Take Down the Bird Feeder!

[Arthur Brain]

You've never explained YOUR qualifications. Care to enlighten us?

Apparently he didn't care to which is telling enough in itself.

If degrees were handed out for asserting a load of bunk and failing to give any verifiable support for them the guy would have qualifications in spades...

 

[Crucible]

If degrees were handed out for asserting a load of bunk and failing to give any verifiable support for them

Gee, that sounds a whole lot like your female superior here :chuckle:

Why don't you find your own perch to sing on lain:
The only thing she verified was a broad, irrelevant statement on genetics and that she has a roll of paper showing that she learned it.

Big whoop- nothing else has been substantiated by any of you, just bald assertions from your imaginations. I don't care if she has a PhD in Supreme Omniscience, it has nothing to do with the fact that you all have produced nothing against what I've stated.

This could all be avoided if you'd just admit that you're all wrong- social constructs are a part of evolution. Accept it :rotfl:

 

[Alate_One]

Maybe you should stop trying to find lame, technical ways to make it look like you're the only person who knows anything about anything. You're trying to compensate, and it doesn't do you any good.

No, I'm trying to teach you something. I have a natural inclination to teach, unfortunately you can't force someone to learn if they're intent on being foolish.

Social constructs are both a reflection and a drive of evolution, and it exists within most all creatures.

Most creatures don't have social constructs. They have instincts, which are entirely different things.

Why don't you just admit that your feminism is an attempt to repeal such constructs, that it is not evidenced, that women still mainly excel in their roles, and it isn't some evil patriarchy holding you all back

Feminism isn't about repealing anything. It's about equal rights and opportunities for both men and women. Men and women are not the same, but old western patriarchal ideas about women's only possible roles, aren't useful in today's society. The idea of that kind of exclusiveness has already nearly died out anyway. You're unlikely to put that cat back in the bag, absent a major collapse of western society.

And it's better for everyone, women doctors (on average) save more lives than male ones, according to a recent study. But yeah, I'm sure it's a great idea to ignore 50% of humanity because, you say so. Good luck reproducing, most western women won't put up with that kind of nonsense. :wave: :chuckle:

It's a failed assumption, because, historically, some group of people have not done something, therefore such group of people are not capable of doing that thing. It's like saying white people are genetically incapable of surfing because they had not ever done so for thousands of years. Western culture never invented surfing. But amazingly when white westerners met the Hawaiians and were given the *opportunity* to do so, they were able to surf. Now there are thousands of people surfing from all different ethnic backgrounds. That's cultural change and cultural exchange. Not genetic, not evolution.

All humans are basically the same, biologically speaking. There are differences between males and females, but there is tremendous overlap. The biggest differences we see between groups of people are from culture, which can be changed even within the lifetime of a single person. This goes back to the OP's assumptions about poor people (with the implication of other races as well).

It's a fundamental problem many right wingers seem to have, they want to assert genetic, immutable differences between groups of people and then use those differences to deny rights, and assistance to them. But there's no biological basis for any of this, humans are very similar to one another at the genetic level.

 

[Crucible]

No, I'm trying to teach you something.

Sorry, the only image that comes to my mind is a non-binary SJW telling me she's willing to teach if I'm willing to learn.

I really just don't take any of you seriously- colleges went from intellectual places to conformity camps.

Most creatures don't have social constructs. They have instincts, which are entirely different things.

Instincts drive social constructs.

Feminism isn't about repealing anything.

Yes it is.

It's about equal rights and opportunities for both men and women.

No it isn't.

Men and women are not the same, but old western patriarchal ideas about women's only possible roles, aren't useful in today's society.

The patriarchal idea for women is that they are man's helper.

And that is what they are. A lot of women want to be more than that, and when it doesn't work out for them they blame men.
It's not men's fault, it's natures fault- women have less body mass, birth children, have inferior reflexes, are on average not mechanically inclined, have a higher propensity for mental ills, consistently seek security, and do not exceed men in virtually anything.

Women cannot be equal to men.

