Sunday, May 03, 2009

Who Defines Normality Controls the Future

Only my true fans and stalkers will recognize this as a reedited rerun from two years past....

George Orwell's essential insight into the mentality of the left cannot be surpassed. In 1984, the motto of the Ministry of Truth is Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.

I couldn't help thinking of this last night while suffering through the Republican debate [two years ago!], which essentially consisted of the candidates submitting themselves to orthodorks leftwing barking points filtered through that spluttering, loudmouthed hack from the moonstream media, Chris Matthews, whose main talent is the ability to barge past any truth he accidentally stumbles upon like Michelle Obama at a plus-size sneaker sale. Do you also have to wipe the spittle off the back of your TV screen when he speaks?

But who controls the present also controls what is defined as "normal." Therefore, since leftists have taken over most of our institutions in the last 30-40 years -- the media, academia, the courts, the educational establishment, Hollywood, etc. -- they have been engaged in the unyielding project of redefining normalcy -- of defining deviancy downward -- so that the abnormal appears normal and the normal abnormal.

It begins with their radical cynicism, which throws out all intrinsic hierarchies and standards as arbitrary and subjective, supposedly motivated simply by the desire to dominate, control, and oppress. Therefore, to believe things as banal as "terrorists are evil," or "children need a mother and father," or "marriage consists of a man and a woman" is to expose oneself to the ridicule of people who do not know what normal is -- nor do they want to know. I can guarantee you that Keith Olbermann has no personal acquaintance with normality.

(To be perfectly accurate, leftists unconsciously know, as all humans must, but they are in a state of compulsive rebellion against this knowledge, a rebellion which must be constantly renewed in order to stay one step ahead of the judgment of their conscience -- which they generally project into conservatives and then feel "persecuted" by them. To put it another way, the persecution is an internal phenomenon, but in order to obtain some leibensraum for their mind parasites, they imagine the nazis are outside their head.)

Almost every "liberation" group of the left insists that their particular aberration be considered normal, whether it is homosexual activists, radical feminists, the "transgendered," the ACLU, pacifists, God-haters, Darwinian fundamentalists, bonehead atheists, etc. Teaching that there is a normal human condition is considered by these people to be the quintessence of tyranny and oppression. Which in a way it is, in the same way that it is oppressive to insist that your body needs exercise, that you have an ideal weight, or that you can't eat junk food all day. Frankly, for a child, the reality principle is oppressive.

Being that the left does indeed "control the present," all textbooks must be rewritten in order to make the abnormal appear normal, and to attack and undermine our intuitive understanding of what is better and what is normal. This is one of the big reasons why people homeschool their children, because they don't want them to internalize such abnormality at a young age, since it can be very difficult to undo this programming later in life.

For example, in California it is literally against the law for any textbook to depict any human group in an unflattering light. Underneath this is a radical leveling that quite literally bars access to the natural hierarchy that allows the mind to discriminate, AKA, to think. Again, this absolute relativism is the cognitive absurdity that is at the heart of the leftist rebellion against reality.

As I have mentioned in the past and future, I passively internalized much of this leftist brainwashing -- or soulsmirching -- when I was younger, and it has been on ongoing adventure in liberation to cast it off bit by bit and reclaim my normalcy. Which, of course, would be considered very, very abnormal by anyone on the left, such as the Women's Aberration Movement.

A big part of being a "finished" human being is to transcend one's time by becoming a mode of the universal -- which is another way of saying "normal." For, as I shall belaborate below, a normal man is a vertical man -- or what Schuon called pontifical man. The only alternative is to be a more or less horizontal man, which is to say, not a man at all. Doing so is to permanently mahar your divine archetype and to cash in your chimp for a beast in human form.

Being that there is a vertical dimension proper to man, it means ipso facto that we live in a hierarchical cosmos that is conditioned from top to bottom. This is why it is simply a truism that all attacks on religion are in the end an attack on mind itself -- and therefore on man. (Which is of course not to suggest that there aren't stupid forms of religion, for where man is, stupidity follows.)

But hierarchy is the one thing that absolutely cannot be tolerated by the totolerantarian left. Religion must be reflexively attacked and scorned, for it teaches that there are values that are intrinsic to humans, and that some ways of living, being, and thinking are better then others. Ultimately, the divine conscience -- that which distinguishes between right and wrong, good and evil -- must be disabled by the left in order to get any traction at all (even while they tyrannically enforce their own infrahuman values).

For example, children must be taught "values clarification" instead of straightforward rules of right and wrong. They are literally indoctrinated into an anti-religion that sets itself in opposition to the true and universal one. It is designed to confuse, not clarify. We see this played out in vivid form with the simplistic moral retards fueling the "torture" debate.

But for the nihilistic leftist flatlander -- and this cannot be emphasized enough -- the only abnormal person is the person who insists that some things are intrinsically abnormal, even someone as insignificant as Miss California.

I know of no professional group that has been more infiltrated and "horizontalized" by the left than psychologists. There is no human behavior so bizarre that one cannot attend a continuing education seminar on its virtues. (I had been saving an illustrative flier for an occasion such as this, but I think I must have thrown it out. Which makes me evil for not having recycled it. There's no explaining away that deviancy.)

