviously, I didn't.)

It's very rude of you to assume that my positions "hinged on whatever is ...".

In fact, I'm calling on you to either support that nasty little bit of character assassination or retract it.

You will find, if you bothered to study what this opponent says, rather than simply react to it, that my positions are quite consistant, do not flap in any breeze, and that there is a firm philosophical, ethical, and sometimes scientific basis for my positions.

The fact that you merely make fun of of them does not excuse your ignorance of those facts.

[athon]

The problem is, anybody who associates with far left / right views is basing much of their sentiments on emotion. They feel angry, enraged, saddened, by certain actions and respond likewise. They fail to see how anybody could feel differently, and any form of empathy goes out the window. They become egocentric and cannot possibly see how it is humanly possible to understand the world in any way different to theirs.

So, when confronted with an argument, they utilise that emotion that they made their decisions with in the first place. Reason goes out the window and, faced with arguing without anything logical, they create fallacies to rage against. Hence, anybody who thinks there are ways to reach a conclusion without military action are automatically 'cheering the deaths of soldiers'. Likewise, anybody who thinks all military budgets should be cut thinks the right are all 'warmongers who are only interested in death and mayhem'.

I'm simply ashamed of some statements made on a forum where we endeavour to see both sides of an argument before making a stand. There is far too many claims made purely with the heart when it comes to war, patriotism and world politics.

Athon

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by hammegk


Sounds fair if you are a native born US citizen. EuroTrash & AussieScum only appear in 2 flavors; loony left, and loonier left.

Gosh, you mean I can't even become a US citizen and give you my opinion on your country? You let Rupert do that- Y'know, Lord Fair and Balanced?

Oh, well... I guess I'll just have to kick myself for making the mistake of not being born in the US.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jj


Careful, dude, I agree very much with the idea that superior firepower is a d**n good thing, and that this is a pretty good country, even with what's going on now.

And I'm part of the loony left, remember?

I would expect everyone to have pride in their country. But the likes of Rick only seem to see the world in terms of USA.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by athon

I'm simply ashamed of some statements made on a forum where we endeavour to see both sides of an argument before making a stand. There is far too many claims made purely with the heart when it comes to war, patriotism and world politics.



IMO, the real difference between US liberals & conservatives is that conservatives are willing to take a stand declaring some things "good" and others "evil". Liberals want to "negotiate" all points to an intermediate shade of grey.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


IMO, the real difference between US liberals & conservatives is that conservatives are willing to take a stand declaring some things "good" and others "evil". Liberals want to "negotiate" all points to an intermediate shade of grey.

Maybe some forum members are just more open to false dichotomy fallacies? Ie something or someone must be either good or evil. Two convenient catchbins that save you time in considering the situation/s in detail.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool


Maybe some forum members are just more open to false dichotomy fallacies? Ie something or someone must be either good or evil. Two convenient catchbins that save you time in considering the situation/s in detail.

Paralysis by analysis vs making a choice; that's another way to proceed. It's also a reason why working, long-term, moral systems often don't seem "logical".

"Us" vs "them" still provides the final answer so far as I read history, and interpret human nature; I admit I will selfishly prefer to be among the winners.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk
IMO, the real difference between US liberals & conservatives is that conservatives are willing to take a stand declaring some things "good" and others "evil". Liberals want to "negotiate" all points to an intermediate shade of grey.
Wow, Hammy! I never thought I'd get such a compliment from you. Yep, as a "US Liberal" I'm quite proud of the fact that I tend to listen to all aspects of a situation before I take a position. I don't automatically regard some things as "always bad" and others as "always good". I find that such intransigence is indicatave of a person who does not really wish to examine any views other than their own, nor are they willing to consider special circumstances.

However, I don't find the quality of open-mindedness unique to liberals. There are some liberals on the boards here who are just as prone to dichotomy (as Fool identified it) as the most recalcitrant conservative. My observation is that they are not as frequent, but that may be due to my tendency to side with liberals.

So tell, me Hamberton, what single thing can you name that is absolutely good, or absolutely bad?

[corplinx]

JJ, it seems to me that you are over-reacting to the overreaction of others. I see posters coming out of the woodwork who haven't posted much in the past few months to gloat over Saddam's capture.

Does this represent the tactics of the right wing cabal on this forum? No. It merely represents the elation they feel for backing the man who led the war to remove Saddam.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by hammegk

Liberals want to "negotiate" all points to an intermediate shade of grey.

Being a progressive/secular person doesn't mean you are a sissy moral relativist who is too mamby-pamby to judge others and sees huge grey areas on every issue.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

Wow, Hammy! I never thought I'd get such a compliment from you. Yep, as a "US Liberal" I'm quite proud of the fact that I tend to listen to all aspects of a situation before I take a position. I don't automatically regard some things as "always bad" and others as "always good". I find that such intransigence is indicatave of a person who does not really wish to examine any views other than their own, nor are they willing to consider special circumstances.

However, I don't find the quality of open-mindedness unique to liberals. There are some liberals on the boards here who are just as prone to dichotomy (as Fool identified it) as the most recalcitrant conservative. My observation is that they are not as frequent, but that may be due to my tendency to side with liberals.

So tell, me Hamberton, what single thing can you name that is absolutely good, or absolutely bad?

I'm sorry to interject here but I have absolutely bad thing I can name. That thing is rape. I have never in my entire life heard anything that would label it as good. Once again I am sorry to have interjected but I felt I should post the answer.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
JJ, it seems to me that you are over-reacting to the overreaction of others. I see posters coming out of the woodwork who haven't posted much in the past few months to gloat over Saddam's capture.

Does this represent the tactics of the right wing cabal on this forum? No. It merely represents the elation they feel for backing the man who led the war to remove Saddam.
I agree with corplinx. This is a very happy day for many people. They have the right to celebrate a little. If they choose to do so by saying "neener neener neener" at people with whom they have disagreed in the past, well, I think I can handle it.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
JJ, it seems to me that you are over-reacting to the overreaction of others. I see posters coming out of the woodwork who haven't posted much in the past few months to gloat over Saddam's capture.

Does this represent the tactics of the right wing cabal on this forum? No. It merely represents the elation they feel for backing the man who led the war to remove Saddam.

Well, I am not upset that they caught the weasel.

But the way people behave here, well, that's beyond the pale.

Got anything to back up your claim that my position flops about?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I'm sorry to interject here but I have absolutely bad thing I can name. That thing is rape. I have never in my entire life heard anything that would label it as good. Once again I am sorry to have interjected but I felt I should post the answer.
Wow you gave me a tough one, and believe me, as a dedicated male feminist, I find almost all rape inexcusable.

But there are still gray areas. Is it the man's job to judge if a woman is actually consenting, or is just sloppy drunk? What about a case of statutory rape where the "victim" would have been legal the next day? What about cases where a woman, after reviewing the situation, decides later that she was raped, but didn't think so at the time?

Now, for the coup de gras of hypothetical situations, suppose you were the last man and woman in the world and the future of humanity depended on you having children and she wanted to have children and continue the species, but she was too frightened of sex to do it willingly?

So you see, there are gray areas in everything, even such a horrible crime as rape.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tricky

I agree with corplinx. This is a very happy day for many people. They have the right to celebrate a little. If they choose to do so by saying "neener neener neener" at people with whom they have disagreed in the past, well, I think I can handle it.

Exactly, that's what I'm doing, handling it.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

Wow you gave me a tough one, and believe me, as a dedicated male feminist, I find almost all rape inexcusable.

But there are still gray areas. Is it the man's job to judge if a woman is actually consenting, or is just sloppy drunk? What about a case of statutory rape where the "victim" would have been legal the next day? What about cases where a woman, after reviewing the situation, decides later that she was raped, but didn't think so at the time?

Now, for the coup de gras of hypothetical situations, suppose you were the last man and woman in the world and the future of humanity depended on you having children and she wanted to have children and continue the species, but she was too frightened of sex to do it willingly?

So you see, there are gray areas in everything, even such a horrible crime as rape.

I think once it's established as rape your argument mostly fades with the exception of hypothetical situation. And that situation is so far into hypothetical that it's almost silly to even consider it. However, if she and I were the last two people on Earth I doubt us having children would be that big of deal, something big has happened that would cause us to die soon anyway.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I think once it's established as rape your argument mostly fades with the exception of hypothetical situation. big has happened that would cause us to die soon anyway.
But defining "rape" is a very difficult thing. Obviously all of us reject the taking of an unwilling woman by force.

The one I wish you had answered was the statutory rape one. Is it rape to convince a seven-year old to have sex with you? Absolutely. How about 13? How about 15 and-a-half? How about a 30-year-old retarded person?

At what point does it become rape? Kinda depends on the individual, does it not? Gray gray gray.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by corplinx


Being a progressive/secular person doesn't mean you are a sissy moral relativist who is too mamby-pamby to judge others and sees huge grey areas on every issue.

I agree with you on that Corplinx.

You the funny thing is, that the extremists on the forums refer to liberals as JK would put it... leftie pinko communist... which by it's deffinition is a n oxymoron.

I am just suprised by the fact that extreme rightists refer to us as pinko commie.

This is ironic because the colors for French Parliament, before the French Revolution were these:

Red = Radical (Leftie)

Pink = Moderate (Centrist/Liberal)

White = Reactionary (Conservative/Extreme Conservative)


Originally posted by corplinx
JJ, it seems to me that you are over-reacting to the overreaction of others. I see posters coming out of the woodwork who haven't posted much in the past few months to gloat over Saddam's capture.

Does this represent the tactics of the right wing cabal on this forum? No. It merely represents the elation they feel for backing the man who led the war to remove Saddam.

Excellent comment Corplinx.

The sad thing, there will always be Neo-Conservatives that will remain Ferrous Cranous (Iron Headed).

Meaning that they will never listen to your arguments, and just pull an ad hominem out of their @ss for just the sheer joy of hoping to anger you.

For these types of people, I just say put them on ignore, or ignore there arguments. The only exception being that they actually make an argument without fallacy... especially fallacies similar to Argument of Ignorance, like Rikzilla pulls out of his @ss more often then anyone else on the forums.


Just ignore him and cool your jets for a while jj.


Take a break, get a nice cup of tea, and relax. You deserve it, and it might actually help with clearing your mind up a bit. :)

[Jessica Blue]

I'm not sure what to make of this discussion. Threads like this are a gray area...:D

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I think once it's established as rape your argument mostly fades with the exception of hypothetical situation. And that situation is so far into hypothetical that it's almost silly to even consider it. However, if she and I were the last two people on Earth I doubt us having children would be that big of deal, something big has happened that would cause us to die soon anyway.

Grammatron:


It is not necessarily the best idea to immediately take one side of an argument when an issue is presented.

This is one thing that debate has taught me over the years.

If you ignore the other side of the argument, you are making and egregious fallacy known as, argument of ignorance.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

But defining "rape" is a very difficult thing. Obviously all of us reject the taking of an unwilling woman by force.

The one I wish you had answered was the statutory rape one. Is it rape to convince a seven-year old to have sex with you? Absolutely. How about 13? How about 15 and-a-half? How about a 30-year-old retarded person?

