"Diversity" means "different." That's all it means. Why in the world would I celebrate "different." Mass murderers (thank God) are "different." Democrats celebrate mass murderers. Whether they are Che Gueverra or Tookie Williams, the Democrat adores the mass murderer.
Drug addicts are "different." The Democrats adore drug addicts. In fact, the reason they so hated Rudolph Giuliani in New York -- called him "Hitler," of course -- was because he wouldn't allow the drug-addicted prostitutes to continue to mug people in Times Square.
Sexual perversions are "different." Democrats promote sexual perversion at every turn -- with Robert Redford choosing a movie about a man who was having sexual relations with his horse to be honored with a slot at "The Sundance Film Festival."
You see, when mere "differentness" is the criteria for celebration, a good society that which is "different" is going to be bad. In a society that respects others, disrespect is "different." In a society where literacy is the norm, "ebonics" is what becomes the stuff of "celebration."
I'm am not an illiteracy-ophobe, or a sexual perversion-a-phobe or a mass-murderer-a-phobe. I just know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil and the behaviors that I want celebrated so that my children recognize that what is being honored is good, not just different.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
102 comments:
;kjsb;kj ;j n;k n;jksnv;ksndvaw'offnvLAKNDV'C
diverse city...a town i never want to visit.
diversity is good but diversity with disregard for tradition is flawed right of the box. one must keep there bearings when venturing out into the world of change.
keep up the good work!
The whole point of the "diversity" campaign is to efface notions of right and wrong, better and worse. The notion that difference itself is an asset falls to pieces when logically examined, which is why its promoters respond to anyone who does so by trying to shout him down.
"The Fascists cannot argue, so they kill." -- Victor Marguerite.
Mr. Sayet,
I noticed a little button on your sidebar that says "i love evan sayet.com"
Could I put that button on my blog?
Speaking of mass murderers, and diversity, I suggest you check out this story: http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=123575&ran=1413.
A sociology major (big surprise) at VT made a memorial for the mass murderer responsible for the massacre. Now, ignoring what is obviously FUBAR with this story, I urge you to please review the title of the article. It reads, quote "By casting a stone, for Cho, she refused to judge."
This reinforces what you were saying earlier about liberals refusing to exercise discriminatory thought; the author applauds this idealistic girl (she's a girl; a woman would know better) for not "judging" the murderer. I would like to know, since when did "judging" someone become a bad thing? :-/
Justin
When we try to be excellent, diversity just happens.
When we try to be diverse, mediocrity just happens.
Justin,
Wow. I read the article... though it's not too surprising, it's so sickening.
This is country is in trouble if people like that end up becoming our national leaders.
"Diversity" is the Orewellian language shift that I've written about in my little newspaper for a long time. "Diversity" is the noun construct of "diverse," and that which is "diverse" is different. So, to celebrate diversity is to celebrate that which is different, and if we engage in the socialist-left's "embrace of cultural diversity," we are engaging in the propititating, not of unity, but what makes people separate--different--which is quite the opposite of the expressed intent of unifying diverse cultures along commonalities. Apartheid is an embrace of and celebration of cultural diversity.
"The notion that difference itself is an asset falls to pieces when logically examined, which is why its promoters respond to anyone who does so by trying to shout him down."
Because, dagnabbit, I eat the same food every day, and that's fine with me. Difference and variety itself in food choices, day in, day out, is BAD. All these "diverse" restaurants should be closed down. There's nothing bad in eating dry meatloaf for the rest of your life.
...and choice in whether or not to have a child is Good, dagnabit! If a woman wants to cut up the life that lies within her womb into little pieces and flush the pieces down the toilet, that should be her choice. And she should have a FULL nine months to make that choice. Because CHOICE IS GOOD, dagnabit! What's the difference to you, anyway?
Diversity, it's just a choice by different name.
Except that you don't get the choice. It's diversity or nothin'
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on those accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things can not be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime."
- Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad
Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home.
Rousseau, "Emile"
[1617:] It is therefore illogical to conclude that travel is useless because we do not travel well. But granting the usefulness of travel, does it follow that it is good for all of us? Far from it. There are very few people who are really fit to travel; it is only good for those who are strong enough in themselves to listen to the voice of error without being deceived, strong enough to see the example of vice without being led away by it. Travelling accelerates the progress of nature and completes the man for good or evil. When a man returns from travelling about the world he is what he will be all his life; there are more who return bad than good, because there are more who start with an inclination towards evil. In the course of their travels, young people, badly-educated and badly-behaved, pick up all the vices of the nations among whom they have sojourned and none of the virtues with which those vices are associated. But those who are happily born, those whose natural goodness has been well cultivated, those who travel with a real desire to learn -- all return better and wiser than they went. This is how my Emile will travel; this is how another young man, worthy of a nobler age travelled, one whose worth was the admiration of Europe, one who died for his country in the flower of his manhood. He deserved to live, and his tomb, ennobled by his virtues only, received no honour till a stranger's hand adorned it with flowers.
Yes, let's hear from Jean-Jacques Roussou on morality, after all, he's such an upstanding example. I don't think he ever even married his lady friend, with whom he had 7 or 8 childen, all of who were given up for adoption.
Let's hear from him! AFter all, surely he could tell us something, having proposed the killing of everyone who is not of the right religion in his imaginary ideal village.
What ideal village was that? You must be having flashbacks.
And no, Rousseau never got married. He gave all his many kids up for adoption. I wonder why? Well, not really, I know why.
My memory is murky, since I took modern political philosophy at Harvard back when I was in high school (i know you'll that's impossible, but it's not), but i seem to recall something about how in Rousseau's ideal societal structure, with the noble savage living in small communities rather than large countries, he in fact proposed that everyone in the community who is not of the community's religion should be killed or stoned or something.
Please do enlighten us as to why Rousseau gave up his children for adoption, and why, after such an act, it's still advisable to listen to his pronouncements on morality.
Doesn't sound like him since he almost converted to Catholicism after leaving Geneva as a young man, and struggling with religion himself.
And as for his own children, he didn't want them to be brought up as "nobles" or having a position in which they would be filled w/amour propre (titled artifical self esteem). He thought people should be prepared to serve in the lowest capacity of society and "rise" from merit rather experience a "fall from grace". In that manner, they would always be self-sufficient. (Emile)
What a nut, huh... not wanting to "spoil" his kids. He was a man ahead of his time. He never got married because his "word/ commitment" was his bond. A noble goal that many aspire to, but few can fulfill. You should be able to relate. Unfortunately, its' not a sentiment suitable for "mass" practice.
Wait a second, weren't you saying just the other day how bad it is for children to be brought up with one parents, and worse yet, with NO PARENTS in orphanages? How this is so bad for society? and now you're lauding it?
!!!
I think that Rousseau's story of how he gave up all his kids for adoption, regardless of Emile, is a parable about the benefits of contraceptives -- people who don't want children, like Rousseau and his laundress didn't, shouldn't have them. It just creates problems for everyone. People will fornicate whether or not they have contraceptives, so it is best to just provide them for everyone.
It was a different time and a different place. What you fail to account for was that Rousseau had some very dangerous and powerful enemies. Enemies very interested in keeping him under control. For his children, it was a sensible decision. It is nothing he would have advocated (orphanages) for society at large. I think his "Emile" outlines how he would have liked to raise and educate his children.
But you used the fact that he had given up his children for adoption in an accusatory manner. It is important to understand the circumstances and context under which he acted.
If you think that sex is a toy for pleasure, then it makes sense. But if you understand what sex is a little better and develop a more mature perspective, then perhaps you would find it unnecessary. I have no problem with the ready availability of contraceptives. What I trouble with is how sex education is taught. I think if it were taught in a more charming manner, it would be less sought after as a "recreational" activity. At least for the "properly educated" person.
