Town Quixote's

[Tambora]

Hey look who got ignored and came back trolling anyway?

Doesn't look like you are ignoring me.
Looks like you came back to troll some more.

 

[Town Heretic]

Sure I did. It looks like this:

Ignore me.
Simple.

Then my next post, not quoting or referencing you:

You know what I like about Wednesdays...me either.

Then another post, same thing:

This month has seen a flurry of Wraps. If you missed them

The most recent Wrap link (and there are three or four right before it) for those who stop in to, you know, read it. :thumb:

Followed by your:

Ignore Wednesdays.
Simple.

And there you go. Well, there you don't, I suppose.

 

[Tambora]

Sure I did. It looks like this:


Then my next post, not quoting or referencing you:


Then another post, same thing:


Followed by your:



And there you go. Well, there you don't, I suppose.

Still not ignoring me, I see.
Ignore me.
Simple.

 

[Town Heretic]

Still not ignoring me, I see.
Ignore me.
Simple.

Tried that. You just kept posting anyway. See: Wednesday comment.

Tell you what, I'm just not that interested in reporting and you obviously are intent on pushing the troll envelope, so I'm going to lock it down for a bit and give you a time to find perspective or other people an easier crack at what they come for. For the rest of you, who come here for the Wrap, here's the most recent Wrap link (and there are three or four right before it) for those who stop in to, you know, read it. :thumb:[/QUOTE]

 

[Town Heretic]

"I don't think everybody who likes him is a Nazi, but everybody who is a Nazi sure does seem to like him." John Stewart

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Friday


So the topic de tour was up and about...

So she was there protesting a statue, minding her own business....then the antifa showed up, they started getting violent, so the Nazis got really agitated the protest got shut down by the cops, who did not keep the parties separated, and then it got bad...

Because it takes a lot of work to agitate Nazis.

A new guy said...

The KKK is more than a minor issue because the extremists on the Left and the Media won't let it be.

That's like blaming a cockroach problem on the flashlight that finds them.

Anna showed me a photo of a later rally where a far right wing gathering was dwarfed by opponents along the paremeter...

The 'free speech' rally fit under the rotunda. The counter-rally is outside the fence.

Now that would make a reasonable man nervous...so they were probably just fine.

Meanwhile, in the history thread...

Obviously, the "Polls" were way off during the election, so why should we trust them now?

That's another myth. Most polls showed the margin closing late. You're confusing the early polling you don't credit with the later polling you pretend was the earlier polling you don't credit.

Shared a thing I wrote to a friend of mine about my conversion to the opposition on the Confederate memorial debate...

Here's the truth. You can't open a door until you see it. Because it isn't about intelligence.

What happens when you're compromised by bias is that it tethers, limits the scope of inquiry and you don't even recognize it. So I said, "It's history. It's culture," and that satisfied me. I knew I wasn't a racist so I couldn't be serving any semblance of it. And because I never heard the arguments of those with another and different perspective I continued on in that thought until the voices of people with a very different depth of understanding shocked me out of my context and there I was, staring at it.

The fact is these statues are monuments to an idea that at its heart and by the declarations of those states who fought for it was the protection and expansion of an evil, of slavery. Whatever else we drape over that, the center is malignant. There is no waiting argument that can alter that truth. No way to ennoble it or dismiss it. And that truth understood, should set you free of the weight of them.

If, understanding that, you fight to preserve them then you are on the wrong side of history. You are on the wrong side of reason. You're on the wrong side of the good. There's the door.

And finally, after years of mounting tension, it was on...

I wish I had enough hair to consider that a problem...

Try growing your neck hair out and combing up. lain:

And ...you get the idea...which is more than we did...

There'll be hell toupee for that!

:mmph:

Why does everything around here have to come back to Trump? :think:

Speaking of fashion...

:chuckle: I have one bow tie but have never worn it. I'm not sure I could pull it off. :noid:

Goof. You're supposed to untie it. lain: what?

Talked politics in the Trump, Good and Bad...

I forced myself to watch a good portion of Trump's 'rally' speech last night.

I was in class. Sorry, I took a dare that I could rationally place Trump and class within close rhetorical proximity.

I can only take him in super small doses and prefer to watch the *highlights* on MSNBC or CNN. His voice is like nails on a talk board ...

His polling is like nails in a coffin, politically speaking.

We could start a separate thread for the good. You know, if it ever comes up.

Like when he's out of office? :think:

Trump losing his science guy led to...

Good riddance

I think he sort of implied that in his letter. lain: Well, on the plus side think of all the elbow room Trump is gaining at the conference tables.

CS had a few pearls...I'd hate to think of where he got them...

I see nothing vile about Trump.

But then...

I don't know of any monuments to evil being taken down.

So...you know.

He's a human like all of us and seems to not take marriage all that seriously but he isn't alone in that.

You don't take marriage seriously? How do you feel about theft? Assault? The designated hitter?

On the possibility of replacing the flickering bulb...

I would rather have Pence regardless of the fact that I don't care for him because he doesn't pose an immediate danger to the country. Mentally deranged/ill individuals such as Trump should NEVER have the nuclear codes.

Pence would be fine with me. I could disagree with him on a few things, some of them important, and believe his difference is rooted in principle. I thought the way he handled the theater bit was evidence of a statesman's demeanor. The rest is negotiation. And he could do that.

Before GM said...

Well, I'm kind of a "Rare Breed" of poster

Spoiler

That's an impressive amount of bull there.

who doesn't mind silencing "Disruptive Trolls" that are just here to cause problems and not have an actual discussion.

You know that's where two people take turns talking to and listening to one another with the end game being a productive and/or enjoyable exchange of ideas, don't you?

Probably not.

Then Rusha had the perfect end for this edition with...

My biggest issue with Pence is that he will forever carry with him the taint of Trump.