At what point does it become rape? Kinda depends on the individual, does it not? Gray gray gray.

I agree with you that there are gray areas to many things. But there are a lot of things when looked at could be pretty much black. Rape being one of them, another is biological weapons being used...can you find gray in that area?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


Grammatron:


It is not necessarily the best idea to immediately take one side of an argument when an issue is presented.

This is one thing that debate has taught me over the years.

If you ignore the other side of the argument, you are making and egregious fallacy known as, argument of ignorance.

Agreed. However, if you learn person A raped person B (with out a doubt) do you need to look into if A was justified to rape B?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I agree with you that there are gray areas to many things. But there are a lot of things when looked at could be pretty much black. Rape being one of them, another is biological weapons being used...can you find gray in that area?
Absolutely. That is easy, compared to rape.

If my family were about to be wiped out by invaders, I would use any means at my disposal, including biological weapons, to prevent it, or if that was not possible, kill those who had done it. If I had an envelope of anthrax, I would throw it in their faces. Wouldn't you? Yes, it would be a stupid thing to do, but when you are faced with a situation where you have to defend your loved ones, then you would use what you have.

It's a real good reason why we don't allow anthrax. It could be considered a good reason not to allow guns.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Tricky
Yep, as a "US Liberal" I'm quite proud of the fact that I tend to listen to all aspects of a situation before I take a position. I don't automatically regard some things as "always bad" and others as "always good". I find that such intransigence is indicatave of a person who does not really wish to examine any views other than their own, nor are they willing to consider special circumstances.Hear, hear!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

Absolutely. That is easy, compared to rape.

If my family were about to be wiped out by invaders, I would use any means at my disposal, including biological weapons, to prevent it, or if that was not possible, kill those who had done it. If I had an envelope of anthrax, I would throw it in their faces. Wouldn't you? Yes, it would be a stupid thing to do, but when you are faced with a situation where you have to defend your loved ones, then you would use what you have.

It's a real good reason why we don't allow anthrax. It could be considered a good reason not to allow guns.

I don't know any gun that causes generational damages (or am I thinking chemical weapons? I always confused effects of these), and that's a different argument all together :)

So you are advocating any means necessary to fight people that want to kill you or your family?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

Absolutely. That is easy, compared to rape.

If my family were about to be wiped out by invaders, I would use any means at my disposal, including biological weapons, to prevent it, or if that was not possible, kill those who had done it. If I had an envelope of anthrax, I would throw it in their faces. Wouldn't you? Yes, it would be a stupid thing to do, but when you are faced with a situation where you have to defend your loved ones, then you would use what you have.

It's a real good reason why we don't allow anthrax. It could be considered a good reason not to allow guns.

Why? So you couldn't defend them? I'm not sure you thought this out before posting it. You may have wanted to use being attacked by something like guns or anthrax, not defending yourself. I'm not a surgeon, but attack me and you'll lose organs. Is that a good reason to not allow surgeons?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll
Why? So you couldn't defend them? I'm not sure you thought this out before posting it. You may have wanted to use being attacked by something like guns or anthrax, not defending yourself. I'm not a surgeon, but attack me and you'll lose organs. Is that a good reason to not allow surgeons?
Troll? Troll? Are you in there? Are you okay? Say something. Something intelligible.

Okay, guys. Troll's hurt. He's babblin' I'm goin' in. If I don't come out, throw in the anthrax.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

Troll? Troll? Are you in there? Are you okay? Say something. Something intelligible.

Okay, guys. Troll's hurt. He's babblin' I'm goin' in. If I don't come out, throw in the anthrax.

You did in fact say :

"If my family were about to be wiped out by invaders, I would use any means at my disposal, including biological weapons, to prevent it, or if that was not possible, kill those who had done it. If I had an envelope of anthrax, I would throw it in their faces. Wouldn't you? Yes, it would be a stupid thing to do, but when you are faced with a situation where you have to defend your loved ones, then you would use what you have.

It's a real good reason why we don't allow anthrax. It could be considered a good reason not to allow guns."

Read your own words dude. You would use whatever method or item to kill or prevent anyone from hurting you or yours, then make the claim that it's a good reason not to allow those two items you mentioned. I naturally presumed we could interchange objects, perhaps even professions.

And if some weak attempt at belittling me or insulting me or whatever that crap was in your last post was, is the best you can do in response then you have my sympathies

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll


You did in fact say :

"If my family were about to be wiped out by invaders, I would use any means at my disposal, including biological weapons, to prevent it, or if that was not possible, kill those who had done it. If I had an envelope of anthrax, I would throw it in their faces. Wouldn't you? Yes, it would be a stupid thing to do, but when you are faced with a situation where you have to defend your loved ones, then you would use what you have.

It's a real good reason why we don't allow anthrax. It could be considered a good reason not to allow guns."

Read your own words dude. You would use whatever method or item to kill or prevent anyone from hurting you or yours, then make the claim that it's a good reason not to allow those two items you mentioned.
Yep. I said I would use anything. I'm human and I love my family. I would do stuff that would be absolutely stupid in order to protect them, including stuff that would likely be more dangerous to them than the invader. That's a real good reason to prevent stupid humans (like us) from being allowed to own things that cause more damage than they prevent. However, being a stupid human, I know that in the heat of the moment that wouldn't matter to me. That is why we have so many "crimes of passion". However, I will stop that particular theme right here, lest this get derailed into another of those endless and unproductive gun threads.

Originally posted by Troll
I naturally presumed we could interchange objects, perhaps even professions.
And that's where you started to wander into Nonsequiturland. I honestly could not figure out what point you were trying to make. I was afraid you might be having a seizure. I was ready to pull your tongue out.:p

Originally posted by Troll
And if some weak attempt at belittling me or insulting me or whatever that crap was in your last post was, is the best you can do in response then you have my sympathies
LOL. Well, thank you for your sympathetic wishes. I admit, it was a very weak flame. If you want to go tong and hammer, then meet me in the Flame Wars forum, where we can engage in good natured insults without restraint and without hijacking these threads. Believe me, I was gentle with you. :D

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yep. I said I would use anything. I'm human and I love my family. I would do stuff that would be absolutely stupid in order to protect them, including stuff that would likely be more dangerous to them than the invader. That's a real good reason to prevent stupid humans (like us) from being allowed to own things that cause more damage than they prevent. However, being a stupid human, I know that in the heat of the moment that wouldn't matter to me. That is why we have so many "crimes of passion". However, I will stop that particular theme right here, lest this get derailed into another of those endless and unproductive gun threads.


And that's where you started to wander into Nonsequiturland. I honestly could not figure out what point you were trying to make. I was afraid you might be having a seizure. I was ready to pull your tongue out.:p


LOL. Well, thank you for your sympathetic wishes. I admit, it was a very weak flame. If you want to go tong and hammer, then meet me in the Flame Wars forum, where we can engage in good natured insults without restraint and without hijacking these threads. Believe me, I was gentle with you. :D

Look slow child, I don't give a rat's ass if you were easy or as harsh as you could be. the fact is, the best you can do is attempts at flames. Stick to the name calling. It seems to be your strong point. Logic sure as hell ain't

[jj]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

For these types of people, I just say put them on ignore, or ignore there arguments. The only exception being that they actually make an argument without fallacy... especially fallacies similar to Argument of Ignorance, like Rikzilla pulls out of his @ss more often then anyone else on the forums.


Just ignore him and cool your jets for a while jj.


Take a break, get a nice cup of tea, and relax. You deserve it, and it might actually help with clearing your mind up a bit. :)

Well, Theodore, I think that guys like Rikzilla actually believe exactly what they say.

Corps is guilty more of piling on, and of saying insulting things like suggesting that his opponents are wishy-washy moral relativists, but without showing them wishing and washing, and without demonstrating any relativism.

But, frankly, they pull this kind of spit all the time on anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater, and it's about time that we just show it for the hateful spit it is.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yep. I said I would use anything. I'm human and I love my family. I would do stuff that would be absolutely stupid in order to protect them, including stuff that would likely be more dangerous to them than the invader. That's a real good reason to prevent stupid humans (like us) from being allowed to own things that cause more damage than they prevent. However, being a stupid human, I know that in the heat of the moment that wouldn't matter to me. That is why we have so many "crimes of passion". However, I will stop that particular theme right here, lest this get derailed into another of those endless and unproductive gun threads.


And that's where you started to wander into Nonsequiturland. I honestly could not figure out what point you were trying to make. I was afraid you might be having a seizure. I was ready to pull your tongue out.:p


LOL. Well, thank you for your sympathetic wishes. I admit, it was a very weak flame. If you want to go tong and hammer, then meet me in the Flame Wars forum, where we can engage in good natured insults without restraint and without hijacking these threads. Believe me, I was gentle with you. :D

I just have to ask ya this. Was this some weak attempt to recruit people to the flame wars for you? I mean you really can't see how freaking stupid your post that got my reply was? Hell, I was nice and didn't call you the moron ytou appeared to be. I merely suggested better wording

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll
Look slow child, I don't give a rat's ass if you were easy or as harsh as you could be. the fact is, the best you can do is attempts at flames. Stick to the name calling. It seems to be your strong point. Logic sure as hell ain't
Ah, my petite pois, you are dealing with powers beyond your comprehension. Best you stay safe and warm in your little make-believe world. I would hate to burn such a waif with cruel flame. Yet, if you insist, then PM me (if you have discovered how to do it) and we will find a dueling ground. No?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

Ah, my petite pois, you are dealing with powers beyond your comprehension. Best you stay safe and warm in your little make-believe world. I would hate to burn such a waif with cruel flame. Yet, if you insist, then PM me (if you have discovered how to do it) and we will find a dueling ground. No?

Ha ha. What are you, like in the late teens early 20's? Started thinking you had the great slams because some of your drunken friends complimented you on a few zingers. You wanna dance with the big boys then you seek them out. You're the one so interested in flames over substinance. so you find me. I'll gladly settle this crap off board with ya and save you the public humiliation

[Troll]

Better yet junior, if you want a flame war call me out over there where it's appropriate. I'll give you 72 hours to figure out what that means

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll


Ha ha. What are you, like in the late teens early 20's? Started thinking you had the great slams because some of your drunken friends complimented you on a few zingers. You wanna dance with the big boys then you seek them out. You're the one so interested in flames over substinance. so you find me. I'll gladly settle this crap off board with ya and save you the public humiliation As you wish (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32351)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by hammegk


IMO, the real difference between US liberals & conservatives is that conservatives are willing to take a stand declaring some things "good" and others "evil". Liberals want to "negotiate" all points to an intermediate shade of grey.

the last time I looked at things in terms of good and evil was when I was in grade 3. I think I really wanted the world in black and white so I could make sense of it in my limited perspective on the world.

Its a shame really; If I hadn't grown as a person and had managed to keep a strict black and white view, everything would be so clear, well defined, categorised, labelled and absolute.





False Dichotomy (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22201&highlight=false+dichotomy)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Tricky


So tell, me Hamberton, what single thing can you name that is absolutely good, or absolutely bad?