So now you're telling me that sometimes, putting children in an orphanage is a sensible decision, as opposed to having them be raised by 2 opposite-sex adults? This is mighty different from what you were saying just a few days ago. Maybe then, you'll concede, that sometimes, being raised by a single parent is better than being raised by 2 opposite-sex adults? Or maybe that sometimes, being raised by 2-same-sex parents is better than being raised by a single parent, or no parents at all?
Why, to think! Just a few days ago you were saying that single motherhood should be illegal, and now you're lauding two perfectly healthy, heterosexual adults for giving up eight, EIGHT of their children to an orphange.
Why did they have 8 children, btw, FJ? Didn't they have a clue by the time they had 3 or 6? Shouldn't they have just stopped fornicating, instead of bringing more unwanted, unloved chidlren into orphanages?
My my my, i am very surprised by how much water you are willing to carry for your philospher-idols. They were just humans, they made mistakes, not all of their actions have to be completely irreproachable.
You'll bend over backwards to not criticize Rousseau, but with regular old people, you're just full of richeous, broadbrush, sweeping judgments.
I know you won't do it, but I can't recommend you read Plato's "Philebus" highly enough, on whether pleasure or mind is the higher "good".
then perhaps you would find it unnecessary.
By "it" do you mean "sex"? Your idols didn't think sex was unnecessary, all but Nietzsche, i would wager. And nietzsche was a bit of a freak, letting Lou Andreas Salome torture him like that, you know.
When somebody is willing to kill you, yes, you do what you can to ensure your children survive and not used against you.
FJ, can you explain why he and his laundro-miss had 8 children? Why not stop at 1 or 2, if they didn't want them, or if they would put him in danger, or whatever?
I give up, why? No contraceptives? LOL!
Salome tortured Nietzsche? How did she do that? By remaining abstinent?
At least fornication wasn't the focus of either Rousseau or Nietzsche's lives. Both paid dearly for the instinct, though.
Salome tortured Nietzsche mentally by flaunting her relationship that other guy, Ree or something.
I think you're wrong about Rousseau -- Ockam's Razor applies, i think. fornication with his girlfriend was a priority for him, so much so that he didn't care about the children it produced, and he certainly couldn't be bothered to raise them, he was busy having enemies, philosophizing and fornicating. in our day, he and his gal would've just used contraceptives and not had any children at all.
And even though he wrote Emile, which is a highly sympathetic work, that doesn't mean he wasn't a hypocrite. He May very well have been one of those "do as I say, not as I do" kinda guys. Like I said, people are just people, they are not demigods. Jefferson loved freedom, and his slaves (double entendre intended). Wagner wrote beautiful music but was a most hideous, petty man, apart because of his anti-semiticism.
If you hold up these thinkers in such high regard as to think that they can do no wrong, that they are completely internally consistent, etc., then you are holding them up as gods, which they were not.
What does Jefferson have to do with the price of beans? You're just a smear-queen who drags your betters through the mud and can't stand the fact that some people don't approve of your degenerate lifestyle and ideals. The only way you can justify your own foolish behavior is to pretend that everyone else is just as degenerate as you are. That's why you hang out here. To smear Sayet and ridicule the message that there might be something "better" than what progressives have to offer. Well wake up, smell the coffee, it's YOU and your ilk that need to start flying right.
Yes, some people on the right occassionally make mistakes. But you live the mistake 24/7. You uglify the rest of the world so as to bring it down to your level. Then you glorify deviant behavior in your sick desire to prove to yourself you're somehow superior than the poor schmucks that actually take your facile reassurances seriously.
Well your not superior. Your just a pathetic spoiled little child. And I'm sure, your mistakes will all prove to have been "avoidable" ones.