Well, we're going to have to plant a lot of evergreens to get that out of the fabric of the country, when you think about it. :think:

Tomorrow? Resignations, reservations, consternation, lamentation, and Ktoyou tells TOL to go...well, just wait on it... :IA:

Other Wraps from August as I caught up from a few weeks absence:

8/22 (link)
8/20 (link)
8/17 (link)
8/16 (link)
8/15 (link)
8/14 (link)
8/12 (link)
8/7 (link)

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on a Light Hearted Sunday


AB flirted with a rules violation...

I wasn't giving you a link but rather a title of a documentary that you can google yourself.

I don't think you're allowed to tell someone to go Google themself. :think:

And like a wildfire, the madness spread...okay, like a really, really small wildfire then...

Uh, yes, anyone may Google themselves :carryon:

Consider yourself reported.

Kat just said we can all go Google ourselves. :shocked:

Consuming everything it touched...

Yahoo.com off TH...

Go Bing yourself.

Or...get Binged.

Bing off, even...though now that I think about it I'm pretty sure it stays on all the time.

GM had a question...

I placed Town Heretic on "Eggnore" awhile back. Have you noticed that yet, TH?

Impossible to tell, really. :think: And isn't that great?

While elsewhere an ominous note was struck by chrys...

only because we are in control

Ladies and gentlemen, Alexander Haig. lain:

You had to be there (either).


After I noted empirical statistics on the dangers of right wing, white extremist groups, comparatively ruling the violence roost...

Yes, they probably include every white crime in the numbers, and of course all white crimes are right wingers.

You should watch Brazil, one day. But not all the way to the end.

Speaking of sneaky...

You don't recognize a single American culture from 1787 until 1965?

Spoiler

I do, and that still allows for various subcultures to exist simultaneously.

Spoiler

GM made an outrageous claim that his Blame Game thread was...

...a thread based on Politics?

In the same way that Kraft American singles are "based" on cheese. lain:

And Yor said of Charlottesville...

What happened at the rally: Most of the people were regular people with legit grievances on both sides.

White Supremacists and Nazis with legit grievances? :think: Regarding their upbringing?

Then Dr had a question and a point to make...

So what makes Richard Spencer right wing? Just because he says it doesn't make it so does it?

I've generally found that when people commit to one side of the political spectrum the one thing they never want any confusion about, can get snippy at the drop of a hat about, is the idea that they might be on the other side of the coin. Politics, in this country, is on the whole a touchier subject than religion with most.

Given the emotionalism that sweeps through political rhetoric and positioning these days, I'm as confident of someone declaring himself as an advocate of the right or left as I would be someone declaring their homosexuality twenty years ago. No liberal I've ever met would want to be confused as a conservative and I can't imagine what would drive a conservative to represent himself as a liberal.

The only people I ever see making the attempt to paint against the grain are at the fringe and then only speaking for others.

And the gong was struck...

If we're faced with an all out Civil War...

Or a zombie apocalypse.

It happened once, it could happen again.

No. We've never had a war between a whinny minority of over privileged white people and radicalized college kids majoring in cultural hypersensitivity and learning from youtube.

It appears to me that we might just be in the last days.

Of August.

Before...

I noticed that in a desperate attempt to communicate with old GM, TH posted something...

No, I'm more talking to your audience...so you may have a point.

Tomorrow? Wunderkinds, legal eagles aplenty, and more fun with flashlights. :thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Hump Day



Talked about the not so golden Trump oldie regarding the fairness of a judge...

Yes, exactly like that. Not racism.

I think I see your problem then. It was an entirely racist remark. Calling the judge Mexican. Why? He wasn't. Trump knew that. So why did he call him that? Hint: he was speaking to others. Now who is that going to resonate with and why? Who is the sort of person whose sympathy is won by that?

Had a word with a squinting Tiresias...

If we're faced with an all out Civil War...

Or a zombie apocalypse.

It happened once, it could happen again.

No. We've never had a war between a whinny minority of over privileged white people and radicalized college kids majoring in cultural hypersensitivity and learning from youtube.

It appears to me that we might just be in the last days.

lain: Of August.

After noting the comfort level of Nazis, white supremacists, etc. among the right wing fringe...

So, if a crack head likes your car and carjacks you, it's up to you to find out why he likes your car?

Rather, if crackhead after crackhead keeps stepping around other cars to come after yours, you might want to figure out what it is about yours they find so attractive.

Made a fight prediction...

I wouldn't count Conor out. The word is, most betters are betting on him

Not the smart money. The next great white hope always brings out people. Jerry Clooney made a mint on that sentiment. Same song. Same ending.

Took on the linkage/comfort question myself when must wouldn't...

Those are not conservatives.

Arguable. What isn't arguable is they support you. They aren't showing up for the left or for its candidates. They're crazy about yours. Obviously they don't agree with your reading of things.

To me it's fairly clear.

Spoiler

The left is about protection for the individual first and the least empowered in relation to the rest. The right is about as rhetorically invested in preserving the status quo, what's left of the power base for a shrinking white population. It has tapped into the emotional resistance by many in that group, into the realization that their numbers and influence are waning and will likely continue to, which is why immigration from countries that aren't likened is so threatening, why suddenly a national language became important to them, etc. That's how Trump became possible, riding the backlash by the nervous to hostile elements in the majority. That majority has some demonstrably racist streaks in it, which is like dry tender, on top of the general disease of a big dog feeling its age and mortality.

So if you're right about your values not being truly compatible, then losing the fear factor, letting go of the suspicion and angst in relation to the other, actually embracing the next wave of helpers in the American experiment and recognizing that diversity isn't inherently division, would drive these otherwise ill adapted goofs from your ranks...or is it them and their problem? Could it be that you need them? That you need their support almost as much as you need that unifying subtext among your own, especially at the margins, where success lives and dies in terms of elections these days.

That's one can kicked about a bit. I'll wait on the right to eventually find their own...maybe. Maybe not, given the above.

Truster was busy being Truster...

The first line of the Constitution reads, "We the people". These three words establish the foundation of the US government. The concept is known as "popular sovereignty" and derives from the consent of the people.