I know this question went out to Hamberton but I will present an informed response:


Green jube-jube bears are absolutely good; red jube jube dinosaurs are absolutley bad.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The first time I complained about this attitude, I was given the same response. Fair enough, I thougt, if that's how you want to play the game. It does degrade the value of the forum, and repels people who may be interested in participating. I have been told in PMs by people that they agree with some of the things I say, it is just that they won't say it because they don't want to be attacked and vilified. These same people like to point out that they certainly don't agree with everything I say, but I would be worried if they did.

The loony left here appears to be anyone who doesn't agree with the doctrine of superior firepower and the superiority of the American nation.

I don't know which was the first time that you complained but frankly Unique as somebody who has spent hours discussing with you I believe that you deserve a lot of bashing and you are not the only one from those that belong to the " left" that deserve a hammegk upon them.

I exclude JJ because I haven't followed much his posts in the politics forum although JJ you have your way to piss off people. The bright exception is Tricky whose posts are funny, refreshing but never insulting.

You people complain about the "methods" of the Right but you seem to overlook that the typical leftist method that I have seen it widely demonstrated in this forum is a pseudo-serious writing style that ridicules the views of the posters instead of debating them. Let's not forget, character assassination was first introduced as a debating method by Lenin. And you, my dearest Unique are a champion in that.

[a_unique_person]

Like I said Cleo, I complained about personal attacks, and was laughed at. Just as long as I know the rules, I will play by them.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Grammatron

However, if she and I were the last two people on Earth I doubt us having children would be that big of deal, something big has happened that would cause us to die soon anyway.

Well, you'll never make it with that defeatist attitude! :p

:D

Adam

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

The bright exception is Tricky whose posts are funny, refreshing but never insulting.
I can't believe you would say such a hurtful thing. All my insults are finly crafted from the best quality, hand-made jokes and puns. And now you tell me they are not insulting??!!

I'm insulted.:mad:

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

I can't believe you would say such a hurtful thing. All my insults are finly crafted from the best quality, hand-made jokes and puns. And now you tell me they are not insulting??!!

I'm insulted.:mad:
Insults? Guess that's the best you can afford a topic?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by corplinx


I'm not Rik. At least you can blame senility since from your post it seems your really old.

:D :D :D

I am Rik.... and I'm wondering why jj has become so obsessed with me?

:D :D :D

But seriously jj, I'm sorry for you. I hope that someday you and your doctors will find the right combination of meds.

Godspeed,
-z

[hammegk]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


the last time I looked at things in terms of good and evil was when I was in grade 3.

Yeah, the combination of the media message of sex/violence/anything-that-sells-is-ok coupled with school systems that teach that message are much of the problem.

What is "bad"? Ten megatons on Jerusalem, or the unavenged death of any US citizen.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by jj
Oh, and I apologize to Larspert, who richly deserved a place in this thread, but who I forgot to include.

Just make sure you spell my name right next time. There is another 'a' in my name.

I hate when simpletons try to use 'hip jargon' like 'New Right' all the time. I am perfectly content being 'Old Right'. Also, since I am a libertarian (I believe in legalizing drugs, prostitution, abortion, reducing gun laws, and a number of other progressive/leftist reforms) it is tough to call me New or Old Right.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk
What is "bad"? ... the unavenged death of any US citizen.
Any US citizen? So if you kill a US citizen who is in the process of raping someone, that is bad, eh? He should be avenged.

(Listening for the sounds of tap dancing.)

[BTox]

Any comments on the tactics of the jref "new right of center"? ;)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

Any US citizen? So if you kill a US citizen who is in the process of raping someone, that is bad, eh? He should be avenged.



Yeah, I knew that example wasn't absolutely defensible on it's face.

I suspect adding weasel words to "clarify" won't help much either; we could perhaps reach agreement that the citizen in question didn't deserve to die based on his own acts.

Want to try justifying a radioactive crater that was Jerusalem?

Could we skip the bs about "well, gee, what if they had ..... first"; and the destruction was retaliation for an Israeli first-strike.

[c0rbin]

I am all for freedom of expression, but this thread seems like it should be a PM.

Personal attacks are signs of weakness--in argument and in interpersonal relations. Crying about them is worse.

[hammegk]

Dammit. Unintended post.

[American]

Originally posted by jj

There's one common thread here, it's exactly like one Goebbels used in 1930's Germany, and that's "vilify your enemies".

I wonder why they are doing the same thing as Goebbels, they haven't seemed to be particular admirers of his Reich.


True, we vilify what we judge to be vile. That's very noble of us, and it's something you should do yourself- call evil when you see it.

You're comparing us to Nazis, ironically. That's NOT vilifying? Hypocrite.

[Sundog]

You've put your finger on the main reason I am no longer a regular here. America is doomed unless we root out this cancer of hyperconservatism. And it isn't very far off to compare it to the Nazis, I don't care who doesn't like it.

(The other reason I'm no longer here is that I refuse to lend my implicit blessing to the hyper-aggressive school of "skepticism" that's completely taken over here.)

The typical right-winger here is... let's not mince words... simply STUPID. There's just no other word for it. They're the slow kids. The intelligent conservatives like RandFan have bailed and all we're left with is the Bubbas and their gun racks and their "SHUT THE HELL UP"s.

I hope the pendelum swings back some day, but I now avoid these people like the plague in my everyday life and see no reason to pretend to be friendly with borderline psychopaths like Rik. They need to be educated to the fact that they are the ENEMIES of America, not its saviours.

It is a matter of life and death to defeat the conservative cancer that is destroying this country.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Sundog
It is a matter of life and death to defeat the conservative cancer that is destroying this country.

Did law school drill that into your head, or was it all your schooling/media exposure, or did you think it up all by yourself?

I suspect you in a minority with that view; even though there is no "vast right-wing conspiracy" that I've been able to identify (so I could join should I wish to ;) ).

[American]

Originally posted by Sundog

The typical right-winger here is... let's not mince words... simply STUPID. There's just no other word for it. They're the slow kids. The intelligent conservatives like RandFan have bailed and all we're left with is the Bubbas and their gun racks and their "SHUT THE HELL UP"s.


The stupider you think I am, the easier my job becomes. If you've underestimated us, it's by our own choosing. That's how smart we really are.

And please, stop playing victim. If this country dislikes you, it's for very good reasons. You endanger our very lives, not only our way of life, and your values stink as well.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Sundog
You've put your finger on the main reason I am no longer a regular here. America is doomed unless we root out this cancer of hyperconservatism. And it isn't very far off to compare it to the Nazis, I don't care who doesn't like it.

Change "hyperconservatism" to "communism" and you have a rant worthy of McCarthy. Bravo!

(The other reason I'm no longer here is that I refuse to lend my implicit blessing to the hyper-aggressive school of "skepticism" that's completely taken over here.)

For someone not here you sure do have alot to say. :rolleyes:

The typical right-winger here is... let's not mince words... simply STUPID. There's just no other word for it. They're the slow kids. The intelligent conservatives like RandFan have bailed and all we're left with is the Bubbas and their gun racks and their "SHUT THE HELL UP"s.

Sundog,...you surely must be aware of the threads and polls (many of which you personally participated) which show liberals to vastly outnumber us psycho right-wingers here?? Also it would serve well to remind everyone just who this arch-hyper-conservative monster Rikzilla really is:

A pro-choice, Teamsters Local 111 shop steward, who believes firmly in women's rights and keeping God out of our government.

I wonder how Sundog would characterize a guy like Pat Robertson, or would he just fall over dead of apoplexy just trying to find the words? Inquiring minds wanna know!

I hope the pendelum swings back some day, but I now avoid these people like the plague in my everyday life and see no reason to pretend to be friendly with borderline psychopaths like Rik. They need to be educated to the fact that they are the ENEMIES of America, not its saviours.

IMHO the real enemies of America look at the capture of Saddam, and can only feel pity for their own backing of the wrong political horse. If the dems have any sense of decency left then Joe Lieberman will be their nominee.

It is a matter of life and death to defeat the conservative cancer that is destroying this country.
:rolleyes:

The ahem "pendelum" (sic) has swung. We are reaping the crop that liberals have sown during 8 years of the reign of the kinky/stinky cigar man. Have you seen the recent polls showing that young adults are now more conservative than ever? Encouraging, isn't it? They are the future after all.

-z

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog
You've put your finger on the main reason I am no longer a regular here. America is doomed unless we root out this cancer of hyperconservatism. And it isn't very far off to compare it to the Nazis, I don't care who doesn't like it.

(The other reason I'm no longer here is that I refuse to lend my implicit blessing to the hyper-aggressive school of "skepticism" that's completely taken over here.)

The typical right-winger here is... let's not mince words... simply STUPID. There's just no other word for it. They're the slow kids. The intelligent conservatives like RandFan have bailed and all we're left with is the Bubbas and their gun racks and their "SHUT THE HELL UP"s.

I hope the pendelum swings back some day, but I now avoid these people like the plague in my everyday life and see no reason to pretend to be friendly with borderline psychopaths like Rik. They need to be educated to the fact that they are the ENEMIES of America, not its saviours.

It is a matter of life and death to defeat the conservative cancer that is destroying this country.


I never thought you could be this stupid but here it is. Stick to smoking the green, politics is definitely not your forte'. If you'd like to know the real cancer, I'd be happy to tell you (Hint: it's not "conservatives" or "liberals")

[hgc]

Originally posted by Sundog
...

(The other reason I'm no longer here is that I refuse to lend my implicit blessing to the hyper-aggressive school of "skepticism" that's completely taken over here.)

...Are you !Xx+-Rational-+xX!?

[Cleopatra]

Sundog!!!! You are here!!! http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/carrot.gif

:)

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by rikzilla



A pro-choice, Teamsters Local 111 shop steward, who believes firmly in women's rights and keeping God out of our government.



-z

Teamster eh? That explains where You find all the time to post so much =)

[shecky]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The ahem "pendelum" (sic) has swung. We are reaping the crop that liberals have sown during 8 years of the reign of the kinky/stinky cigar man. Have you seen the recent polls showing that young adults are now more conservative than ever? Encouraging, isn't it? They are the future after all.

-z

It is encouraging, since conservatives are the keepers of the religious flame in the US. Creationists, faith healers, battling phantom satans and communists. Since conservatives are perfectly fine with government getting into your bedroom, all the while making government bigger than it's ever been in the name of Good vs Evil.

[shecky]

Originally posted by American



You're comparing us to Nazis, ironically. That's NOT vilifying?

Truth hurts, does it not?

[jj]

Originally posted by Troll
Better yet junior, if you want a flame war call me out over there where it's appropriate. I'll give you 72 hours to figure out what that means

Now that's comic, it took YOU a whole night to find where Tricky started the flame wars, but you're setting the deadline?

Nice assistant, but the trick didn't work.

[shecky]

Originally posted by hammegk


Did law school drill that into your head, or was it all your schooling/media exposure, or did you think it up all by yourself?

I suspect you in a minority with that view; even though there is no "vast right-wing conspiracy" that I've been able to identify (so I could join should I wish to ;) ).