Fj, what in the hell?! Really, sometimes i feel like we're finally having a civil discussion, and you have to ruin it with your crazy truckload of batshit nuts ad hominem. Is Rousseau your close firend and relative? Did I insult him, and therefore you, somehow? No. please, don't take everything so personally.
Why are you insulting me and my lifestyle up and down in the face of some arguments about a 3rd party, in this case Rousseau? I didn't say anything about you. What's the matter, can't hold a civil conversation?
I don't get it.
PS Nice choice of lexicon there, with "degenerate." you're fit for a good old fashioned "degenerate art" book burning, or a soviet censorship panel. And it's not even like i'm exaggerating.
Only because some people actually understand what "degenerate" aka "decadent" art is. De-cadent, out of step, out of synch. Or as you'd like to say, E pluribus pluribus and NOT e pluribus unum. To have a "social contract" requires an "unum". without it, there is NO contract. Art serves to help build the "unum".
All cultures are NOT equal. Some grow tall crops, others grow short crops, and still others cause their crops to die. A wise farmer chooses his cultures carefully. He hoes rows for his plants. He doesn't scatter a multitude of seeds into a single cultured bed.
Like I say, do you know what wisdom is? I think the answer is pretty obvious.
Once again, I've cornered you on a topic, so you explode in ad hominem and try to change the topic. Pathetic, really.
What's a matter, can't find honorably, without crazy-ass insults, and instead with facts and arguments? Must be especially embittering cuz i'm a young, stupid GIRL.
LOL
Well then, what topic did your corner me on? My rant was in response of your constantly shifting topics and moving away from your original arguments. As soon as I explain one man's actions (Rousseau) you drag in another, Jefferson. you're arguments are what are "running", me, not me.
I guess I've a new mission in life... to help you on your quest of perpetual self-refutation.
Are you joking? Are you really this dumb?
Jefferson and Wagner were mentioned for the sake of analogy, for bolstering my argument. Surely you've heard of this thing caleld "citing examples" and "making analogies." The bulk of my post was about Rousseau, and you have not yet refuted or disputed anthing I wrote there. In fact, before that post, you asked me for my opinon. So, I state my opinion, provide some analogous examples, who also provide some rhetoric and syntactic flourish, and you unleash your tsumani of bullshit? It doesn't add up, FJ, and i'm not that stupid. You just felt cornered so you had nothing to say except your as hominem. PA. THE. TIC.
PS And keep talking about "degenerate" art. Really, Soviet ideology really suits you, I think.
Analogy? Actually they are good analogies for MY argument. You make unfounded unproven accusations against all men of merit, which I then must continuously refute. It started to Rousseau... which I refuted... it progressed to Nietzsche... which had no basis at all... and then Jefferson.
You keep "extending" the argument beyond the original.
You then follow with a "diversion" to get me to proceed and argue a second and completely off-topic point.
The point is, there are reasons for taking people like Rousseau seriously on moral issues. Unlike you, they were moral people.
Here, I'll type slowly, in short sentences: Jefferson and Wagner are examples of people who contributed a lot to society, but whose personal lives were arguably pretty despicable. Jefferson's writings on liberty, the constitution itself, etc., should not be completely discredited by this, just like Wagner's music should not be shunned because of his personal defects. The defects should be acknowledged, should be taken into consideration, but they should not completely discredit someone's work. Conversely, it is not necessary for someone's life to be completely free of mistakes and spotless before you can take them seriously. I would argue that Nietzsche's personal life was quite horrid, but we can still take him seriously. Schpenhauer, Heidegger, Sartre, Einstein, same thing.
Same with Rousseau - he made personal mistakes in his life, but Emile is a foundational work on education nonetheless. I brought his personal life up, but you took the bait to try to justify it somehow, whereas justification is not necessary.
Now perhaps you should argue how much better Twain was at leading a moral life than Rousseau. Since we're pitting authority against authority in this argument.