Spot on. :thumb:

The people that live under this constitution hold it, the nation, the flag and the ultimate aims and rights of the people in higher regard than the Creator and sustainer of all.

No, that's not it at all, really. They just don't trust people like you to tell them how their love of God should be manifest and how it shouldn't.

You have heard the word repent. May I humbly suggest you do so.

I'd be happy to see you humbly suggest anything.

And...

Your constant idiotic remarks

List one. Not saying I haven't made one, just wondering what your list would look like.

The election came up again...

America woke up. America spoke. America voted.

And the EC took America back from them. :shocked:

CS had a passive-aggressive Confederate apologist bit going...or Nazi, comes to it...

But don't complain over your lumps.

:think: I think I agree, depending on what strikes you as complaining. Letters from a jail?

Also, if the hosers were not breaking the law, we have no right to condemn them for following the law.

Sure we do. If the law serves something evil. If the evil is known. If it can be known by the light of reason. If it is known and spoken to by others near.

Then we have to stand in the path of the water and take our lumps too.

If the law is immoral, you can praise those who refuse to obey it, but you cannot judge them if they do obey because hindsight reveals that whole society was racially immoral.

So long as the truth is before a people they may be judged by embracing the lie.

Never judge a person for simply living out the morality of his society.

Said everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah, I suspect.

That's why I don't condemn the cops who were hosing the black protestors.

And that's why I always will.

And, lastly...

Whenever they compare Trump supporters to Nazis, they automatically lose the argument. I have never seen this much talk of Nazis in my life, even here on TOL

It's probably because the Nazis keep showing up to your rallies. lain: Just a guess, mind you.

Tomorrow? GM's troubles, Trump tales, and the impotence of being unearnest...

BONUS (from way back when)...

Spoiler

And then we get to TH.

:sigh:

Spoiler

Busted? lain:

Bastion of truth.

I was so close to reporting this one until I realized you'd written bastion. Man, I really need to consider reading glasses.

He doesn't always see eye-to-eye with the upper echelons,

What have you heard? :noid:

but he is "fair and balanced." (Sorry, TH, for the Fox News reference.)

I think Sheppard Smith is a hoot. :idunno:

In all seriousness, though, I have liked TH since day one.

Back at you...and, of course, you're now only slightly more likely to become a mod. :chuckle:

Then again, I like most folks that aren't anti-bbq and beans, so I may not be saying anything particularly noteworthy.

Well, why change methodology this late in the game. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Sunday



So GM was lamenting...

It deeply saddens me to observe Libs continue to lose. First, they lose the election and everything else, now, they constantly lose their credibility on TOL. What a shame.

One thing you'll never have to worry about losing, GM. lain:

I wrote: So long as the truth is before a people they may be judged by embracing the lie.

Was the truth truly before the southern culture as clearly and distinctly as it was before the northern culture?

No, it was more apparent. You could live with some distance in the north, unless you listened to the voices of experience or were inclined to read. The people of the South had that evil, the degradation, among them.

If you are uneducated and your religion backs up your culture, you will be tone deaf to the high phalluten ways of the educated Yankees.

God didn't absolve Sodom. I won't absolve the South. No one should. There's nothing to wrap that in that could.

Then GM was back to Tweeting...

I wonder when they'll get around to blaming Trump for the Hurricane?

It's even money which blows harder.

And fool was defending a choice...

]Me voting for Trump and wanting to follow our immigration laws may put me in in an overlap with the Nazis and Confederate flag idiots on a Ven diagram. But that doesn't mean I support their ideas or have somehow soiled myself because of the overlap.

I've actually (and more than once) said that to be a conservative isn't necessarily to be or like Nazis.

Do you eat eggs for breakfast? Are you going to stop when you find out that they do as well?

No. Because what we have in common is biology, not ideology. Now if what we have in common is a suspicion of minorities, a sense of entitlement encroached upon that lets many of us feel like we've "given" or "allowed" as much as we want to and it's time to do something about it...that's another thing.

When someone else said....

If a nazi is standing on a street corner doing nothing but sharing his viewpoint,

His racist, Nazi viewpoint.

and a BLM member comes up and takes a punch at him ....... then the "bad" guy is the BKM member and the "good" guy is the nazi.

No, the person who supports the black lives matters movement would be a law breaker then, have made a wrong decision in how to confront. The bad guy would still be the Nazi.

And just to help you out, the Nazi will always be a bad guy, behaving or not..

Differed with Lon over the coach praying with his team after a game, mid field...

Many proponents in government and SCOTUS seek a United States without God in any of our expressions. We've been under attack after attack after attack. I include Matt's post in its entirety though some in spoiler:

Matt's wrong. Coercion is a real concern. At a public school you have to keep that in mind. Not kneeling on the field isn't denying you the right to pray, or to believe. The coach has to understand that he's acting as a representative of his school in that moment and the school can't favor any particular faith over another. That's not its role. So no praying toward Mecca with a handful of students at the end of the game.

And on the baker refusing to sell or make a cake for a gay wedding...

No, you do not have a right to a cake.

You do if it's offered by a business holding itself out to the public and you have the money to purchase it. More to the point, the baker has no right to refuse black people, or Christians, or gays the right to purchase what he's holding out for sale. Now if they aren't wearing shoes, shirts it's another thing...except in the Keys, of course.

Took CS up on getting his linked narrative wrong about a professor fired for unprofessional conduct...

The comments were not necessarily directed at the student on her Facebook page.

And the Pope isn't necessarily Catholic...except he is and everyone knows it.

Had a difference with kmo on Charlottesville...

Bottom line, I try to avoid assumptions and I see no need to pass judgment over every person there who was in support of the statue.

I don't believe that kind of assumption has to be a part of this. You simply have to recognize a) what the Nazi and his fellows are and b) what sort of person feels more strongly about the cause of defending statuary (however they justify the slavery connection) than he or she does about standing with that sort to manage it.