All the intelligence and wit of Rush Limabaugh rolled up in one JREF poster...

I'll bet you can't keep the women away, you sly dog, you... ;)

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla


:D :D :D

I am Rik.... and I'm wondering why jj has become so obsessed with me?

:D :D :D

But seriously jj, I'm sorry for you. I hope that someday you and your doctors will find the right combination of meds.

Godspeed,
-z

Right down the same old road. Vilify, vilify, vilify. Lie, cheat, omit, avoid, and vilify.

Rik, what about where you tried to recruit me to join a terrorist organization.

Have anything to say about that, Patriot?

[jj]

Originally posted by Larspeart


Just make sure you spell my name right next time. There is another 'a' in my name.

I hate when simpletons try to use 'hip jargon' like 'New Right' all the time. I am perfectly content being 'Old Right'. Also, since I am a libertarian (I believe in legalizing drugs, prostitution, abortion, reducing gun laws, and a number of other progressive/leftist reforms) it is tough to call me New or Old Right.

Ok, then I'll just call you someone who should know better than to build up a straw man to attack someone about something they didn't say, Lars.

How's that? Now, the time you showed up to pitch in was, shall we say, badly chosen, but I guess you get to have bad timing...

[jj]

Originally posted by American



True, we vilify what we judge to be vile. That's very noble of us, and it's something you should do yourself- call evil when you see it.


Good, let's talk about your attitude about women. That's vile and evil.

On the other hand, the lies that Rik (and some others now) have used to vilify others can have nothing to do with "judgement" given that they are strictly invented lies.


You're comparing us to Nazis, ironically. That's NOT vilifying? Hypocrite.

Must you lie again? I compared your argument tactics to Goebbels, in specific, not you to a Nazi.

Now, I'm not sure, given some of your other performances, both of those comparisons may in fact be appropriate, but I don't know that, yet, so I haven't said it.

You've just lied about what I said, and claimed otherwise.

Why does it not surprise me that you feel free to lie?

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Change "hyperconservatism" to "communism" and you have a rant worthy of McCarthy. Bravo!


I'm not surprised you'd recognize a rant worthy of McCarthy, given your summary of what conservative and liberal mean, and your association of religious beliefs with each.

A pro-choice, Teamsters Local 111 shop steward, who believes firmly in women's rights and keeping God out of our government.

Well, good for you. You know, that's not what your writing looks like at all. Perhaps you should consider that.



As to the "pendulum", well, I see you pushing as hard as you can in the direction of totalitarian religious rule, which is exactly what the present government wants.

That's an odd action for someone with your espoused positions.

Face it, Rik, supporting this government, unfortunately, means supporting not only a strong military, but also god in the government. I'm suprised you can't see that yet.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



I never thought you could be this stupid but here it is. Stick to smoking the green, politics is definitely not your forte'. If you'd like to know the real cancer, I'd be happy to tell you (Hint: it's not "conservatives" or "liberals")

Vilification. Goebbels would be proud of your rhetorical methods. I'm not sure he'd be happy about your political position, but since you didn't bother to state it, that's a separate issue.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Vilification. Goebbels would be proud of your rhetorical methods. I'm not sure he'd be happy about your political position, but since you didn't bother to state it, that's a separate issue.


:dl: :dl:


There should be a law against letting people in nursing homes use the internet.

[Zero]

Originally posted by athon


I'm simply ashamed of some statements made on a forum where we endeavour to see both sides of an argument before making a stand. There is far too many claims made purely with the heart when it comes to war, patriotism and world politics.

Athon Actually, I think the real shame is not in seeing both "sides", but in ignoring the vast middle ground, which is the place in which real dialogue happens, and where real progress is made.
Instead, name-calling seems to be the best many can come up with, which is a shame.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



:dl: :dl:


There should be a law against letting people in nursing homes use the internet.

More vilification.

That's all you can manage, lies, hatred, and vilification.

Now, perhaps you'd better explain to the world just what kind of "nursing home" I live in and what kind of "nursing home" I work in, Tony. Care to address some facts? You can hit the "www" button at the bottom any time you want.

I dare say that it nearly looked like corps was trying to actually engage me in a conversation, but he's disappeared (well, real life does intervene, too). I can't dismiss that yet.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by jj

Face it, Rik, supporting this government, unfortunately, means supporting not only a strong military, but also god in the government. I'm suprised you can't see that yet.

Unlike you I tend to prioritize.

#1. Win the war
#2. The economy/jobs
#3. Reform NAFTA...or dump it.
#4. Lower taxes
#5. Misc social issues....such as keeping the 10 suggestions out of government

Oversimplified,...but in a nutshell I don't ever again want to see 3,000 fellow taxpayers star in the ultimate snuff film. I believe with good reason that GWB's continued presence in the Oval office is my best bet to accomplish that goal. Everything else takes a backseat.

-z

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


More vilification.

That's all you can manage, lies, hatred, and vilification.




:dl:

I got news for you moron, this whole thread has been about your lies, hatred and villification. If you cant take it, dont dish it out pussy.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Now, perhaps you'd better explain to the world just what kind of "nursing home" I live in and what kind of "nursing home" I work in, Tony. Care to address some facts? You can hit the "www" button at the bottom any time you want.




Why did you use such a bad picture? I guess if I was such a nerd, I would be filled with as much hate and anger as you.

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Unlike you I tend to prioritize.


Really. So now, because my priorities are different, I don't prioritize?

Are you applying for the JREF prize, Rik? You should, if you believe that bit of vile rot you just spewed out of your (*&(*, because you're claiming to read my mind.

But let me give you a hint, Rik, you're not going to win it, you have to read somebody's mind and BE RIGHT.

Better luck next time.


#1. Win the war
#2. The economy/jobs
#3. Reform NAFTA...or dump it.
#4. Lower taxes
#5. Misc social issues....such as keeping the 10 suggestions out of government


So, you prefer to deal with effect first, and cause later? Well, you could make a case for that, I suppose. Want to try?


Oversimplified,...but in a nutshell I don't ever again want to see 3,000 fellow taxpayers star in the ultimate snuff film.


Rik, I used to see those buildings from my bedroom window.

I knew people who worked there, and at least one who didn't come home that night.

Don't start implying that people who disagree with your approach to the problem are trying to diminish that act of war.


I believe with good reason that GWB's continued presence in the Oval office is my best bet to accomplish that goal. Everything else takes a backseat.

-z

You believe, but I sincerely doubt your "good reason". GWB's leadership has been appalling, and he has risked setting us up in a war or wars with most of the rest of the world, in order to steal some oil from a nasty dictator (let's be clear, I don't like Saddamn any more than anyone else here) for some really lame reasons, and reasons that looked lame from day 1.

I was hoping that WMD would show up. I was hoping that some credible evidence that Saddamn supported Al-Quaida would show up, but we haven't seen any of that.

What we've seen is a militarily competent (to say the least it was competent) invasion, followed by a stunningly inept occupation that almost seems designed to turn the citizens against us.

That's hardly working for peace, Rik.

While this lame leader is waving about his invasion, he's working on curtailing our civil liberties, encouraging intrusion of faith into places that it's not legally allowed to be, and putting people like Ashcroft and Ridge in places of trust, with no oversight at all.

Rik, wake up, he's not on your side.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



:dl:

I got news for you moron, this whole thread has been about your lies, hatred and villification. If you cant take it, dont dish it out pussy.

Really? I quoted, directly and honestly, the responses of you and your vilification brigade.

You say that my direct, in-context quotes are now "lies, hatred and vilification"?

You, sir, are a liar of extraordinary dishonestly.

I shall so note.

Now, you have to admit that my original summary of you folks' performance was honest, direct, and forthright, simply because the evidence is all here at hand, so you admit, then, further, that the only response of you and those like you is to add more vilification to that already honestly and clearly documented in my original article in this thread.

In other words, you admit that you have nothing to offer this board, nothing to offer this country, and nothing to offer this world, except for the expenditure of some energy and some disc space.

In short, you admit you're worthless.

How pathetic.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



Why did you use such a bad picture? I guess if I was such a nerd, I would be filled with as much hate and anger as you.

Remember the nerd's revenge, Tony, it's "living well".

You, on the other hand, have nothing more to offer than a grade-school attack on someone's appearance.

Typical, and right on track.

You really read the book well, didn't you? Did you read it in the original or in translation?

[Zero]

Originally posted by jj


You believe, but I sincerely doubt your "good reason". GWB's leadership has been appalling, and he has risked setting us up in a war or wars with most of the rest of the world, in order to steal some oil from a nasty dictator (let's be clear, I don't like Saddamn any more than anyone else here) for some really lame reasons, and reasons that looked lame from day 1.

I was hoping that WMD would show up. I was hoping that some credible evidence that Saddamn supported Al-Quaida would show up, but we haven't seen any of that.

What we've seen is a militarily competent (to say the least it was competent) invasion, followed by a stunningly inept occupation that almost seems designed to turn the citizens against us.

That's hardly working for peace, Rik.

While this lame leader is waving about his invasion, he's working on curtailing our civil liberties, encouraging intrusion of faith into places that it's not legally allowed to be, and putting people like Ashcroft and Ridge in places of trust, with no oversight at all.

Rik, wake up, he's not on your side.

I don't think 'leader' carries the meaning you think it does in this case. 'Leader' in regards to Bush, doesn't mean 'person in charge who makes effective decisions, makes tough choices, etc.', it means 'guy who stands at the podium and says motivational stuff'. In football speak, I think of a leader as the quarterback or the coach...Bush is the head cheerleader.

[jj]

Originally posted by Zero


I don't think 'leader' carries the meaning you think it does in this case. 'Leader' in regards to Bush, doesn't mean 'person in charge who makes effective decisions, makes tough choices, etc.', it means 'guy who stands at the podium and says motivational stuff'. In football speak, I think of a leader as the quarterback or the coach...Bush is the head cheerleader.

I'm addressing Rik's worldview, Zero.

Does that help?

[Zero]

Originally posted by jj


I'm addressing Rik's worldview, Zero.

Does that help? Hey, I'm agreeing with you, and giving you my take on Rik's worldview. :D To him, and to many people, being a 'leader' is more about talking tough and giving off the right 'vibe', rather than the actual work of leading.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Really? I quoted, directly and honestly, the responses of you and your vilification brigade.

You say that my direct, in-context quotes are now "lies, hatred and vilification"?

You, sir, are a liar of extraordinary dishonestly.

I shall so note.

Now, you have to admit that my original summary of you folks' performance was honest, direct, and forthright, simply because the evidence is all here at hand, so you admit, then, further, that the only response of you and those like you is to add more vilification to that already honestly and clearly documented in my original article in this thread.

In other words, you admit that you have nothing to offer this board, nothing to offer this country, and nothing to offer this world, except for the expenditure of some energy and some disc space.

In short, you admit you're worthless.

How pathetic.


Must feel good to masturbate your ego over the Internet. Keep it up jj, your struggle for legitimacy and relevance, I’m sure, is inspiring to some and humorous to the rest of us.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by jj


Ok, then I'll just call you someone who should know better than to build up a straw man to attack someone about something they didn't say, Lars.