These are not unfounded accusations, these are facts. Rousseau gave up 8 children to an orphanage, are you going to dispute that? Nietzsche had sex maybe once in his life. Jefferson had slaves and had sex with them. Are you going to dispute these facts?
You didn't refute anything at all on Rousseau. Have you explained why he had 8 children if having them would place him and them in grave danger? No.
You're willing to bend over backwards to excuse Rousseau's behavior, but with your fellow, comtemporary human beings, you're full of richeous judgment, even though you know NOTHING about them and their personal lives. I think that's blatant hypocrisy on your part.
Not even "arguably despicable." They have been "smeared" with allegations, NONE proven definitively. None. Whereas you are an admitted fornicator and debauchee.
Nietzsche had syphillis and died in an insane asylum. Didn't you know that?
I explained why Rousseau gave his children up for adoption. It was the same reason he didn't marry. But you "ignore" the points.
Some expert at logic.
Further, I think it depends on what the person contributed to society. Wanger contributed music, so his personal morality isn't too relevant to that. But if someone is making pronouncements on morality, a lawmaker, a law giver, theorizing about the best morality? Then maybe their personal life is more relevant, but only a little relevant. The fact that the author didn't follow his ideal morality doesn't away from the validity of the ideal morality, it only takes away from the author. It may be important on the question of practicability of this morality, but not on its validily. Whether the two are related is a wholly separate matter.
Excuse me?
Your the one who wants to make illegitimacy, sodomy and homosexual marrage the NORM, not the exception. It is up to you to defend these practices, not me to point out the circumstances that permitted exceptions in the past.
If they're so good for society, perhaps you could tell us "why". What is the "benefit" to be derived?
Rousseau made no laws.
...and because you aspire to making laws, shouldn't we look to YOUR morality and subject them to scrutiny?
I have no such asoirations. I merely desire to experience "a good life".
Wait wait wait, you're saying that Wagner has been smeared with allegations that haven't been proven true? Think before you speak, man. There are works by Wagner that are anti-Semitic, by his own pen. There are records of him being a weasely debtor who when not writing music, was devising plans about escaping his creditors. This is not disputed.
As for Nietzsche and syphilis, it is in fact disputed whether he had it. Another story i read somewhere is that he had sex once, with a syphilitic prostitute, to contract it so he could go on medical leave from his university and be free to write, instead of lecturing.
Jefferson and his slaves disputed? Hmmm...
I don't think it's moral to have 8 children and put them in an orphanage. Do you? Please, tell me you do, again, and contradict everything you've said before.
If you want to raise them, fine, but not to put them in an orphanage. Better not to have had them at all.
As for "illigitimacy" (what a throwback), I don't think we should discriminate against "illigitimate" children or people, it's not their fault how they came into this world.
The subject is Rousseau. Stick to it if you can. Wagner was trash. Jefferson's DNA evidence points to a family line, not any specific individual.
And btw, I don't aspire to making laws, to be a legislator or a litigator, and I don't aspire to write treatises on morality.
However, even if I did, I don't think there's much in my life that is immoral. At least according to my own morality, which is very reasonable and sound.
The subject is Rousseau. Stick to it if you can.
You've heard of analogy, haven't you? You even allege you went to college or something.
Wagner was trash.
LOL. You can't be serious.
Jefferson? intermingled his DNA with his slaves.
Rousseau was being persecuted by both the Royalists AND the Anti-royalists, and several attempts were made to use "his mistress" against him, to silence him. There are NO doubts, that his children would have been used in the same way.
But are you saying that a persecuted man is not entitled to have a life or perpetuate his genetic line? Is that your argument? Had Rousseau NOT reproduced, I would have to question his morality. For that is ultimately sex's purpose. To reproduce.
Never read "Nietzsche contra Wagner?" I didn't think so.
The charges against Jefferson are alledged. It could have been anyone in the male Jefferson line.