Even without the underlying truth of what that statuary represents, it's a powerfully disturbing thought. I have a very hard time trying to pin "fine folks" on it.

I don't see a reason to do that except that it allows you to more easily condemn Trump

Leaving aside that you don't appear reticent to issue at least one speculative assumption, I don't need additional reasons to object to Trump. He's like a Pez dispenser of reasonable objections. His own party and some of his cabinet members have done their best to distance themselves from some of them.

And Nihilo wondered about Trump's "Mexican" note and fairness issue with a federal judge...

You're going to have to go ahead and explain how or why calling someone Mexican is racist, Town. I don't understand.

You have to ask yourself a simple question to begin with, "Is Trump a stupid man?"

If you answer yes then there's no way to continue.

If you find yourself saying, "No, he's a very astute man. A very successful, very intelligent man. A Wharton man." Now we can get some where.

Trump understands the judge he noted was born and reared here, is not a Mexican. But he calls him a Mexican.
Why would he do that? Because he's speaking to a set of people who would do that. That's his audience. And he's telling them that he can't get a fair hearing from one. It's the oldest code use in the bigoted playbook. Whether Trump actually believes that is immaterial. He's using it.

Tomorrow? A WoZ speaks to Charlottesville, CS makes the milk carton, and a KFC showdown. :chew:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Monday


Had a few words with PJ about, well, what else?

You can't say anything good about Trump, it's just not in you.

It's not about what's in me. It's about what's coming out of him.

As it is, you are overzealous and unfair in your constant bad mouthing of Trump, by constant, I mean any chance you get.

No, I could write about him daily. He really is that Pez dispenser of goofery. The fact is that I ...don't take every chance I can to go after him...I think his message is of the wrong time, negative, divisive, and wrong headed.

And after weeks of complaints like that I noted...

And by the way, the president's second effort in Texas? Nicely done.

No, I thought he did well this time around. He handed out supplies, served food to the hungry, comforted a few kids and made himself visible to people who could use the encouragement. It was a pleasant surprise. I'm not going to kick him when he gets it right.

He did what he should have done, what I'd expect a president to do. More of that, please.

So, of course, there was an instant recognition and a nod on the...no...of course not...

What is " in" a person is a set of attitudes. You have an attitude inside you that refuses to see anything good at all in Trump.

Nostradamus called. He said not to quit your day job . :nono:

We all have faults and you think his are worse than yours. I might go further and say you think his faults are of the same magnitude as mine and that your faults are miniscule in comparison.

You might say there was an American culture that existed until 1965, when a change in immigration law did away with what essentially reduced to racial discrimination, then literally run away from defining what you mean by that culture and what that shift from it entailed when challenged on making vaguely racist comments. And by might I mean that's exactly what you did.

Or, you just say whatever suits that trunk full of emotional issues you have and you never seem able to back any of it. Let's see the next one.

The Bible has something to say about an attitude like that .

What does the Bible say about straw men?

Okay, that's just CS being CS, but being fair, as soon as PJ read it there was a very different...well...no...

Yes, you reluctantly said a good thing,

No one and nothing made me make the comment.

noting that Trump handed out food and made an appearance

And comforted kids. He did other things, but I think the appearance was the most important thing he could have done for Houston. Symbolism and the focus of rhetoric can be that in a president. It was something I'd like to see more of.

Although his first appearance wasn't good enough for you it was the SECOND visit that appealed to your senses.

Right, the first one was awful. Now if I was committed to being what you think I am I would have ignored the second, emphasized the first (I never did) and gone on about my business.

It's nothing but optics for the left.

And that, PJ, is why your "give him a chance/try to see X" bits were false notes.

You can't give a zealot anything but capitulation. Everything else is subject to an irrationally rooted suspicion and insufficiency.

You don't want me to note the good, because it interferes with your narrative.

Speaking of narratives, Trad had a few things to say about kindred minds...

There is no moral equivalence between peaceful nazis and peaceful protestors? Upon what basis are you making this claim?

The belief shared by our greatest generation, that the Nazi is a small and loathsome creature, steeped in racism and an enemy of free men everywhere.

The "punch a nazi" memes have been making their way on various social media, even by, I am sure, some people who have not themselves committed any acts of violence.

I was talking to a friend of mine about this and, as I believe I did here, I said I'm a lot more sympathetic to the Nazi clocker than I am to the Nazi, mostly because I can understand how the presence of one exercising his right to speak might be seen as an invitation to violence, fighting words, among certain people.

Furthermore, Richard Spencer and the alt-right, so far as I'm aware, don't endorse violence at all.

How is it you imagine their ethnically singular world or state would be accomplished again?

What precisely is it about these "most peace loving nazis" that somehow distinguishes them from other groups? Because they are "racist"? Ok.

That's certainly enough, as foundations for belief systems go, but it's hardly everything. Being racist is odious. What you do with that racist impulse further defines you. Who you embrace (say, Hitler) and their approach to that racist streak puts the Nazi cherry on top.

The simple fact is that, however much you may dislike the ideas of Richard Spencer, his ideas are much more peaceful than many of his identitarian leftist counter-parts.

It's possible, if undemonstrated. At best you've put him somewhere in a sorry continuum. A bit like suggesting this piece of trash is cleaner than that one.

Put this one in lost and found...

Found this old home movie AB inadvertently returned with a copy of Raiders that I loaned him.

I think it's special. The label says, New Years With Family, 1994.

Spoiler

Noted the passing of a legend in our own time...

Walter Becker is dead. If you're over 30 and you don't know his name, you still probably know his music, as half the writing team of Steely Dan. When the world was rasping and gyrating, they gave us cynical and smart, smooth and cool. The took the education of jazz and fused its spirit into the pop bloodstream...Rickie Lee Jones, a fabulous writer and singer herself, said this about him:

I am Rickie Lee Jones. And I was one of the women Walter Becker took such good care of in his short life. I would want you to know that. He was so funny. And no, I didn't like the soprano sax on "Satellites," but that sound ended up... well, listen to Dave Mathews, for one. Walter knew what he was doing. He planted music. It grows all around us now.​

Goodnight Walter. Thank you for making thoughtful, frequently cynical, longing, broken, beautiful music. Thank you for the Scam, for Katy, the Pretzel, and the album I couldn't take off my turntable, Asia--so beautiful it forced me to forgive you for Deacon Blues. You will be missed.