How's that? Now, the time you showed up to pitch in was, shall we say, badly chosen, but I guess you get to have bad timing... [/QUOTE]


jj is making personal attacks at me, and I don't appreciate it. I expect this place to be at the very least devoid of personal attacks and slams.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj

You, on the other hand, have nothing more to offer than a grade-school attack on someone's appearance.




That's all you deserve.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Tony



Must feel good to masturbate your ego over the Internet. Keep it up jj, your struggle for legitimacy and relevance, I’m sure, is inspiring to some and humorous to the rest of us.

¡quack quack quack!

[jj]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Originally posted by jj


Ok, then I'll just call you someone who should know better than to build up a straw man to attack someone about something they didn't say, Lars.

How's that? Now, the time you showed up to pitch in was, shall we say, badly chosen, but I guess you get to have bad timing...


jj is making personal attacks at me, and I don't appreciate it. I expect this place to be at the very least devoid of personal attacks and slams. [/QUOTE]

Really?

Well, you've complained appropriately, then, haven't you?

Or am I just telling the truth about your behavior?

Oops, that truth thing. Really hurts, doens't it?

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



That's all you deserve.


***ding***


It's the SECOND STEP in how to "disenable" someone, first you vilify them until everyone's tired of it, then you question their right to decent treatment because of all your own vilification.

What form did you read the book in, Tony, and where?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Zero
Hey, I'm agreeing with you, and giving you my take on Rik's worldview. :D To him, and to many people, being a 'leader' is more about talking tough and giving off the right 'vibe', rather than the actual work of leading.

Would you please define "the actual work of leading" as you understand it. Sounds to me as if you expect Bush to micromanage the government.

As for actual leadership, at least Bush takes hard decisions and sticks with them. If not for him Saddam would still be doing his thing...(his thing being mass-murder etc..)

The Dems thought Clinton was a "leader"...and yet under him the terrorists grew bolder and stronger. Clinton never made a single hard decision without taking several polls first to make sure the choice was popular.

Some leader.

-z

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Would you please define "the actual work of leading" as you understand it. Sounds to me as if you expect Bush to micromanage the government.

As for actual leadership, at least Bush takes hard decisions and sticks with them. If not for him Saddam would still be doing his thing...(his thing being mass-murder etc..)

The Dems thought Clinton was a "leader"...and yet under him the terrorists grew bolder and stronger. Clinton never made a single hard decision without taking several polls first to make sure the choice was popular.

Some leader.

-z

Bush takes others' advice, or that's how it looks.

Clinton was also a doofus.

Why do you continue to raise the spectre of Clinton? He's gone, just like Nixon and Bush Sr. are gone.

Next, please.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj

It's the SECOND STEP in how to "disenable" someone, first you vilify them until everyone's tired of it, then you question their right to decent treatment because of all your own vilification.

What form did you read the book in, Tony, and where?

:dl:

Keep it comming, this humor is making my work day go by faster than usual.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


:dl:

Keep it comming, this humor is making my work day go by faster than usual.

It's not humor, you are using exactly the same unethical, dishonest rhetoricl tactics that the Third Reich used.

It's a fact. I hope you can live with it.

Of course, I guess they built good roads, too. Is that your excuse?

It's interesting, these days, how "conservative PC" wishes not to allow others to point to the Third Reich as an example of where the "conservative" path of today leads. It seems like people have accepted this silly "law" that says "even when it fits perfectly, we can't use that example".

It's time to overturn that "law", I think. Your propaganda methods, for instance, are right down the old party line.

Now, let me be clear, you're a petty internet bully, you don't own a government to enforce your hatred, yet. You hardly compare, even if you have done your propaganda-technique homework.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


It's not humor, you are using exactly the same unethical, dishonest rhetoricl tactics that the Third Reich used.

It's a fact. I hope you can live with it.

Of course, I guess they built good roads, too. Is that your excuse?

It's interesting, these days, how "conservative PC" wishes not to allow others to point to the Third Reich as an example of where the "conservative" path of today leads. It seems like people have accepted this silly "law" that says "even when it fits perfectly, we can't use that example".

It's time to overturn that "law", I think. Your propaganda methods, for instance, are right down the old party line.

Now, let me be clear, you're a petty internet bully, you don't own a government to enforce your hatred, yet. You hardly compare, even if you have done your propaganda-technique homework.


LMFAO

You are going to get me in trouble, this whopper was so funny I was barely able to contain my laughter.


Keep it coming, so far you have yet to disappoint.

[athon]

Originally posted by rikzilla


As for actual leadership, at least Bush takes hard decisions and sticks with them. If not for him Saddam would still be doing his thing...(his thing being mass-murder etc..)

The Dems thought Clinton was a "leader"...and yet under him the terrorists grew bolder and stronger. Clinton never made a single hard decision without taking several polls first to make sure the choice was popular.

Some leader.

-z

Don't get too carried away, Rikky. Don't forget, when Bush's administration was briefed on Al-Qaida operatives in the US and in Germany, they made no actions to investigate further, and indeed Bush saw Iraq and China as more important at the time. It wasn't until 9/11 that he took up the 'War on Terror' stance.

This is not an anti-Bush statement (I tend to save them for special ocasions :D) - I think it was simply a call he made on the information presented to him. All politicians make hard decisions; just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it soft.

Athon

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, I think the real shame is not in seeing both "sides", but in ignoring the vast middle ground, which is the place in which real dialogue happens, and where real progress is made.


Standard loony left rhetoric. Shall we discuss the vast middle ground between conception and end of human life?

Conservatives don't think much of "middle ground"; can abortion be justified in some cases? Well, I'd agree; in the case "because I want one" isn't one of those cases.

See the problem we have?

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

Standard loony left rhetoric. Shall we discuss the vast middle ground between conception and end of human life?


One trick pony, Ham!
Women should not have control
Over their bodies?

You own her body?
Did not know slavery still
Was acceptable!

[hammegk]

I do identify you as part of the loonier left, although you seem to think yourself "middle-of-the-road".

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
I do identify you as part of the loonier left, although you seem to think yourself "middle-of-the-road".

Hammy says loony?
I must be doing it right
If him I bother!

For Hammy dearest,
There is maybe one issue,
And litmus drips red?

No rights to mother
Hammy says instead we take
The bird not in hand.

Contraception things
Are they murder too, Hammy?
How slick is your slope?

edited to add:
http://www.wilken.freeserve.co.uk/Montypython/Songs/song15.htm

[Troll]

Originally posted by jj


More vilification.

That's all you can manage, lies, hatred, and vilification.

Now, perhaps you'd better explain to the world just what kind of "nursing home" I live in and what kind of "nursing home" I work in, Tony. Care to address some facts? You can hit the "www" button at the bottom any time you want.

I dare say that it nearly looked like corps was trying to actually engage me in a conversation, but he's disappeared (well, real life does intervene, too). I can't dismiss that yet.

"Presently, JJ is working on new and interesting things in the Codecs group at Microsoft Corporation."

Okay, now even I hate you:p

[American]

Originally posted by shecky

Truth hurts, does it not?


http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/blownaway.jpg

[The Fool]

Originally posted by American



http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/blownaway.jpg
you are a lot thinner than I imagined....

[American]

Originally posted by The Fool

you are a lot thinner than I imagined....


It may as well be me, because I would never actually come out of hiding. You know that.

[jj]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I exclude JJ because I haven't followed much his posts in the politics forum although JJ you have your way to piss off people.

You'll find, oh crocodilian one, that I tend to PO people who are too sure of themselves. It seems to be a native quality to my existance.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Like I said Cleo, I complained about personal attacks, and was laughed at. Just as long as I know the rules, I will play by them.

Well, I missed that this afternoon.

I'm barely engaging in personal attacks, I'm pointing out the behavior of others. If documenting and exposing the behavior of others is a personal attack, we are in a sad, sad world.

I must admit that a few zingers occurred to me each article, but I've been pretty good about avoiding them, I think.

[jj]

Originally posted by c0rbin
I am all for freedom of expression, but this thread seems like it should be a PM.

Personal attacks are signs of weakness--in argument and in interpersonal relations. Crying about them is worse.

Now that's a thought, just bend over and take it, you mean?

I don't THINK so, Corbin.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Agreed. However, if you learn person A raped person B (with out a doubt) do you need to look into if A was justified to rape B?

More for tricky than Grammaton;

rape is never justified, why should the perpetuation of the species be so important, rape is non-consensual sex forced upon another person. that definition will answer all the questions.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk
I do identify you as part of the loonier left, although you seem to think yourself "middle-of-the-road".

Mwua hahahaha

JJ is no more looney left than I am a catholic, thanks hamme I haven't laughed like this in a while.

Mwua hahahahahaha, that will be a truely scary day when JJ is looney left , hahahaha.


So what the deal did you and hgc fight over a woman?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Dancing David


More for tricky than Grammaton;

rape is never justified, why should the perpetuation of the species be so important, rape is non-consensual sex forced upon another person. that definition will answer all the questions.
If, as I proposed in the scenario, she wanted the species to perpetuate, but was simply afraid of sex, then it could be argued that you were doing her a favor by granting her wish for humanity at the expense of ignoring her wish for virginity.

But of course, this is a silly scenario admittedly. Not impossible though, so there are still a few grey pixels in the field of black and white.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tricky

If, as I proposed in the scenario, she wanted the species to perpetuate, but was simply afraid of sex, then it could be argued that you were doing her a favor by granting her wish for humanity at the expense of ignoring her wish for virginity.

But of course, this is a silly scenario admittedly. Not impossible though, so there are still a few grey pixels in the field of black and white.

Actually if you want a rape that many people (not me in particular) find to be justified, there are those that consider some prison rapes to be a good thing. I'm not real fond of the concept myself, as it seems to apply a very harsh punishment in a more or less arbitrary manner.

That is the universal however. I guess in the particular it is possible that a particular rape could carry with it some sort of rehabilitative value; perhaps where a rapist never really understood the harm in his crime until it happened to him or some such.

I'm the last person to come out for the benefits of prison rape, but I can't say it is impossible that some of these rapes did more good than harm.

[Soapy Sam]

Sometimes, just for fun, I read the first couple of posts in a thread and then the last couple. Then I think "How in the name of all that's wonderful, did we get from there to here?"

Sometimes I actually read through to find out.Think I'm going to pass on this one, with just this comment:-

Distance sometimes enhances perspective, sometimes distorts it. To (for example) a traditional, conservative Iraqi citizen, it's probable that an American (liberal) Democrat and an American (conservative) Republican look pretty much identical.
Just as all Iraqis look fairly alike from the flight deck of a B52.

Just a thought.

[Mona]

Originally posted by Tricky

Wow you gave me a tough one, and believe me, as a dedicated male feminist, I find almost all rape inexcusable.

But there are still gray areas. Is it the man's job to judge if a woman is actually consenting, or is just sloppy drunk? What about a case of statutory rape where the "victim" would have been legal the next day? What about cases where a woman, after reviewing the situation, decides later that she was raped, but didn't think so at the time?