But your whole purpose at pursuing this analogy is to broaden your smear. You simply cannot argue logically. You perists in pursuing the fallacy of extension and diversion.
Well, see, that's where our moralities differ. I don't think peopel should reproduce no matter what -- each one should consider whether he is capable of bringing up a child, mature enough, to provide for the child emotionally and materially. No one but the person should decide that, surely, not the state or any other arbiter, but I think it could help our world a lot.
Your explanation on Rousseau still DOESN"T EXPLAIN why he had to have EIGHT children. WAsn't giving up 2 enough? I believe in a right to procreate or not, but I can still question whether someone made a good choice. I don't think the state or anyone else should tell some poor shmoe not to have any more children, to force him or her not to reproduce anymore, but at the same time, I can say it's immoral to have more children, from my point of view. That's what i'm saying with Rousseau.
Why did he have to have EIGHT? I think that the fact that he had 8, and gave them all up for adoption, points to my explanation of his actions, that he simply didn't care about them, and wanted to keep having sex (and maybe his mistress did too), rather than your explanation. Your explanation doesn't explain why he gave up EIGHT of them.
Nietzsche's first work? Yeah, and Wagner was an anti-Semite. Why are you still disputing this fact?
But your whole purpose at pursuing this analogy is to broaden your smear. You simply cannot argue logically. You perists in pursuing the fallacy of extension and diversion.
LOL. I don't think those are fallacies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
You can't just invent fallacies. That's like inventing facts. Wait, you do that all the time.
1) I don't think peopel should reproduce no matter what -- each one should consider whether he is capable of bringing up a child, mature enough, to provide for the child emotionally and materially. No one but the person should decide that, surely, not the state or any other arbiter, but I think it could help our world a lot.
2) same
Huh? What's your beef w/Rousseau, again?
3) Eight children was not an unusual number of children for a man to have. The world certainly was not "overpopulated" at the time, and many children didn't survice past the age of two. Are you arguing that a persecuted man must remain celebate, even if there is a viable means available for him not to?
Now tell us what a "saint" twain was... I can't wait.
LOL! Wikipedia is THE "authority" on logic and argumentation.
And Websters is your source of Wisdom.
You kill me, me!
Why should I have defend Wagner and anti-semitism. Nietzsche almost crucified the poor guy already. Is there some logical reason why I have to defend Wagner? Is this something you learned at logic school, or wikipedia?
Please, show me a source that is even halfway credible (your own blog doesn't county) that says that "extension and diversion" are "fallacies," I'm assuming you meant logical fallacies.
You crack me up. Wikipedia -- good enough for frederal judges to cite in their opinions, but not good enough for anonymous blogger on comments page of idiot's post.
Are you arguing that a persecuted man must remain celebate, even if there is a viable means available for him not to?
I don't think having 8 children is a vioable means not to be celibate. contraceptives, albeit faulty ones, already existed at the time. there's always oral sex, too.
I don't thin kthere's any excuse for giving up 8 children for adoption.
Are you arguing that anyone should be able to do that?
My source - Plato, "Euthydemus"
And I'm arguing that anyone (& everyone) currently is able to give up their children for adoptiont. Whether they should or not, is best left for them to decide, dontcha think? But it would be 'wise' were this not a norm...
Well, Plato can go fuck himself, for lack of a better word. have you ever taken a class in symbolic or mathematical logic? I've taken both, and those are not recognized fallacies.
But you can keep living in BC times...the world has moved on.
did you know that st. anselm's proof of the existence of god is easily logically refutable? Your "luminaries" make logical mistakes too, dontcha know.
Well, Plato can go fuck himself, for lack of a better word. have you ever taken a class in symbolic or mathematical logic? I've taken both, and those are not recognized fallacies.
But you can keep living in BC times...the world has moved on.
did you know that st. anselm's proof of the existence of god is easily logically refutable? Your "luminaries" make logical mistakes too, dontcha know.