And Trad was back...

...I don't really know what your actual opinions are.

And it looks like no one is going to know what your answer to my rebuttal is, which puts us all on a sort of equal footing. lain:

Rough equality. That must really gall you...

Frankly, given the choice between the identitarian left and the nazis, I'll take the nazis.

But then, that's true of you if the choice was between the Methodists and the Nazis.

Hail victory.

May your purgatory be a long walk through the dead along the beaches at Anzio...

I agree with you, TH, there is no equivalence between nazis and the counter-protestors.

You're half way from idiot racist to someone who deserves the education he squandered, meaningfully, with that statement.

The nazis are obviously superior in every respect.

Add Stalingrad to your walk.

Tomorrow? Still waiting on CS to explain the mysterious American culture pre 1965, chys actively opposes activism, and I change my opinion on something... :shocked:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Lately?


Apparently the search function is crippled, since after three days ago my "latest posts" appear to be from the year 2008. lain:

So let's roll with that for the heck of it and hope for the best. From 2008 a bit likely once preserved in Observations Gazette then...

...here I hope to have some richer discussions and appreciate the diversity of the arguments.

Ah, an optimist.

The basics: I am an 18-year-old guy from the midwest. Currently I am a somewhat skeptical Christian

Skeptical in the treatment of various claims regarding particular theological truth within the Body OR are you just into giving yourself a hard time? :think:

with some unconventional views, a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

So you believe in helping people as long as someone else pays for it?

During the past year, I have developed my religious and political views a lot, though I have raised more questions than I have answered.

Then you're probably asking the right sort of questions...

I hope to reach more conclusions throughout debate, study and thought.

A noble enough goal. You're ahead of my curve at your age. At eighteen theology seemed to me a house of mirrors constructed by a series of drunken carpenters to distract attention from an even less comprehendible neighborhood.

Welcome.

Met a member of the irritated opposition...

Uh Jefferson/Pastor Bob since I have such a great feeling for Pastor Bob's understanding of science, which seems to be, "Gee, we/I don't understand this, so Goddidit", I'll pass.

So it's naturedidit instead then. lain:

I called him on the manganese nodules thread quite sometime ago. I know how he plays his game.

Do you have any idea how often I've met the same, tired show pony Atheist arguments in this or that thread? Either a battle is worth fighting and you fight it or it isn't and you don't.

I spent a good bit of time welcoming the newbies back in the day, apparently...

Hi So for a couple weeks I've been looking for a place where I might potentially find intelligent conversations with intelligent people. I landed here...

Well, you know what they say, if at first you don't succeed, why not stay here awhile? :think: Something like that...

My timing might be a little off, though.

Trust me, being a little off in any particular not only isn't a bar to major success here, it can actually work to your advantage.

And some of the conversations were a bit on the goofy side...

Steph.

....anopolis...anie Powers...infection...

In the mood to debate.

I love that song.

Agnostic.

How sure are you about that?

Feel free to try and convert me.

How many pounds do you weigh?

I'm nice enough, I'm friendly and I'm open-minded

Compared to whom?

Saafe.

Unless, of course, you're off base. lain: Welcome.

In 2008 Stripe and Stux were still talking to me...

:think: .... :sozo: :spam:

Why are you picking on the JoyfulCrustacean? :idunno:

Beans...I never can get her name right.

Youtube needs an editing feature lain:

My life needs an editing feature. lain:

Had a substantive difference with a challenging Marcus on God and the Bible...

If one takes the premise that God would have no imbalance in his personality, then to assert that He behaves in a way entirely consistent with a personality imbalance strikes me as perverse.

The problem is that everyone with a reasonable working definition of God (belief or disbelief notwithstanding) would doubtless agree in principle and repudiate its application to this or that particular. That is only to say that perverse, like beauty, is mostly a subjective valuation...outside the DSM, of course. So my comment was more restricted and less value driven (that being to my mind an easier thing to communicate across the understood range of philosophical distinction/differences here). To suggest that God is flawed in a manner we would recognize as an inferior state in a fellow is to offer unmistakable insult. I would say it is an offense against the nature of God but recognize that many have reduced the term to a more comprehensible superhuman variant while reserving perfection for nothing at all.

Should you not then, according to your "slight" argument above, therefore condemn the Bible writers as blasphemers?

No, though some might. And when I was a child and my father denied me this or that thing I could frequently be heard to remark, with furrowed brow, "You're mean."

He wasn't though. :e4e:

And...

What has that point to do with the price of sliced bread?

The illustration was of this point: frequently the difference between understanding a thing or not is found in the perspective of the examining mind. Or, to put it another way, seek and you will find, the truth of the matter or your own limitations.

Before turning a little rough and tumblish...

... and moving on from the childish point scoring ...

Well, you had the insupportably condescending covered, so I thought...

Actually your illustration is apt. Accusing a cookbook writer of being obsessed with food is to state the obvious.

No, it's to miss the obvious: the point of a cookbook is the preparation of food. The point of a book of moral instruction is to instruct on issues of morality and being. Sex being a cornerstone of both, what is needful as lesson might seem quite another thing around the dinner table. Again, there's no substitute for perspective.

You father (I am assuming) is a human being and you will therefore be able to communcate with him, and his existence is undisputed.

Certainly undisputed by me, but then you haven't met him.

Accusing God of being the author of these doctrines would be blasphemous if God is a spirit of truth and righteousness, and has a balanced mind.

Or, your voice is muffled by your hat. Not that I'm complaining--compared with what LostBoy was talking through this is a marked improvement.

"My father knew me well enough to understand that telling me what I wouldn't accept was only reasonable if the goal of communication was to be seen to attempt and not to succeed."