You are not arguing that rape can be a not-bad thing in such circumstances -- you are claiming there was no rape. If she was passed out and you ********** a comatose person, that is rape, as consent was not possible. If she consented, whether drunk or not, it is not rape. Statutory rape is not rape in any sense of the word that makes moral sense -- a 15 yr old can say "yes." If she says "no," it is rape. (That the state decides a 15 yr old's consent is insufficient still does not make it rape; for most of human history girls at such an age did legally consent. But we have decided no matter how ardent their desire, they are infants who cannot agree.) Finally, if a woman says yes and is then pissed she did, it is not rape. So, none of what you set forth constitutes a grey area-- these things are not rape. If there was no consent-- it was.


Now, for the coup de gras of hypothetical situations, suppose you were the last man and woman in the world and the future of humanity depended on you having children and she wanted to have children and continue the species, but she was too frightened of sex to do it willingly?

So you see, there are gray areas in everything, even such a horrible crime as rape.


Wrong. You have no right to overpower a woman to make a baby boy, and then presumably a baby girl, in order to continue the human race. Rape is never justified, in thisr in any real world scenario. If you apply your sci-fi thinking cap, and contrive a situation in which Martians are going to nuke us into oblivion unless you rape the nubile thing next door, you can find an exception. But how about one that has some realistic flavor?

Rape, and many other things, are virtually always wrong.

[Mona]

Originally posted by Tricky


At what point does it become rape? Kinda depends on the individual, does it not? Gray gray gray.

I expected better analytical thinking skills here. You are wholly conflating WHETHER rape occurred with whether rape is always bad. Rape is always bad.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mona
I expected better analytical thinking skills here. You are wholly conflating WHETHER rape occurred with whether rape is always bad. Rape is always bad.
If you can't tell me what rape is, then you can't say it is always bad. I agree that if you give enough conditions to describe a situation, then you can make a moral judgment on that case, but not all cases which fall under the general heading of "rape".

I believe that the Kobe Bryant trial will be examining just such fine distinctions.

Here's another interesting example, though mostly mythological. The rape of the Sabine women. (http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/720_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women.html)

[Cleopatra]

Tricky, the fact that some situations need more effort or analytical examination in order to define them doesn't make them a "grey area".

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tricky

If, as I proposed in the scenario, she wanted the species to perpetuate, but was simply afraid of sex, then it could be argued that you were doing her a favor by granting her wish for humanity at the expense of ignoring her wish for virginity.

But of course, this is a silly scenario admittedly. Not impossible though, so there are still a few grey pixels in the field of black and white.

Again, rape is forced/cooerced non consensual sex, if she was merely afraid of the sexual act, I can think of a lot of ways to deal with the siuation that are far short of rape! There are many ways to help someone overcome sexual fears short of rape. And if it is a virginity issue than you can use the paper tube (egyptian method) or the turkey baster (modern method). So I am saying that rape is rape, procreation is procreation.

I understand your point, I am just saying that rape is one of those things that is not good, all the time.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


JJ is no more looney left than I am a catholic, thanks hamme I haven't laughed like this in a while.


M'kay, maybe the problem here is that a left coast centrist such as jj is just loony left in the rest of the US. If he hasn't hugged a tree or kissed a spotted owl lately it's only because he has more important-to-him things to be rabid about.

He might be able to vote for a conservative candidate once he'd convinced himself it was -- are you ready here -- the "lesser of two evils". It seems to me that is Bush's real problem; he's willing to stamp out both the greater evil and the lesser given a choice, and that is driving our relativists like Tricky (& jj) insane.

I'm not convinced the Pope is still a Catholic, and hadn't type-cast you there in any case.

[Dancing David]

Tricky , if we define rape as cooerced/forced non consensual sex then we e;liminate most of the issues of the grey. The grey usualy arises in the area of statutes that diferentiate between cooerced sex and consensual sex in the context of ability to give consent.

Kobe Brynat? If he took her to the room and forced sex upon her then it is rape, clear cut, the evidence may not be. But any party can wothdrawl consent at any time, the proof is very difficult however.

Wierd scenario, say some madman has a nuclear weapon, and he will blow up new york city unless he gets to rape someone. It by the madman's definition can not be consensual. No matter what potential benefit there is for all the people who live in new york city, the act of the rape itself is still wrong/bad/evil, does that resolve the issue?

The act is wrong and never justified by any extremity!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk


M'kay, maybe the problem here is that a left coast centrist such as jj is just loony left in the rest of the US. If he hasn't hugged a tree or kissed a spotted owl lately it's only because he has more important-to-him things to be rabid about.

He might be able to vote for a conservative candidate once he'd convinced himself it was -- are you ready here -- the "lesser of two evils". It seems to me that is Bush's real problem; he's willing to stamp out both the greater evil and the lesser given a choice, and that is driving our relativists like Tricky (& jj) insane.

I'm not convinced the Pope is still a Catholic, and hadn't type-cast you there in any case.

I still find it a musing that you make JJ a leftist , he may be left of the extreme right but he is not a mainstream leftist.

The only issue that you seem to make him a leftist on is the abortion issue, he says that he is a Goldwater Publican, that makes him a libertarian conservative in my book.

As a great-grandson of a member of the communist party, who was also a christian utopian, I am glad to have radical rightists lump JJ and myself together. But he is probably not even a conservative socialist, much less a social democrat, I would assume that he is a progressive conservative.

But I am sure that being an enviromentalist does not a leftist make and given JJ stance on many issues he is a conservative, I don't believe that he wishes to do as many leftists do and overturn the oligarchy of money and re-establish the level playing field. I have never heard JJ chime in on globalization or facism either.

I am suprised that a monist would make an issue of hugging a spotted owl, they are god's creatures after all.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk


M'kay, maybe the problem here is that a left coast centrist such as jj is just loony left in the rest of the US. If he hasn't hugged a tree or kissed a spotted owl lately it's only because he has more important-to-him things to be rabid about.

He might be able to vote for a conservative candidate once he'd convinced himself it was -- are you ready here -- the "lesser of two evils". It seems to me that is Bush's real problem; he's willing to stamp out both the greater evil and the lesser given a choice, and that is driving our relativists like Tricky (& jj) insane.

I'm not convinced the Pope is still a Catholic, and hadn't type-cast you there in any case. Consider the source, everyone. The man who thinks the enslavement of Africans in America was a good thing is assigning positions on the political beliefs continuum. Talk about the butcher putting his thumb on the scale!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by jj
Below, captured for posterity (I swear, I almost said posteriority) we see some of the gems from the new right:

Rikzilla, addressing me in http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32308&pagenumber=2


(Note, nowhere have I cheered the death of a single soldier. I am not a leftie, and very few of my friends are lefties. I tend to set "lefties" livid with fury.)

Corplinx, same thread:


(he neglects to mention that happens only when he or one of his buddies like RIk or JK calls me a "leftist" or a "pinko")

To Thanz, same thread:


(Thanz did NOT deserve any implied relationship to a holocaust denier in this thread, at least, but out the words came. Pure vilification.)

Tony, same thread:


(Pure vilification when facts fail the author.)

Rikzilla again, in the thread http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32326 says


(what do we see here? Well, first an accusation that I'm an overt, actual traitor, coupled with an invitation to engage in traitorous activities.

Their words are ill-intended and false at first examination.

There's one common thread here, it's exactly like one Goebbels used in 1930's Germany, and that's "vilify your enemies".

I wonder why they are doing the same thing as Goebbels, they haven't seemed to be particular admirers of his Reich.

OBTW,...just trying to get this thread back on track...you see...it's ALL ABOUT ME!! ME!! YAY! :D (Back off Tony, you are clearly a supporting actor in this little drama!)

You will note that I've been on this board since Aug of 2001....(and I have never had a thread dedicated to moi)....now that I have a thread about ME, you don't think I'm going to let it get off the prime subject (ME) do you?? :D

(I do however wonder how I became the poster boy of the "JREF new right" though) :rolleyes:

-z

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
Consider the source, everyone. The man who thinks the enslavement of Africans in America was a good thing is assigning positions on the political beliefs continuum.
As you, I & everyone else who has actually read my statements with a modicum of common-sense understanding knows, you are a liar.

And, if you believe that today an average African would be better off born in sub-Saharan Africa than in the US you are also nuts.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

As you, I & everyone else who has actually read my statements with a modicum of common-sense understanding knows, you are a liar.

And, if you believe that today an average African would be better off born in sub-Saharan Africa than in the US you are also nuts. What are you saying? That I lack sense, that I'm a liar or that I'm nuts? I can't keep the insults straight.

Nonetheless, your continued defense of your original stance is evidence enough of your ability to judge others.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
What are you saying? That I lack sense,
Yes, although in a few more years you may eventually find some.


that I'm a liar
Yes.


or that I'm nuts?
Probably, but I withhold comment pending your answer to my question on where it would be better to born, today.


I can't keep the insults straight.
I've noticed comprehension is not your strong point.


Nonetheless, your continued defense of your original stance is evidence enough of your ability to judge others.
You mean you are actually willing to take a stand in this regard? You'd be better off analyzing it into grayness wouldn't you?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

...
You mean you are actually willing to take a stand in this regard? You'd be better off analyzing it into grayness wouldn't you? Spoken like a longtime prisoner of false dichotomies.

I think I made myself clear back then. Do you wish to resurrect the thread in question? Perhaps it can be retrieved from the archive. For those who don't remember hammy's defense of slavery thread, it was a real masterpiece. Would make the usual "right-wing" suspects around here blush.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc

Spoken like a longtime prisoner of false dichotomies.
The real problem: i.e. some people have "logiced" themselves into believing binary choices never actually exist.

Originally posted by hgc

For those who don't remember hammy's defense of slavery thread, it was a real masterpiece. Would make the usual "right-wing" suspects around here blush.
Only for those like you -- left or right -- who did not understand it.



Finally I note, as usual, my question to you remains unanswered.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

The real problem: i.e. some people have "logiced" themselves into believing binary choices never actually exist.There you go again. For you a person is either makes binary choices or doesn't. I know enough to know the difference between these scenarios. And darn that logic! Always messing up perfectly formed opinions.Finally I note, as usual, my question to you remains unanswered. Usually your questions are obtuse, irrelevant, absurd and not worth addressing, but this one I can. It's the famous everyone-in-Africa-would-be-better-off-here gambit. As a matter of fact, millions upon millions of people in Africa lead happy and fruitful lives. Do they have access to all the benefits and trappings of modernity that we have here? No, for most of them. But that still does not serve as a evidence of the benefits of slavery. Chalk it up to the law of unintended consequences. Slavers never intended that black Africans would one day be freed to enjoy the benefits of this land. I would love to discuss it. Resurrect the old thread or start a new one.

edited for additional mockery

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


M'kay, maybe the problem here is that a left coast centrist such as jj is just loony left in the rest of the US. If he hasn't hugged a tree or kissed a spotted owl lately it's only because he has more important-to-him things to be rabid about.



Hammy and the facts
Are not very connected.
I spent my life east.

Twenty seven years
In New Jersey is hardly
A left coast centrist.