I mean, you're not arguing in good faith. If it were some welfare mom having 8 kids and giving them up for adoption, you'd be using her as the posterchild for all sorts of ridiculous abstinence-only, pro-marriage, anti-promiscuous culture bullshit. But if it's Rousseau, you defend him to the death.
Wikipedia is a wonderful resource. But it's a mile wide, and an inch deep. Kinda like this country's educational system.
And please, where do you think the field of "logic" originated? Aristotle had a teacher, and that teacher was Plato. There would be no "modern" classes in logic today without them. To dismiss Plato is to dismiss modern logic.
Argumentation in "good faith"? Is that what you call your style of argumentation? Incompentent is what I'd call it.
Adding a new extension to your argument I see. Now I have to make a new argument showing how Rousseau's circumstances were unique. Wouldn't that be redundant, though?
Talk about not arguing in "good faith". You take the cake.
I think it's pretty obvious that most mothers on welfare would not be on welfare were they married.
...and were they NOT on welfare, the number of children they had would be no concern of mine, or the public at large.
America has become a victim of her own prosperity. Just becuase me can "afford" to be promiscuous, she insists upon foisting promiscuity as the norm for all those that who can't.
And please, where do you think the field of "logic" originated? Aristotle had a teacher, and that teacher was Plato. There would be no "modern" classes in logic today without them. To dismiss Plato is to dismiss modern logic.
No, that doesn't work. You could argue that Aristotle invented biology, i.e. categorizing living things and studying them, but a whole lot of what he said on the topic is wrong. You can dismiss all of his mistakes, and still have modern biology. Same thing goes for Aristotle and Plato vis-a-vis astronomy. Concentric cirlces? you can dismiss that and still have modern astronomy.
According to your logic, we're talking about Rousseau, right? So why are you talking about america, prosperity, promiscuity, homosexual marraige? stick to rousseau -- your own advice :)
god, if i had a dollar for every time i proved you wrong or self-contradictory...
...and as for diversion...
1+5=6
2+4=6
3+3=6
666 AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
What what the point of this argument? Oh, yeah, diversity is a good thing, says me. E pluribus pluribus!
NOT Rousseau. That was your diversion.
Check. Mate.
FJ can't (1) sustain a logical argument, (2) admit he's wrong, (3) refrain from ad hominem.
Just the facts, ma'am.
...then endlessly extended.
No, you brought up Rousseau by quoting "Emile."
I cannot sustain a perpetually extended and diverted argument. That is a fact. I cannot deny it.
Rousseau's quote refuted Twain's. And this thread had a "subject" which you promptly abandoned for tangeant land.
You are undoubtedly the Queen of Tangeants.
And I am merely a Prince who follows his Queen to the next divertisment.
FJ, maybe you don't know this, but "you've brought up a valid point about my argument that i can't refute, and you've shown that my argument is stupid" is not a logical fallacy, it's what's known as "being wrong" vis-a-vis you, FJ.
And i really appreciate your silence with regards to Bert's association fallacy on the Rosie thread.
You mean your mistake, that he pointed out to you?
Fj, i'm so stupid, could you point out what my mistake was again?
I can make up lazy, BS idiocies like Sayet about the rightwing too, but they're not persuasive or worthwhile because they are indeed lazy, facile and stupid.
Because you applied the associative fallacy to Sayet and the rightwing calling both lazy, facile, and stupid (ad hominems); Bee 1 is lazy ergo whole hive is lazy. In addition to that, you said you could "make up" these "lazy" idiocies, but they would NOT be persuasive or worthwhile. Indeed, an untruth would not be persuasive, and so either what Sayet produces must either be the truth and persuasive or an untruth and unpersuasive. But Sayet would not be a successful commedian if his jokes were unpersuasive and did NOT contain some truth... and you would not be here either trying to refute his statements by hook or crook if it were unworthwhile for you to do so. Your very presence argues against you. If his "idiocies" were unpersuasive, you would not care what he said. He would merely be another in a long line of fools to be ignored. Not someone "worth" spending your precious ($200/hour billable) time, refuting.