Thanks for the tip! :up:

Always happy to help, Marcus. :e4e:

That was a funny year, 2008. Tomorrow? Who knows. 2013 maybe. :shocked:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Monday

Charity was campaigning for random freebies from Knight via...

Dosn't matter! They should put all the names in a hat and one of us pulls one out, like the do in NZ

If we start using hats for that where will we put our soup? :think:

IP was making the case of the overdog on the NFL Boycott (is that sexist?) thread...

The NFL is the disgrace today. It is all propagandized reality.

...tv then.

Capernick is not a national hero,

Was there an award I missed? :think:

he is merely mainstreaming the misconceptions of the rioters of Fergeson etc.

You're merely getting hard right water all over the place. Which is like hard lemonade, but with less taste.

The NFL is shifting all discussion to race and minorities

How'd they do that?

and centralized control instead of in elected court procedure where it should be.

Your idea of how the criminal justice system works could be funny. Please, particulars.

In the meantime, what rhymes with "the President blew it?"

Screw it.

You know, I think we're both right.

When PJ said...

The President has overwhelming support for his NFL criticism, they are backing down.

:rotfl: You're a card, PJ. :think: Probably a club of some sort.

Over in the Cub Reporter's thread, AB asked...

Is there a prize for coming last?

Every month.

Reported...

lain:

On the created notion of kneeling in protest as being inherently disrespectful of troops, the flag, the anthem, pie...

While there may be some (and I'd expect few) who have served, not taking offense, the offense is clear

If some who have served don't take offense then the offense isn't inherent. If it isn't inherent then it is brought to the act by the person offended and not presented by the person who is protesting.

Had something for Congress in the wake of the Las Vegas mass murder...

Mitch "the Turtle" McConnell says that it's too early to talk about guns now...which is code for, "Let's wait it out, let it cool down, and let the NRA continue to run our show and stock our mini bars while we grind efforts aimed at making our constitutes safer into the ground."

What stumped him? Whether or not to consider making bump stocks illegal. Bump stocks, legal to sell and buy, are used to convert weapons to full automatic. He thought the Vegas shootings made that consideration inappropriate. You know, like when the Titanic sank and people argued considering safety measures for ships would be inappropriate considering... lain:

What a piece of work is man...what a piece of something else is Congress.

I noted some bottom feeders were rushing in to capitalize on the tragedy as gun stocks soared and...

You mean like leftists who instantly ring the bell for contributions as they start screaming afresh for massive gun confiscation?

No, like someone making a buck by contributing to the means of it, trading on human misery for their own profit.

Meanwhile, reasonable people are talking about reasonable restrictions to impact the problem. And by reasonable people I mean those outside of Congress, of course.

IJ was determined to conflate personal experience with the means to establish a rule...

Not opinions it's experience.

People who limit the truth to their experience accept their limitations as truth.

Meanwhile, in a cornfield in Iowa, Trump was...

...trying to stop Iowa from trying to stabilizing the state's Obamacare markets.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...trump-block-state-obamacare-more-conservative

Good: his attention is off the rest of us. Way to take one for the team, Iowa. :thumb:

Tomorrow? Lexicons Nexus, feeling the love, and in for a Pence, in for a pounding. lain:

 

[Stripe]

In 2008 Stripe and Stux were still talking to me.

I spoke to you a couple of days ago. :idunno:

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

I spoke to you a couple of days ago. :idunno:

I think you were wearing a different shirt though.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo was busy not answering the RPG question and addressing the elephant in his argument

"In common use." That means standard issue service rifles, at a minimum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_rifle

As I said.

 

[Town Heretic]

"In common use." That means standard issue service rifles, at a minimum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_rifle

As I said.

At a minimum. Neatly ambiguous. I also noted the problem with people who claim fetters are problematic while offering their own.

You didn't have an answer for that and don't present one here. Neither did Yor. And so the point and problem remain for you. Now if you really want to continue to talk about this the thread and conversation are still right where you left it.

Meanwhile:

[FONT=&quot]The Wrap
on Thursday[/FONT]


So this sort of thing...

I'm telling you, white people are fed up with black athletes. I don't blame them one bit.

Colonel Sanders didn't blame people for eating fried chicken either.

White people have been black people's best friends

Is this the, "You people don't know how good you've had it" gambit? Because rest assured, they know exactly how well they've had it and for how long. [/sarcasm]

Just wait until our country is ruled by the hexicans.

Are you going to work the Jews into this narrative any time soon or are you saving it?

Then it's brutha beware time.

You were doing typeface then weren't you. lain:.

Led Kat to remind me...

You do know hes a clown, right?

Yeah. The shoes were a dead giveaway.

Took on a couple of NRA spokesmen who both had a similar sort of problem...

As I said, nobody's mentioned RPGs, not the courts, and not the NRA.

It's such a silly, dangerous position to advance no one who believed they should be able to would advance it around people with a bit more sense. But when you say that the right as you understands it allows for the possession of machine guns "at a minimum" it invites the reasonable inquiry into what exceeds your minimum threshold that you might find defensible if against your interests to admit, given the unreasonableness you have to know will attach.

To put a point on it: do you believe you should be or are entitled to own and carry an RPG? If not, why not?

Rights are not subject to abridgement.

They absolutely are. You noted one earlier in relation to convicted felons. You excuse it by saying we don't have a right to commit a crime. But who decided what the crime was and what abridgement was then permissible? And once you agree you've lost the absolute. We're just arguing about the threshold.

...You show poor judgment.

Your status quo defense is part of the reason we have 29 deaths per million while Australia manages 1.4... Which begs the question, do you mean to be ironic?.

When for no apparent reasoning...

Too bad you don’t know how to read the Bible.

Man...if you were a hitter your bat would look like it just came off the lathe.

And AB said...something...

I'm thinking about changing my head apparel...

:noid:

Ah, I hit "thanks" before I realized there was a word after "head." lain:

While Nihilo was busy not answering the RPG question and addressing the elephant in his argument, Yor said of the right to bear arms...