Ohio, no less,
Is where I spent all the rest
Except for just one.

Only last year now
Have I lived on the west coast.
Shame Hammy, Shame! Wrong.


He might be able to vote for a conservative candidate once he'd convinced himself it was -- are you ready here -- the "lesser of two evils". It seems to me that is Bush's real problem; he's willing to stamp out both the greater evil and the lesser given a choice, and that is driving our relativists like Tricky (& jj) insane.


Hammy the villain
Calls me "relativist" now,
No such proof exists.

Hammy the nasty
Calls me relativist now,
For insult only!

Vilification
Hammegk shows his spots too!
Just like all the rest.

Barry Goldwater
Was not a hard choice, Hammy.
Get a grip, Hammy.

Could it be then that
Hammy thinks that Barry G
Is liberal now?

:D


I'm not convinced the Pope is still a Catholic, and hadn't type-cast you there in any case.

Type-casting from Ham?
Is there anything more there
Or just type casting?

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla


OBTW,...just trying to get this thread back on track...you see...it's ALL ABOUT ME!! ME!! YAY! :D (Back off Tony, you are clearly a supporting actor in this little drama!)


You apologized. You're out of it.

If you'd like to enter into a REAL dialog now, I'd be glad to join in.


You will note that I've been on this board since Aug of 2001....(and I have never had a thread dedicated to moi)....now that I have a thread about ME, you don't think I'm going to let it get off the prime subject (ME) do you?? :D


But you showed a civil streak, and apologized. You can't be one of them any more!


(I do however wonder how I became the poster boy of the "JREF new right" though) :rolleyes:

-z
Well, I wonder. Were you, perhaps, in your cups when you replied the other night, implying that I cheered when soldiers died, that Saddamn was my hero, and then tried to recruit me to a terrorist organization?

That abuse is how you got there, but you seem to have backed off. That seems to be more than Hammy dearest can manage.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by rikzilla
You will note that I've been on this board since Aug of 2001....(and I have never had a thread dedicated to moi)....now that I have a thread about ME, you don't think I'm going to let it get off the prime subject (ME) do you?? :D

(I do however wonder how I became the poster boy of the "JREF new right" though) :rolleyes:

-z

Riz:

I missed the original posts complained of, but after looking at them, I'll chime in as saying that I think they're over the top.

I only say this because you've been a stand-up guy in the past and I think they were a departure from your normal tone and writing. I know that some of the posts from the far-left fringe have been just as bad or worse, but the majority of people left of center -- even on this board :eek: -- express themselves reasonably.

You're a better guy than the one reflected in a couple of those posts, and I hope that this -- coming from someone whom I think you can safely classify as conservative on most issues -- helps.

N/A

Edited to add: The above is not to say that I agree with every criticism leveled at you in this thread, but I do think your foot slipped with regard to the tone in the original messages.

Edited AGAIN to add: Oh, carp. You've already apologized.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


M'kay, maybe the problem here is that a left coast centrist such as jj is just loony left in the rest of the US. If he hasn't hugged a tree or kissed a spotted owl lately it's only because he has more important-to-him things to be rabid about.


Oh, I missed that lie!

Hammey dearest lies!
Isn't that a big surprise?
No? It's not? Okay!

(edited to emphasize the big lie technique from Hammegk. Looks like he read the book, too)

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David

I am suprised that a monist would make an issue of hugging a spotted owl, they are god's creatures after all.

If they're like any other bird, they smell really, really bad!

I do have a big old owl of some kind in my back yard. Since that consists mostly of 150' cedars, I have no idea where, and I am not going to get out the spurs and climb up to kiss it anytime soon, for sure.

The owl sounds like a standard Big Eared Owl from its booming about. It's sort of comforting, really, I know there's nothing too terribly polluted around, at least.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by corplinx
I feel so honored to be part of the vast right-wing jref conspiracy.

Personally, I feel a little left out... :( ...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Riz:

I missed the original posts complained of, but after looking at them, I'll chime in as saying that I think they're over the top.

I only say this because you've been a stand-up guy in the past and I think they were a departure from your normal tone and writing. I know that some of the posts from the far-left fringe have been just as bad or worse, but the majority of people left of center -- even on this board :eek: -- express themselves reasonably.

You're a better guy than the one reflected in a couple of those posts, and I hope that this -- coming from someone whom I think you can safely classify as conservative on most issues -- helps.

N/A

Edited to add: The above is not to say that I agree with every criticism leveled at you in this thread, but I do think your foot slipped with regard to the tone in the original messages.

Edited AGAIN to add: Oh, carp. You've already apologized.

:D

Well NoZed,

I've done the old sin of letting my emotions win out over my better judgement. It's happened before, and Ed knows, it'll happen again. Luckily I can vent here and hardly ever get to foaming at the mouth in person.

Do I really think there are lefties who secretly delight in the deaths of soldiers, and secretly regret the capture of Saddam? Of course I do....and I'd be willing to bet money that Howard Dean and Al Gore regret the capture of Saddam the most. This pisses me off to no end. In this I am not alone.

Yet, there is no one that I can say this of on JREF. Certainly not SG or JJ. It would not surprise me to find these sentiments expressed by AUP, Huzington, or Manifesto...but then again, even they are usually more subtle. Well, except for Huzington...he's as subtle as a T-72.

-z

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Well, except for Huzington...he's as subtle as a T-72.


Less so. Even a T-72 could be camoflaged to hide it from time to time.

N/A

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Personally, I feel a little left out... :( ...

Don't you mean you feel right out? ;) :)

[Kodiak]

Dean says "Saddam capture doesn't make America safer" (http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.dean16dec16,0,7947269.story?coll=bal-news-nation)

Does anyone besides me think that the Dems are just "punting" this election?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Dean says "Saddam capture doesn't make America safer" (http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.dean16dec16,0,7947269.story?coll=bal-news-nation)

Does anyone besides me think that the Dems are just "punting" this election? I don't know what it has to do with this thread, but it sort of seems that way. I wouldn't say that it's "the Dems," per se, as each Dem candidate is an independent operator, and Dean is far from nominated. If Dean does get closer to, and eventually get, the nomination, and doesn't manage not to say things that make people crazy, then he personally will get the blame from me. On the other hand, I think that if he can act presidential, and the stars line up right, he has a decent chance.

(Note: the stars lining up right is the key here - the population has to gain a lot of dislike for Bush for reasons independent of anything Dean or another Dem can control)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by hgc
I don't know what it has to do with this thread, but it sort of seems that way. I wouldn't say that it's "the Dems," per se, as each Dem candidate is an independent operator, and Dean is far from nominated. If Dean does get closer to, and eventually get, the nomination, and doesn't manage not to say things that make people crazy, then he personally will get the blame from me. On the other hand, I think that if he can act presidential, and the stars line up right, he has a decent chance.

(Note: the stars lining up right is the key here - the population has to gain a lot of dislike for Bush for reasons independent of anything Dean or another Dem can control)

You're right about the thread drift, but thanks for the response anyway.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Dean says "Saddam capture doesn't make America safer" (http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.dean16dec16,0,7947269.story?coll=bal-news-nation)

Does anyone besides me think that the Dems are just "punting" this election?

Here's another gem from Dean:
The other candidates, remembering how Democrats had found themselves on the wrong side of the Gulf War, were more circumspect. And on April 9, when the statue of Saddam came down and Dean averred that the fall of Saddam was ``probably'' a good thing, that circumspection appeared wise. Dean appeared deeply damaged by his gamble. But as American fortunes in Iraq have declined, Dean's fortunes at home have risen.



The Link (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20030905.shtml)

Punting is a nice way to put it. The thing I still have trouble getting my mind around is that we have a major democratic challenger for the presidency of the US that has so obviously tied his political hopes to the success of our enemies in a time of war.

Talk about people who secretly cheer our servicemen's deaths, or who secretly mourn our enemies losses....Dean is their boy.

-z

[Zero]

The truth is, capturing Saddam doesn't make America safer, since Iraq didn't have the ability to attack America. Certainly some guy hiding in a hole didn't have the ability to attack anyone.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zero
The truth is, capturing Saddam doesn't make America safer, since Iraq didn't have the ability to attack America. Certainly some guy hiding in a hole didn't have the ability to attack anyone.

Then Dean must be your kind of guy...

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Then Dean must be your kind of guy...

Blah...

Barry, come back from the grave, we need you! You'd have to run as a Democrat now, though!

I'd settle for Millicent Fenwick, or even Tom Kean, though, I think. Shrub has managed to destroy Whitman, just about like I expected (Powell has been harder to destroy, fortunately), so she's not in the running.

Jeffords might be interesting, at least he has the guts to stand by his ethics.

You know, I can't think of a left-coaster I'd want to run.

Blah!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Then Dean must be your kind of guy... Why, because I think that the situation in Iraq is more than a pro wrestling grudge between Bush and Saddam? He has been out of action for months, and the killing of American troops continues. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, and his removal is a plus, but that happened months ago. His capture now isn't significant.

[Cleopatra]

jj, what is your opinion about the award the idiot named Cain has introduced?

[jj]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
jj, what is your opinion about the award the idiot named Cain has introduced?

Where?

JJ

[BTox]

Originally posted by jj


You know, I can't think of a left-coaster I'd want to run.

Blah!

You have to wonder if an east coast governor/senator/rep will win again any time soon. The trends seem to favor southerners (Carter, Clinton, Bush II) or Californians (Nixon, Reagan).

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by jj
Where?
JJ

Have a look here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31581)

Ok, forget about me, since I tend to say openly what I think about people and Cain has a reason to hate me. But when Cain realized that he couldn't debate JamesM that is a person of proverbial politeness, he gave him the God-damn F*cking Moron Award.

You know I grew up in a country that Marxist parties flourished especially in the late 80ies that I was at the University--I enrolled in 1988. His tactic reminds me of the tactics of the unwashed members(literaly speaking) of the Greek Communist Party which enjoyed to terrorize those who dared to question the Marxist establishment of the Greek Universities.

You are older than me, so, I will use another example. Those people were like hippies without sense of humor and with restrictions even to their sexual behavior(I am deadly serious ).Of course now they have become the most obedient servants of the Establishment--as civil servants, judges and lecturers at the University--professions that only unsuccesful lawyers exercise.

Well, the idiot named Cain applies those typical stalinist methods in this forum.I didn't see any of the people that belong to the left here to try to control Cain unless nobody takes him seriously in this forum...

[Snide]

Originally posted by BTox


You have to wonder if an east coast governor/senator/rep will win again any time soon. The trends seem to favor southerners (Carter, Clinton, Bush II) or Californians (Nixon, Reagan). I think a Republican from just about anywhere can win today. But a Dmocrat to win would likely need to be from the South (not since Kennedy has this not been the case).

[jj]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Have a look here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31581)

Ok, forget about me, since I tend to say openly what I think about people and Cain has a reason to hate me. But when Cain realized that he couldn't debate JamesM that is a person of proverbial politeness, he gave him the God-damn F*cking Moron Award.