Crack open a Bible and see that the patriarchs saw it for what it was.
And the Apostles.
And God.

But I suppose you don't really care about all that, most liberals don't- their bias takes precedence over frivolous things like divine revelation

 

[Crucible]

women doctors (on average) save more lives than male ones, according to a recent study.

That's because a lot of people don't trust women to do high risk operations.

It's not hard to see when people are simply pandering to women.

None of you really consider anything of such claims because underneath it all you simply want people to believe a lie.

 

[Alate_One]

That's because a lot of people don't trust women to do high risk operations.

It's not hard to see when people are simply pandering to women.

None of you really consider anything of such claims because underneath it all you simply want people to believe a lie.

I think maybe we need to put you in a museum. Here's a bona-fide full on, unapologetic misogynist. Confront him with data and he tries his darndest to twist it to his views of women.

 

[Crucible]

I think maybe we need to put you in a museum. Here's a bona-fide full on, unapologetic misogynist. Confront him with data and he tries his darndest to twist it to his views of women.

Cool story. 'Misogynist' is a now meaningless term that nobody takes either offensively or seriously. Everything is misogynistic, just like everything is racist, bigoted, xenophobic, homophobic, and any other term you all have dragged into the bowels of the Earth.

You confronted me with data, and that data obscures a major reality that I just revealed.
Reality is misogynistic :rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

I differ with your characterization for the reasons given.

Way to miss the point.

It really isn't, for the reasons given prior.

It really is, for the reasons given prior.

In as much as I credited you with the lesser of two errors.

In as much as you ignored my clear meaning and chose to talk us down a rabbit hole. There was no reason to call OP racist. You called it racist, which is ridiculous. When called on your nonsense, you decided to protest that you hadn't called Clete a racist, which served only to skew the conversation away from your shoddy analysis.

That you don't distinguish between assertion and explanation is one reason it's fruitless to discuss with you.

Then you should stop talking to me. :thumb:

For the record, nobody knows what I'm supposed to have done wrong here. You called OP racist. That was a stupid thing to do. You got called on it and now are trying to blame me for... something. :idunno:

The other problem is that you try to disguise your tendency to mix in low-brow, personally charged insults as an integral part of a response, even when you aren't the object of any insult.

No, I noted the subtext. Most of my objections weren't rooted in it, but it was a thing worth noting while peeling the false face of the author away from his attempt to sell the narrative.

Nope.

There was no need to ascribe any motive. You need to learn how allegory works. If you don't like it, leave it alone or write a more pertinent one.

The author is defending a sort of person who is looking to justify particular actions.

Nope.

Not defending.

No attempted justification.

You're just making things up to add to a perfectly reasonable story describing a perfectly reasonable character.

You sell this person as racist and ignorant, and mix up the concepts the characters might align with. The person in the story would not even be a person when the allegory is mapped onto real life. You need to learn how allegory works; listen and stop reacting.

The fact that the altruist is described using a human and the recipients of his largess are described as animals, eventually dangerous, intruding and malcontent, is entirely irrelevant.

And all of it is subject to scrutiny, which I gave it.

Your analysis failed.

I think it reflects a particular weakness that I spoke to in particular.

I'm sure you remember what you're talking about. :idunno:

And there's a good deal of difference between your original assertion that I was calling Clete a racist, which I clearly didn't.

We've been through this. It really is boring. You called OP racist. It isn't.

It's such a profoundly dull comment I had to find something worthwhile to do with it. Or, the subtext is, "Stop wasting time with the side-bar that addresses nothing substantive or meaningful".

So you're just going to ignore your error? I spoke about the person, you switched that to pretend I was talking about the birds. Now you're spouting nonsense.

"Birds aren't imaginary characters, but I don't see that it matters. What does is what they represented, or rather misrepresented."

Get on point. You made some bizarre remark about allegories not being allowed imaginary characters. I was referring to the person when I spoke about imaginary characters. Now you're whining about the birds as if they were what I was talking about. I don't care about your numerous revisions to fix your typos; you need to learn to respond coherently where the discussion is at.