...It's either unfettered or it doesn't exist.

That's simply not true of any right. They're all subject to balancing.

One either has the right to defend themself or they don't.

No one is arguing that you can't defend yourself.

Everything else is just the transition to the right being suppressed completely.

No, we've been balancing rights from the beginning and we still have them.

Re: carrying RPGs or Bazookas and how that reads into Yor's and Nihilo's problematic stance

...you created a straw man to make this claim. Will you realize you created a straw man and apologize or confess you didn't realize you created a straw man?

I did no such thing. You said the right must be unfettered (see: bold above) or it isn't a right at all. I unfettered it. And the moment I do your position becomes as obviously absurd as it actually is. That's the problem and it's yours, not mine.

Individuals can defend themselves reliably with a weapon that can be brought to bear against a single other human. If it can do such, it should be freely allowed.

That's your fetter. Now we're just negotiating price.

Had a nodding agreement with DR on a point not related directly to the Civil War...

Bill and Hillary Clinton are not speaking to each other after a blazing argument over her election book, it has been claimed...‘He hated the title because calling it “What Happened” would only make people say, “You lost.”
‘He urged her to postpone the pub date and rewrite the book, but she yelled at him and said: “The book is finished and that’s how it’s going to be published”.’
Since then the pair have been speaking through friends and lawyers, the source said

Wow....

If that happened, from what I've seen he was right. But then that's been a problem of hers for a while. She only seems to hear her own voice.

While in the NFL thread...

No one cares man

There's nothing funnier than someone showing up somewhere to tell everyone how indifferent he is to be there.

Tomorrow? Conspiracy theories, boycotts, and someone takes a Wunderlicking and keeps on ticking... lain:

 

[patrick jane]

Tomorrow? You're guess is as good as the president's. Unless you're sober, of course (either). lain:

:chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on...Stuff


Things were heating up along the fenceline in the Trump/Knob thread...

Town Heretic is a bit of a pompous fellow, isn't he?

Like having your shoe size mocked by a clown.

I love a good sense of humor,

Like Quasimodo dreaming of Esmerelda.

unfortunately,TH wasn't blessed with one. However, he compensates for that shortcoming, having convinced himself that he's witty.

It's more of a land of the blind sort of thing.

He's his own number one FAN. Although, I kind of think his FAN is unplugged.

Hey! GM, good to have you back!

And really, how often does anyone say that about cancer?

I kid, of course. Cancer is the result of abnormal growth.

Leading to speculation...

Eh, nice little gossip club they've got going on...

There's a rumor I may replace night baseball at some point. lain:

And...

I think you'll hear lots of refreshing things noted in articles for the next 7.2 years. :chuckle:

There's a thin line between optimism and Prozac.

Before decrying my...

Ignoring informative, relevant, educational Youtube video

Don't forget Wikis! And cocktail napkins. I'm sure they're just full of...information. Else, if you can't find the information in better authority it's probably just some guy with a video camera and an attitude.

Someone I've never heard of before stopped by to interject something I'll never think on again...

guns are to be used for the purpose they were made.. no?

what are you griping about?

Words are made to communicate meaningful information. What are you using them for?

DR had a word about a curious focus...

JW's don't stand for the anthem or pledge a flag....nary a peep about them...

Maybe if they'd convert to Islam.

While on the overhyped NFL ratings are falling...

Ratings are down 17.5% since 2015 at this point in the season.

Nothing was happening on the anthem front in 2015. So the only reason to go back that far is to make the decline more dramatic. Ratings went down in 2015 without anyone kneeling. Why? I'll come back to the likely culprits and the as likely misapprehension in a moment.

I don't know what you consider as freefall

A sharp, typically sudden statistical downturn. That's not what's happening here, where we've actually seen some rebound and where the overall decline precedes what some are attempting to call the effect. That sort of thing.

A few points:

1. Nielsen doesn't factor mobile devices, which over the same last few years has become a way a great many people keep track of games, especially the younger set.

2. Cord cutters have impacted ratings, especially of NFL Network or ESPN generated games.

3. On top of that potential for statistical misread you had the domestic violence black eye, followed by a serious concussion concern that became a topic of moment for fans and parents of potential fans/players, then the anthem controversy. That much negative press over a couple of years is going to have an impact, even if that's largely in the soft viewership. It's still an important demo.

An interesting side bar that moves us toward alternate viewing, the worst downturn year, last year, saw 5% more viewers, an actual increase, but the overall viewership was watching less of any particular game. Forbes, Sept. 27, 2017 It makes me wonder if the Red Zone was such a good idea for the NFL, getting viewers accustomed to watching here and there and skipping out on the commercials and down time. Also, among those who still typically use tvs to watch the game, an aging demographic but one with teeth and numbers, viewership is actually up this year. It's down among younger viewers who (again) may be watching but less of any particular and using other means than television.

JS said the darndest thing...

I am glad to find out you are an attorney.

Well there's a thing you don't hear that often.

For the time, let us ignore a generalization that attorneys care more about success than truth.

Isn't that like, "You're a [redacted], but let's put the petty aside for now." :chuckle:

Do you not classify the published statements of police and investigators as separate from "eye witness testimony?"

Early statements from police tend to be reflections of available testimony and preliminary forensics. They're only as reliable as the sources and, from time lines to brass, those can be as prone to movement and correction.

Okay. Let us proceed with this. Give evidence of the expended brass.

By accounts, including video, an awful lot of shots were fired. Guns that fire shells leave brass somewhere. In this case, the most likely somewhere would be amongst the glass caught on a ledge below the shooter's two positions.

The same goes for your false assumption that I was confusing basic rifles with assault-styles.

An assertion can be false. An assumption is at best mistaken, because it's not purporting to be the truth, only one potential explanation, in this case one aimed at your curious belief that there was something awry in the final tally of wounded and killed. From a shooter's perspective there really isn't for any number of reasons, most of which I set out in my last on the point, from darkness to distance, adrenaline to shifting positions, to wasting time trying to ignite fuel tanks, etc.