You know I grew up in a country that Marxist parties flourished especially in the late 80ies that I was at the University--I enrolled in 1988. His tactic reminds me of the tactics of the unwashed members(literaly speaking) of the Greek Communist Party which enjoyed to terrorize those who dared to question the Marxist establishment of the Greek Universities.

You are older than me, so, I will use another example. Those people were like hippies without sense of humor and with restrictions even to their sexual behavior(I am deadly serious ).Of course now they have become the most obedient servants of the Establishment--as civil servants, judges and lecturers at the University--professions that only unsuccesful lawyers exercise.

Well, the idiot named Cain applies those typical stalinist methods in this forum.I didn't see any of the people that belong to the left here to try to control Cain unless nobody takes him seriously in this forum...

Well, since I'm not on the left I suppose he's not mine to control, but somehow he looks a bit, well, I don't know, I haven't enough knowledge of the history to judge, but his award seems unnecessarily mean to start with.

I have to admit to having tuned him out from the get-go. So, I have no idea why you're asking, but no, I don't take him seriously, even if I'm not on the left.

If I understand what you're saying (I didn't read the whole thread, it looked like a ***************), you're saying he's someone on the left who uses the same tactics that some of the people on the right use.

That wouldn't surprise me a bit. Extremists s**k. Extremely.

[jj]

Originally posted by BTox


You have to wonder if an east coast governor/senator/rep will win again any time soon. The trends seem to favor southerners (Carter, Clinton, Bush II) or Californians (Nixon, Reagan).

As far as I can tell what it takes to be elected is a willingness to lie, cheat, and run hit campaigns.

That statement is not a partisan statement, be advised that both real political parties (or the one big one with two branches?) are covered equally by that coment. They're both covered in something else, too, but I can't say that word here directly.

[Cleopatra]

Yes, jj the reason why I asked you is because I believe that some tactics are beyond sides...

[jj]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes, jj the reason why I asked you is because I believe that some tactics are beyond sides...

Well, beneath any side, perhaps, but yes, I agree. There always a twirp or two in any crowd.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Have a look here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31581)

Ok, forget about me, since I tend to say openly what I think about people and Cain has a reason to hate me. But when Cain realized that he couldn't debate JamesM that is a person of proverbial politeness, he gave him the God-damn F*cking Moron Award.

You know I grew up in a country that Marxist parties flourished especially in the late 80ies that I was at the University--I enrolled in 1988. His tactic reminds me of the tactics of the unwashed members(literaly speaking) of the Greek Communist Party which enjoyed to terrorize those who dared to question the Marxist establishment of the Greek Universities.

You are older than me, so, I will use another example. Those people were like hippies without sense of humor and with restrictions even to their sexual behavior(I am deadly serious ).Of course now they have become the most obedient servants of the Establishment--as civil servants, judges and lecturers at the University--professions that only unsuccesful lawyers exercise.

Well, the idiot named Cain applies those typical stalinist methods in this forum.I didn't see any of the people that belong to the left here to try to control Cain unless nobody takes him seriously in this forum...

Thank goodness for the search function. I can scan the entire forum without having to read any of the posts that mention me by name.

Cleopatra -- oh Ms. Cleopatra -- not as though it's worth rehashing, but James had supreme difficulty reading and understanding basic defnitions. A plethora of examples were offered and anyone interested can consult the awesomely underhanded tactics I used over the course of three dozen (or so) posts through two to three threads. It ended (in so far that these things do end) on a rather hilarious note of irony.

People get GDFM awards for, um, being Goddamn F*cking Morons. QED

Does that mean every moron has one of these wonderful awards? Nope, because there are a lot of morons, and I can only give out one per week (and even now people are gently reminding me that I owe at least two more).

Also, in another thread (also found searching for any mention of "Cain"), I said I would thoughtfully consider any thoughtful objections (nearly an exact quote). The winners are now contacted in advance and they can voice their disagreements. Not that anyone has. So far as I know not one person who has complained, other than Cleopatra here. Without sounding too modest, the response so far has been rather enthusiastic.

But if you really want to discuss "tactics" go ahead and re-examine Cleopatra's post where she calls me "the worst kind of racist," and utterly failed to substantiate that smear at every turn. Indeed, the smears continues because Cleopatra, and others, are desperate (pathetically so) to undermine the "credibility" of a relatively inactive forum participant.

I would like to say she knows better... but then she was the first recipient of -- and the inspiration for -- the GDFM award.

Not that it matters. I've also been called a Marxist (though one person to his credit this later apologized for this and similar remarks), fag, c*ck-sucker, homophobe, racist, anti-Semite, communist, and even some epithets claiming closeness to Rush Limbaugh. There was also an accusation that I hate handicapped people.

People can make judgements on my beliefs, I don't care. But when people start dictating *to me* what *I* "really" believe or what I "really" think (without a scintilla of evidence), then any pretense of a civil discussion and assumptions of *basic* intellectual honesty are sworn off.

Oh, but the GDFM is now used as cudgel to "terrorize" those I disagree with. :rolleyes:

JJ writes:

I have to admit to having tuned him out from the get-go. So, I have no idea why you're asking, but no, I don't take him seriously, even if I'm not on the left.

I am loathe to disclose private correspondences, but JJ wrote to me in a private message on a thread related to, I believe libertarianism and the commons.


jj wrote on 08-21-2003 04:37 PM:
Heh. You know, you're really good at sarcasm :)

You notice the end of the blackout thread? :)

JJ


That wouldn't surprise me a bit. Extremists s**k. Extremely.

Yeah, I'm one of those crazy extremists. I mean, I do and say all kinds of EXTRME things like... well, for example that one time when... or during New Year's... oh, never mind.

[jj]

Originally posted by Cain

JJ writes:



I am loathe to disclose private correspondences, but JJ wrote to me in a private message on a thread related to, I believe libertarianism and the commons.



Well, what do you know, you're unethical, too.

Like I said, I'd tuned you out.

Obviously, I read something you said, once or twice, or I wouldn't have replied, since I apparently did. I hope you're not too devastated that I don't recall it, although obviously you had such value in getting a note from "jj" that you saved it all this time, however long that's been, just so you could pull it out of your sleeve like the ace of Trumps.

Good job. You just dropped another notch in my estimation.

The fact you even bothered to save PM's is an indication of something, but what will have to wait until I manage to care about it all to figure out what.



Yeah, I'm one of those crazy extremists. I mean, I do and say all kinds of EXTRME things like... well, for example that one time when... or during New Year's... oh, never mind.

Do tell, or will that violate some other confidence or copyright?

[Cain]

Well, what do you know, you're unethical, too.

Like I said, I'd tuned you out.

Obviously, I read something you said, once or twice, or I wouldn't have replied, since I apparently did. I hope you're not too devastated that I don't recall it, although obviously you had such value in getting a note from "jj" that you saved it all this time, however long that's been, just so you could pull it out of your sleeve like the ace of Trumps.

Good job. You just dropped another notch in my estimation.

The fact you even bothered to save PM's is an indication of something, but what will have to wait until I manage to care about it all to figure out what.

There was no intent to "save" a post from the great jj. Actually, I never bothered to delete it (which requires effort). Maybe you have a low estimation of me, fine; but you have a rather high opinion of yourself.

Moreover, I am not the least bit "devestated" that you failed to recall. Of course, there you go imputing my motives again, which, I think, is a "tactic" worthy of complaint in general. Maybe, just maybe, I was correcting you.

Do tell, or will that violate some other confidence or copyright?

Nope. That part is obviously sarcasm. Though not really good sarcasm, I agree.

As for reproducing a private message sent to me as being "unethical": Well, I do not think I betrayed any intimate thoughts or ideas said in confidence, and I supsected you would trot out all this nonsense about how much you mean to me if I attempted to describe what you said.

Anyway, here's a message sent from a moderator:


wrote on 09-22-2003 05:54 AM:

Bullsh*t and F*ck must be asterisked. I'm talking about your post in the politics forum. Please asterisk the cussing. Thank you!

I have several others nearly identical to that (definitely on the same topic). I must keep them because I cherish them. :rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by Cain


Moreover, I am not the least bit "devestated" that you failed to recall. Of course, there you go imputing my motives again, which, I think, is a "tactic" worthy of complaint in general. Maybe, just maybe, I was correcting you.


Oh! Mercy me, he's "sic"ed a spelling error. Man the guns, batten down the hatches, load tubes 1 through 4. Err, I suppose. :coal:


Well, I do not think I betrayed any intimate thoughts or ideas said in confidence,


How wise and considerate of you. (Yes, you are correct.) :th: I doubt you have any clue of my intimate thoughts or ideas.


and I supsected you would trot out all this nonsense about how much you mean to me if I attempted to describe what you said.


Suuuuuure you did. :roll:


Anyway, here's a message sent from a moderator:

I must keep them because I cherish them. :rolleyes:

Cherish is a word that I use to describe
All the feelings that I have hiding here for you inside
NOT

Or, in more modern lingo, Whaaateeeeverrrrr. :what:

[Cain]

I never seen a response quite so hysterical.

Oh! Mercy me, he's "sic"ed a spelling error. Man the guns, batten down the hatches, load tubes 1 through 4.


Actually, when I composed the post I wrote it both ways. You spelled devastated correctly. I often spell that word wrong, as I did above.

The rest of the post is just more of the same nonsense so I won't bother to reply with anything other than following expression:

:rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by Cain
The rest of the post is just more of the same nonsense so I won't bother to reply with anything other than following expression:

:rolleyes:


You don't cope very well with being ridiculed, do you?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by jj
That wouldn't surprise me a bit. Extremists s**k. Extremely.

Hey, now.

Extremism in defence of vice is . . . no, wait. Taking liberties with extreme vices is no probl . . .no, that's not right, either.

I'll get back to you.

[Tony]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Hey, now.

Extremism in defence of vice is . . . no, wait. Taking liberties with extreme vices is no probl . . .no, that's not right, either.

I'll get back to you.

Ill help you out:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue".

:)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

What purpose is this thread serving now except perhaps to create "us vs them" camps, to alienate?

everyone calm down, stop with the accusations for a while, consider each other's arguments and cease labelling each other.

I propose a moratorium on name calling and villification of those that oppose our views.

Goodness knows I have been guilty of it in the past occassionally, but I am concerned that this current conflict is not providing a conducive environment for presenting views and perspectives and for considering the views and perspectives of others.

shoot I sound like Dr. Phil

someone,

:hit:

me now!

[jj]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
What purpose is this thread serving now except perhaps to create "us vs them" camps, to alienate?

everyone calm down, stop with the accusations for a while, consider each other's arguments and cease labelling each other.

I propose a moratorium on name calling and villification of those that oppose our views.

Goodness knows I have been guilty of it in the past occassionally, but I am concerned that this current conflict is not providing a conducive environment for presenting views and perspectives and for considering the views and perspectives of others.

shoot I sound like Dr. Phil

someone,

:hit:

me now!

Well, Giraffe, I think it's pointed out to quite a few people just how off the wall they look sometimes.

That may prove valuable.

[Cain]

Originally posted by jj



You don't cope very well with being ridiculed, do you?

Oh, is that what were you doing? I thought it was self-parody.