Acta non verba. Your actions argue against your words.
...and speak much MUCH louder.
har har, anon, obviously i meant that everything Sayet says is lazy, facile and stupid.
The self contradiction comes largely from your clarification.
I can make up lazy, BS idiocies like Sayet about the rightwing too, but they're not persuasive or worthwhile because they are indeed lazy, facile and stupid.
Well, perhaps this wasn't too clear, but both "they"s refer to the "idiocies," not "the rightwing." The rightwing is singular, so it would be an "it," not a "they."
Indeed, an untruth would not be persuasive, and so either what Sayet produces must either be the truth and persuasive or an untruth and unpersuasive. But Sayet would not be a successful commedian if his jokes were unpersuasive and did NOT contain some truth...
Well, he's not really that successful, so... you know. And this just speaks to the idea of "truth" -- you think his ideas have truth, whereas i think they're totally absurd. Who's right?
and you would not be here either trying to refute his statements by hook or crook if it were unworthwhile for you to do so. Your very presence argues against you. If his "idiocies" were unpersuasive, you would not care what he said. He would merely be another in a long line of fools to be ignored. Not someone "worth" spending your precious ($200/hour billable) time, refuting.
$200? That's too cheap. My mere presence does not argue against me. By the exact same logic, you would not bother refuting what i say for weeks on end if it were just completely absurd, if i were just a fool to be ignored. So, my words must contain some truth in them. But you've said otherwise repeatedly.
Zing!
I simply hate a bully, especially one who throws her weight around in an air of undeserved "superiority", browbeating her opponents and calling them stupid and undereducated. You spin a lot of half-truths, and there's nothing worse, IMHO, than a half-truth unchallenged. Especially when she picks the largest public forum she can find to do it in.
As to "who's right" and "who's being truthful", well those are two different questions. Or do you see them as one?
oh, poor fj, i've demolished your latest attempt, and now you're calling me a bully?
cry me a river, really.
For the difference between what's true and what's right is truly charming. Plato, "Charmides"
And at that moment all the people in the palaestra crowded about us, and, O rare! I caught a sight of the inwards of his garment, and took the flame. Then I could no longer contain myself. I thought how well Cydias understood the nature of love, when, in speaking of a fair youth, he warns some one 'not to bring the fawn in the sight of the lion to be devoured by him,' for I felt that I had been overcome by a sort of wild-beast appetite. But I controlled myself, and when he asked me if I knew the cure of the headache, I answered, but with an effort, that I did know.
And what is it? he said.
I replied that it was a kind of leaf, which required to be accompanied by a charm, and if a person would repeat the charm at the same time that he used the cure, he would be made whole; but that without the charm the leaf would be of no avail.
You are certainly a lion, and I but a lamb in your presence.
You have the leaf, but not the charm. And the charm is something you'll never get. You're destined to be Nietzsche screaming in the town of the Motley Cow. Perhaps one day, you're argument will convince a cow.
FJ, you're quite boring. Same old, same old. accusations, some ad hominem, a quote from some old text you don't even understand. I provide evidence, FJ, but you provide nothing but statements with no proof, not even some argumentation. When you attempt waht you think is clever, it almost always backfires on you.
Keep telling yourself you're so much better, wiser, righter, truer, than I am, if it makes you feel any better. But then you are guilty of what you accuse me of being.
I love it -- a US Navy Officer runs crying to mommy that some girl on the internet bullied him too much. Waa waa waa.
I am humbled in your presence, oh Queen of Nits.
You're just an ad hominem machine. really. are you proud of that? is that a good thing? are you living up to your alleged profession?
i find it kind of sad, mostly.
tit for tat.
There's a certain justice in it.
Post a Comment