That's the assertion all right, but not a proof. You decided what was being asserted then blew the ref whistle. Or, you're really only penalizing your own shortfall in examination.

Excuse me, sonshine. You're the one who asserted racism where none was evident. You're the one who cannot match up allegory with representative concept.

You got called on a shoddy analysis and have lots of words left over to pretend you've not been shown up. Stop with the verbose wall of noise and start making sense. :up:

I think you'd have a hard time making the case.

No? You call Clete's post racist and then deny that paints Clete in a bad light. You call me ignorant and then pretend I can't understand plain English.

Watertight case, I'd say.

However, you seem desperate to talk about manners when they are nothing but a distraction. Your analysis failed. You've been called on it. That might make an interesting discussion, but you're determined to play "I said, you said."

I was taught you don't start a fight because you can't win an argument, but if someone throws a punch you put them on their pants.

:AMR:

So you called Clete racist, pretended you didn't, now you're feigning innocence and declaring victory? :AMR:

Man are you weird.

In argument you can manage that with humor. If you do it well enough you can sometimes cause the other party to reconsider. And often enough, if I catch something that I didn't in reading over a response before posting it, I'll go back and edit it out as quickly as I can. The post you're noting is a good example. The wolves bit, while appropriate given, was culled in a slightly later edit (so much so that it doesn't show up as an edit). Mostly because I don't find that fruitful and I thought there was a better, more restrained response to your wondering for a collective about whether I'm the racist: Then "we" don't know much about me worth knowing. I've also publicly apologized on a few occasions when I reconsidered my approach to a poster and found it unacceptable. I don't see evidence of editing or owning in your efforts, which is part of why I don't seek you out for engaging on a point and have for some time limited myself to necessary responses.

Well, that's all very boring.

 

[Town Heretic]

Way to miss the point.

Way to not make the point clear enough then. Your consistent estimations notwithstanding, I'm a bright enough fellow and an able reader.

In as much as you ignored my clear meaning and chose to talk us down a rabbit hole.

Never happened. I'll come back to this when you level the charge again in a moment.

There was no reason to call OP racist.

I said it had a racist subtext. And it does. The author needn't be to trade on the impulse, rooted in a sorry use of the ethnocentric principle that defines much of human relation.

You called it racist, which is ridiculous. When called on your nonsense, you decided to protest that you hadn't called Clete a racist, which served only to skew the conversation away from your shoddy analysis.

Rather, you decided to accuse me of calling Clete a racist so I took a moment to address your rabbit hole by rebutting the hostile presumption.

Then you should stop talking to me.

I will when it suits me. For now, I'm just cleaning up the mess you're making of my actual points.

For the record, nobody knows what I'm supposed to have done wrong here.

Took a poll? I'd hope anyone reading you through this would see what you're doing wrong here.

You called OP racist.

You keep saying that. I said the post had a racist subtext. That's clearer and more meaningful for the reasons given above and prior with more particularity.

That was a stupid thing to do.

No, it wasn't. It is, however, pointless and goofy to repeatedly call someone stupid when you're smart enough to know that's not true. At best, it's ill mannered and unoriginal. Which of those is worse I leave to you.

The other problem is that you try to disguise your tendency to mix in low-brow, personally charged insults as an integral part of a response, even when you aren't the object of any insult.

That was mine, again. What is it with you and the quote function.

Nope.

Great rebuttal. It's your best work. I'll omit the rest like this for the sake of space.

There was no need to ascribe any motive.

I recognized the motive that wasn't hidden.

You need to learn how allegory works. If you don't like it, leave it alone or write a more pertinent one.

You remind me of chrys trying to make a "You don't understand Don Quixote" pitch. It's goofy. Were you right, for once, it would have no impact on any point I made in my critique. And you aren't even right on that. Allegory isn't a difficult concept.

The person in the story would not even be a person when the allegory is mapped onto real life. You need to learn how allegory works; listen and stop reacting.

The person can represent and I believe does reasonably represent all of those whose good intentions have been taken advantage of and who must now act to "take down the bird feeder".