This explain the ubiquitous "inverted hypocrisy" of the psychospiritual left. Although this type of boundary-less person or "masterless man" superficially appears to be the most “liberated," they are desperately in need of an "external center" to rebel against. Like a child, they are most in need of that which they most vociferously and compulsively protest against. Since they are chaotic souls with no center, they gain a spurious sense of internal coherence by rubbing up against, or breaking through, a boundary. In short, they need adults.

Thus, the transgression eventually takes on a wearily compulsive quality. They rapidly become caricatures of themselves, a pattern constantly seen in our trolls. This is why, for example, all of those brave comedians who spent eight years bashing President Bush cannot lift a middle finger to ridicule the ridiculous Obama. They can speak truth to any power except the power that controls them.

As Richard Weaver wrote in Ideas Have Consequences, forms are the ladder of ascent: "Every group regarding itself as emancipated is convinced its predecessors were fearful of reality, looking upon veils of decency as obstructions that it will strip aside. But behind the veils is a reality of such commonplace that it is merely knowledge of death." This is why the left in all its forms is a death culture.

That is, the obliteration of vertical degree creates a tyrannical flatland which is death to the soul and its spiritual evolution. This is why leftists are always mindlessly rebellious, anti-authority, and radically "democratic" (when it is convenient), and why their movement has literally "gone nowhere" -- for its own assumptions mandate that there is nowhere else for it to go but into further nothingness, something demonstrated on a daily basis by its more undisguised voices, such as a dailycurse or huffingandpissed. They wander from cause to cause in an contradictory and incoherent manner, as their conscience still seeks to do good in a world where they have helped define it out of existence.

This is the greatest divide between secular fantasists and religious realists, for the latter regard man’s life as an irreducible ought grounded in transcendence, instead of a mere is rooted in dead matter. Conscious being automatically confers existential obligation. Man is the only thing that ought, which immediately takes him out of the realm of both is and of mere things. For to do as you ought is to both transcend and to find oneself. It is also to be a normal human being.

Man is true to himself only when he is stretching forth -- in hope -- toward a fulfillment that cannot be reached in his bodily existence. --Josef Pieper

74 Comments:

Blogger julie said...

To be perfectly accurate, leftists unconsciously know...

Hm. I think I might have to disagree with you there, Bob. For most of the rabid lefties (and rebellious teenagers/ adultolescents, basically the same thing) I've known, I don't think it was unconscious at all. They hated "normal" with a passion, hated the suburbs, constantly referred to the ideal family of husband, wife, 2.5 kids & white picket fence with sneering derision. You want a leftie to come unhinged, all you have to do is say something like, "I just want a normal family life, nice house in the suburbs, a little bit of yard for the kids to play in..." then sit back and wait for the fireworks.

You're right about the persecution, of course - that's the source of the hatred. I guess my point is, in my experience they always know what normal is, and they always know that they aren't it. Their response to this knowledge is probably unconscious, although I think in some cases they knew exactly what they were doing. They look with longing upon something that either seems or actually is unreachable for themselves - and because it is unreachable, they'd rather destroy it than let anyone else have it when they can't. Like the parable of sour grapes, only instead of just walking away and casting aspersions, they plot to burn the whole vine down so nobody else can have the grapes, either (and thus, perhaps, learn that they were pretty damn tasty after all).

And now that I've likely just beclowned myself by disagreeing when that was probably your point, I'll go back to reading...

5/03/2009 10:22:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I understand what you're saying, but the lie is always parasitic on the truth it requires for its existence. To say they "hate" normality is to say that there is a passionate H-link between two internal objects. Thus, only if they were indifferent to normality would they be credible.

5/03/2009 10:40:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

To say they "hate" normality is to say that there is a passionate H-link between two internal objects.

I think I get it; my confusion wasn't about indifference (they clearly weren't that), it was about whether they knew consciously what and why they were doing.

5/03/2009 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"But hierarchy is the one thing that absolutely cannot be tolerated by the totolerantarian left. Religion must be reflexively attacked and scorned, for it teaches that there are values that are intrinsic to humans, and that some ways of living, being, and thinking are better then others. Ultimately, the divine conscience -- that which distinguishes between right and wrong, good and evil -- must be disabled by the left in order to get any traction at all (even while they tyrannically enforce their own infrahuman values."

Yes indeedy. Which is the reason why when I want to find out whether a person is just mistaken, or actually taken, I ask for their understanding of Truth and of Rights. The truly taken cannot and will not answer the question, or at best they will offer only schlock and deflection. See any of the earlier mtcraven squirmings for an example.

5/03/2009 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"I know of no professional group that has been more infiltrated and "horizontalized" by the left than psychologists."

Ehmmm... with the possible exception of education, whose field was the first target of the proregressives and was entirely defeated and overrun by the educationista's, without whom the noramization of abnormality would not have been possible.

5/03/2009 11:04:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"They can speak truth to any power except the power that controls them."