Implying that I had little knowledge of gun mechanics, classifications, etc.

No, implying a lack of understanding or consideration of a number of points that readily answered on the point. I have a good friend who retired from the Marines as a Gunney. I asked him about the tally and if it surprised him. He said it didn't, but that it wouldn't have surprised him if there were double the fatalities either. His tick list was largely in line with mine and he added that a lot of luck is in play when you have people who lack muscle memory response to intensely stressful periods of time. He said that even when he was involved in an ambush situation where he had high ground and numbers, the stress was so intense that the first time he understood the reason for all the drilling he'd been put through and why they put him through it with the levels of stress added in.

Tomorrow? Your guess is as good as the president's. Unless you're sober, of course (either). lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on...Lawyers, Guns and Babies


Then some guy said of my gun law proposals...

You don't want safer.

Then proposing mandatory safety courses is a really odd way of accomplishing that.

Nihilo had a new side bar or two...

Europe is blessed with fewer murderers than the United States at moment.

I know they have far fewer mass shootings and firearm related homicides. And that's not so much blessing as a reflection of reasoned law.

That isn't a reason to further strip freedoms from peaceable and law abiding people.

No one is losing the right to own firearms by any of my proposals. And not even you want them to be able to possess every sort of weapon.

I noted the remarkable coincidence that as with comparing our gun violence with Europe, comparing the toughest gun law states with the weakest shows a similarity of impact...

Top 5/bottom 5 states ranked by tough to weak gun law - deaths by gun per 100,000 citizens.

1. California - 7.7 deaths per 100,000
2. Connecticut - 5.3
3. New Jersey - 5.3
4. Mass. - 4.0
5. New York - 4.1
-------------------------
46. Idaho - 14.8
47. Arizona - 13.8
48. Missouri - 17.9
Kansas - 11.3
50. Mississippi - 19.5

Or, even the worst of the stronger gun law states, California, did twice as good a job protecting citizens from gun violence and death, while the average among the better, tougher gun law states did even better.

And Yor was back with...

There is no doubt one can eventually pile enough laws/regulations on the people to
get them to do any particular thing.

Or, in this case, change the law to significantly impact their ability to do a very damaging and specific thing. Thanks.

But it's a bad way to run a country.

No, reducing mass murder and the associated damage to the culture is a very good thing, no matter what you attempt to slather the effort in.

Before returning to Nihilo and...

your interpretation of the right [to bear arms] differs from mine, and from the Supreme Court's.

In point of fact though, almost no one is advancing the notion that the right to bear arms is unabridged, which means the rest of it is about where the line should be drawn and why.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Abortion is the law of the land too.

The topic is that you want to further erode our freedom to possess and to carry standard issue weaponry

No, the topic is whether or not we find preventable massacres preferable to the alteration of an arbitrary line in the sand in relation to what a person can reasonably use for hunting and in self-defense. Again, the weapons and the scale of lethality they present today don't remotely reflect what was reasonable and possible when the initial ideas were framed for protection under a differing set of needs and pragmatic considerations. It's time to stop acting as though this right wasn't a thing it demonstrably is, abridged, then get on with the reasonable job of making sure we make a more intelligent choice relating to that line.

And...

]Something I said early on was that you're arguing for amending the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment, and you denied that

Probably, it not being true and all. That sounds like me.

but that impression to me remains.

You should try another impression. I'd recommend Christopher Walken. That's a good one if you can pull it off.

You're arguing against the existence of the right itself.

Well, no. Nothing like that, honestly. So when you repeat that, you're nothing like honest. I'd prefer to think you're better than that, but if you keep insisting you aren't at some point I'm going to take your word for it.

While fp got off to a poor start on discussing the unborn...

I'm pro-choice. I've gotten to the point where idc. I'm not a woman...

So it has to be about you for you to care? Then you're not a lot of things.

Then gct had a notion...

Protecting the 'potential' of the fœtus seems to be a retrofitted argument designed to give the desired result, rather than a satisfactory argument in its own right. Where else do we allow rights based on a possible future rather than a specific present?

It's a unique situation, and we preclude ourselves from negating it in potential because and singularly because that potential is indistinguishable from the vested right.

Moral reasoning usually to involve the desires and experiences of the person claiming or being awarded those rights. Why not here?

Because it is a capitulation, not an answer to a rational posit. It's subjective in nature and we argue as a people that the right isn't. The foundation of every right is existence and the premise we advance as a people, in law, is that this right exists independent of our whim. Until we change that premise my argument is going to be a problem.

What properties of an organism demands those rights to life? The possibility of a sense of loss, the fear of death, the potential to experience and fear loss or suffering? That is where universal rights tend to revolve around whenever there is broad consensus. Conscious suffering and loss.

You're speaking more to what it is about life that gives it meaning and value to us. But those arise as a response to our existence. They are not required. We may not fear loss or death without either of those impacting our right to exist. We may be inured to suffering and retain them.

How can you give 'rights' to clumps of cells that might become a functioning human

A flaw in your premise. We aren't arguing about conferral, but recognition. We believe and assert as a principle in our law that we are born with certain rights, conditional only upon our existence and abrogated only by our actions. I note that as the foundation of law, not to promote its necessity.

(OK, I'm being deliberately provocative, but my argument stands. Which moral principle should we use for deciding which organism has which rights, and why?)

That's okay, but I'm not advancing a moral argument. I have one, but I'd rather approach this across a bridge of rationalism. Logic binds us all, whatever we believe.

And I'll end this edition with a recent reflection on sexual irresponsibility and the body politic...

Texas Rep. Joe Barton apologized today for a nude selfie he made that's been making the rounds.

Said a contrite Barton, "I let my constituents down."

So at least his pants had company.

Tomorrow? Reflections on a golden I (14-2 against the line) and the more with the usual suspects.

 

[Town Heretic]