The fact that the altruist is described using a human and the recipients of his largess are described as animals, eventually dangerous, intruding and malcontent, is entirely irrelevant.

You mean the narrator personifies altruism itself? Are you selling a personification allegory as your defense? If so, whose manifestation of that altruism? And we're right back into my critique.

Your analysis failed.

That's flag waiving. You might as well have said nope. I leave it as one example among many for the closing.

Now you're whining about the birds as if they were what I was talking about. I don't care about your numerous revisions to fix your typos; you need to learn to respond coherently where the discussion is at.

That's just silly nonsense. Let me know when you have something that's back on the actual point.

...You got called on a shoddy analysis

Rather, you called it that without setting out any clear reason rooted in reason to believe you.

and have lots of words left over to pretend you've not been shown up.

Is what this is about for you? Showing me up. Good grief.

Stop with the verbose wall of noise and start making sense.

I leave this for the next bit.

No? You call Clete's post racist

Still didn't. I noted the author of the post used a racist subtext. I probably should have gone with perverted ethnocentric impulse, but then you'd have gone with the wall of noise bit again.

and then deny that paints Clete in a bad light.

I not only didn't, I painted his efforts in a bad light myself, while noting an able mind undermined. You entered the thread without appearing to understand the actual players. I thought that because I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the "You called Clete a racist" bit.

Watertight case, I'd say.

Of course you would. You say all sorts of silly, factually deficient things.

However, you seem desperate to talk about manners

Nothing desperate in noting the absence and something telling in how you feel compelled to frame that.

when they are nothing but a distraction.

The distraction is in the absence, in the "stupid" and likened insults that add nothing to argument and when removed remove a great deal of what you have to say, sadly.

Your analysis failed.

You waved that flag already. Supra.

You've been called on it.

You've waved that flag already. Supra.

That might make an interesting discussion, but you're determined to play "I said, you said."

I made a critique of argument. You made this a critique of me. Goofy business.

So you called Clete racist,

Never did. Addressed repeatedly. So either you're overwrought or being dishonest. Again and with no other reason than my optimism, given the numerous answers on this point, I give you the benefit of the doubt.

pretended you didn't,

I don't have to pretend. I literally never did it.

now you're feigning innocence and declaring victory?

I don't have to feign innocence on a thing I never did. And you're the only one declaring victories, supra.

Man are you weird.

Who isn't, by one scale or another?

Well, that's all very boring.

Worse, for you.

 

[Stripe]

Way to not make the point clear enough.

The point is: You keep reacting to things that are not part of the discussion and creating rabbit trails.

It had a racist subtext.

Nope. You just made that up.

The author needn't be to trade on the impulse, rooted in a sorry use of the ethnocentric principle that defines much of human relation.

English, dude. English. :doh:

Rather, you decided to accuse me of calling Clete a racist so I took a moment to address your rabbit hole by rebutting the hostile presumption.

So you call Clete a racist and now it's my fault. :doh:

Meanwhile, we still have not got you to concede the fact that there is no racist content in OP.

By the way, begging the question is still a logical fallacy.

Took a poll? I'd hope anyone reading you through this would see what you're doing wrong here.

There's only one person with any hope at all of following this "conversation." That's me.

I haven't done anything wrong. You called OP racist and have tried every trick in the book to avoid defending that absurd accusation.

You keep saying that.

That's right. :idunno:

You keep saying useless things.

The post had a racist subtext.

I know. You think OP is racist. You keep asserting this and refuse to back it up with anything other than motives you invent.

That's clearer and more meaningful for the reasons given above and prior with more particularity.

No, it wasn't.

Sure, it was.

It is, however, pointless and goofy to repeatedly call someone stupid when you're smart enough to know that's not true. At best, it's ill mannered and unoriginal. Which of those is worse I leave to you.

It was subtext.

When you've finished wailing about being called names, could you explain where in the story you got the absurd notion that the character is racist?

Great rebuttal. It's your best work. I'll omit the rest like this for the sake of space.

I think I know why you want to avoid the challenge you face.

Not defending. No attempted justification. You're just making things up to add to a perfectly reasonable story describing a perfectly reasonable character. You sell this person as racist and ignorant, and mix up the concepts the characters might align with. The person in the story would not even be a person when the allegory is mapped onto real life. You need to learn how allegory works; listen and stop reacting. The fact that the altruist is described using a human and the recipients of his largess are described as animals, eventually dangerous, intruding and malcontent, is entirely irrelevant.

I recognized the motive that wasn't hidden.

But you won't show where that motive is in plain sight. You have to invent it and then put a lot of words between your accusation and the challenge you face.

You remind me of chrys trying to make a "You don't understand Don Quixote" pitch. It's goofy.

Were you right, for once, it would have no impact on any point I made in my critique.

Really? You think you could get away with critiquing an allegory without knowing how allegories work?

And you aren't even right on that.

Of course I am. First you said something weird about allegories not being allowed imaginary characters, then you mixed up who I was talking about. And you still haven't correctly mapped any of the story's concepts onto real-world counterparts.

The person can represent and I believe does reasonably represent all of those whose good intentions have been taken advantage of and who must now act to "take down the bird feeder".

Nope.

The person represents the government.

You mean the narrator personifies altruism itself?

:AMR:

Where are you getting this stuff? When I correct you, that does not mean I have put forward something for you to critique. It's like you say: 1+1=3, and then when I correct the mistake you declare: So you're saying it's four!?

Are you selling a personification allegory as your defense?

:darwinsm:

Hello, McFly? Anybody home?

I'm not on the defense. You declared OP to be racist. You've still shown nothing from the story that backs this up.

If so, whose manifestation of that altruism? And we're right back into my critique.

As much as you like going around in circles, it'd be much more helpful if you'd just respond sensibly. :up:

That's flag waiving.

:think:

You might as well have said nope.

OK. :idunno:

I leave it as one example among many for the closing.

That's just silly nonsense. Let me know when you have something that's back on the actual point.

Nope. This is exactly on point. You responded to my post as if I was talking about the birds when I was talking about the person. We can't proceed when you continue to ignore your error.

Rather, you called it that without setting out any clear reason rooted in reason to believe you.

You forget; I'm not the one on the defense. You put forward a critique, calling OP racist. You've been asked to show where the allegory describes a racist character. Since then you've been doing everything you can to put words between the challenge you face and the end of the thread.

Is what this is about for you? Showing me up. Good grief.

Ah, so you've found something else to whine about?

No, this is not about showing you up. Your analysis is shoddy. You called OP racist and have got nothing to back up such a charge.

I noted the author of the post used a racist subtext.

We know. You think OP has a racist subtext. Problem is, you make up the subtext. You have no justification for using the word "racist."

Without being able to back up your charge, it boils down to you calling OP racist, no matter how you want to disguise it.

I not only didn't, I painted his efforts in a bad light myself, while noting an able mind undermined. You entered the thread without appearing to understand the actual players. I thought that because I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the "You called Clete a racist" bit.

That's what you get for underestimating the people you talk to. I haven't gotten anything wrong. But that hasn't stopped you pretending you're being magnanimous when it's just patronizing at best.

You say all sorts of silly, factually deficient things. You have a lack of manners and there is something telling in how you feel compelled to frame that. You put insults in between weasel words and then cry foul when called on them and use the rabbit trails to ignore the challenge you face.

OP is not racist, your "subtext" notwithstanding.

You waved that flag already. Supra. You've waved that flag already. Supra.

I made a critique of argument. You made this a critique of me.

Nope.

Your analysis is flawed.

Goofy business.

Never did. Addressed repeatedly. So either you're overwrought or being dishonest. Again and with no other reason than my optimism, given the numerous answers on this point, I give you the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, sorry. I thought I was being punched. My bad.

I don't have to pretend. I literally never did it.

So OP is not racist, right?

 

[ok doser]

There's only one person with any hope at all of following this "conversation." That's me.

now be fair


his little puppydog artie will be along soon enough to tell you how brilliant town is and how badly you've been "pwned"

 

[ok doser]

I bought a bird feeder. I hung It on my back porch and filled It with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it, lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.

Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table…. Everywhere!

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.

And other birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn’t even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like it used to be ….. Quiet, serene…. And no one demanding their rights to a free meal.


Now let’s see. Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child’s second grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn’t speak English.

Corn flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to ‘press one ‘ to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than ‘Old Glory’ are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe it’s time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

If you agree, pass it on; if not, just continue cleaning up the poop.

Maxine

View attachment 25139

i don't see a single mention of race in there :idunno:


oh wait - here's the first

Just her heartless, headless, opinion, pulled fresh from half-baked, vaguely racist noodling that can only be called reason as an act of charity.

"vaguely racist noodling" :freak:


like most of town's opaque pretentiousness, this is less than worthless and only intended to draw in a response


in other words, he's trolling

 

[Stripe]

i don't see a single mention of race in there.

None whatsoever. You would have to invent a racial aspect to the story.

Like most of town's opaque pretentiousness, this is less than worthless and only intended to draw in a response. in other words, he's trolling

One would think he could defend his ideas. :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

None whatsoever. You would have to invent a racial aspect to the story.

One would think he could defend his ideas. :idunno:

"you're racist!"


it's the siren cry of the liberal without an argument

 

[JudgeRightly]

"you're racist!"


it's the siren cry of the liberal without an argument

As Pastor Bob Enyart says (and I'm sure others, too), "A racist is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." XD

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

i don't see a single mention of race in there :idunno:

Racists see race in everything.

Leftist insert race into everything, whether they see it or not, because they cannot debate the merit of their ideas without losing.
The real problem is that they don't see it. They are actually convinced by and agree with the veracity of such arguments. Their entire world-view is basically predicated on a mountain of rotten Red Herrings that they've all gone collectively nose-blind too.

View attachment 25166

Clete

 

[Town Heretic]

Racists see race in everything.

That's funny. If the Klan parades down main street and you don't see it you may have another problem.

Leftist insert race into everything

No, but it wouldn't matter if the claim is sustainable. And it is.

, whether they see it or not, because they cannot debate the merit of their ideas without losing.

You can't debate without a clear advantage (see: his ignore list) or resting on assumptive stereotypical thinking that invites racism in its worst expression. At the very least, you make their existence more likely and palatable among your set, which is tragic. And ascribing racism as a weapon of the left makes you unlikely to examine the claim objectively or to level it yourself, given the taint insist on applying, within your context.

Like I said, you make the odious comfortable and more possible. Shame on you.

The real problem is that they don't see it.

The real problem is you won't even bother to really look.

They are actually convinced by and agree with the veracity of such arguments. Their entire world-view is basically predicated on a mountain of rotten Red Herrings that they've all gone collectively nose-blind too.

The sort of compromised generalizations that may comfort you, but at the cost of your eyes.

 

[ok doser]

Racists see race in everything.

Leftist insert race into everything, whether they see it or not, because they cannot debate the merit of their ideas without losing.
The real problem is that they don't see it. They are actually convinced by and agree with the veracity of such arguments. Their entire world-view is basically predicated on a mountain of rotten Red Herrings that they've all gone collectively nose-blind too.

View attachment 25166

Clete

and town has confirmed every word you wrote :thumb:

 

[ClimateSanity]

No, but it wouldn't matter if the claim is sustainable. And it is.-----Town

How is the claim sustainable?

 

[Town Heretic]

No, but it wouldn't matter if the claim is sustainable. And it is.-----Town

How is the claim sustainable?

You have to follow the context. He's claiming that liberals slather race all over everything. They don't, but it wouldn't matter if they did, provided the particular claim was sustained. In the case of my argument, though I'm only a liberal in the fevered mind of people who are chasing shadows, I've noted the subtextual racism within my criticism of the OP, demonstrated how I assert it is evidenced. If you want to know what the argument was then go back and read it.