And for a fine example of the trufer's being completely outnumbered and overwhelmed by one person who knows what they are talking about, see this video of Condoleezza Rice actually answering them with the full context which makes their foolishness foolish. Notice how the background chatter fades to silence as she responds.

5/03/2009 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"For to do as you ought is to both transcend and to find oneself. It is also to be a normal human being."

Ohhh yes.

5/03/2009 11:10:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

4 in a row... backing away from keyboard now....

5/03/2009 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger jwm said...

...well, there goes any attempt at selective denial for today. Bummer.

They hated "normal" with a passion, hated the suburbs, constantly referred to the ideal family of husband, wife, 2.5 kids & white picket fence with sneering derision.

Because "cool" is defined by rebelling against the squares. Increasingly, the 'cool' franchise has been extended farther and farther toward deviancy, while the realm of squaredom has been demonized into the uncool world of racistsexisthomophobe capitalist jesusland greedypigs. "Everybody has to deviate from the norm" as the lyric goes. And all of societies sanctions must be extended farther and farther into the realm of deviancy: Family, marriage, church. And government must needs be there to restructure, and enforce the daily revisions of what is officially sanctioned as normal today.

JWM

5/03/2009 11:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since it's Sunday and God is resting God whispered this to me: - "Tell Bob from me that when he bocomes the Perfecter he can make Michele's feet much smaller. He can make all big ears and noses smaller too, akay?"

Theofilia

5/03/2009 11:32:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Going back to my original argument, on further thought (and with the caffeine flowing), I realized I'm probably engaging in a bit of projection of my own in assuming they know their own motivations.

:D
wv says I'm responding trucily

5/03/2009 11:36:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Great take down of Jon Stewart by Bill Whittle on PJTV.

5/03/2009 12:07:00 PM  
Blogger mtraven said...

I'm not sure which is more ludicrous: a professed classical liberal who argues passionately in favor of illegal government torture, or a professed Subgenius who argues passionately in favor of normalcy. I suppose in the latter case self-contradiction can actually be a virtue, but still.

5/03/2009 12:12:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Speaking of stalkers…

5/03/2009 12:15:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

mtcraven said “I'm not sure…”

That comes from presuming that not knowing the fundamentals of classical liberalism is an a-ok starting point for arguing with those who do.

5/03/2009 12:32:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

I’m not sure which is more ludicrous: a guy who keeps stalking a blog he can’t stand or a guy who keeps stalking a blog he can’t stand.

5/03/2009 01:06:00 PM  
Blogger debass said...

Is it just me or does BO remind you of that 1984 Apple commercial with that guy constantly on a big TV screen 24/7? Is he so narcissistic that he has to always be the center of attention? He is on TV every day about the most trite things.
I noticed that when some idiot reporter asked him about his most enchanted moment, he didn't mention his wife.

5/03/2009 02:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"which throws out all intrinsic hierarchies and standards as arbitrary and subjective,"
Intrinsic, by its own meaning, is hardly anything but arbitrary and subjective. When you apply it, you imply that it is subjective. It would seem you're accusing liberals of understanding the language they speak.

"...which they generally project into conservatives and then feel "persecuted" by them."
Well, to quote you, "they have been engaged in the unyielding project of redefining normalcy." But you're mistaken in what they feel conservatives are doing. Liberals don't feel conservatives are persecuting them, they feel they're demonizing them, which reading your own writing, you are.

"Almost every "liberation" group of the left insists that their particular aberration be considered normal."
This is flatly false. You wouldn't get far in a debate as this is a straw man. "Normal" is pretty subjective; liberals are not trying to redefine it. There's a difference between redefining something and giving somebody the right to do something. Essentially, it seems like you don't understand that defending somebody's rights is not the same as making their viewpoints normal. Those are two pretty easy concepts that you've somehow confused. Don't over-think stuff or get to pedantic. It's a weak point you have every time you go on a partisan tirade Bob.

5/03/2009 03:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Did Bob ever question your right to be an idiot? But that hardly makes idiocy normal.

5/03/2009 03:19:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Actually, Debass, with all this “remaking Amercica” business, been thinking of this old Apple commercial. If the hope and change gets any better around here, that is…(Quicktime movie - about 4mb)

5/03/2009 03:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dupree, there is nothing I said that could have somehow made me look stupid. If Bob says something wrong, and I point it out, there is no subjective evidence to claim I'm an idiot.

If Bob said the sky is green, and I corrected him, you'd come up and call me an idiot. Fine, you have every right to believe that, but that doesn't mean you have any foundation for saying it. Somehow I think you honestly thought I'd care about statements you can't possible support. That's about as pointless as going up to a white guy and calling him racial slurs.

5/03/2009 03:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Cracker!

5/03/2009 03:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess the question I should ask is, what did I say that was idiotic? And perhaps when you can grow up Dupree, we can have an adult discussion.

And explain to me how kissing somebody's ass without actually supporting or defending their stance isn't idiotic.

5/03/2009 03:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've never met a white man offended by "cracker."

5/03/2009 03:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You also didn't get the concepts in my post either. I stated pretty clearly that nobody was trying to make anything "normal."

*facepalm* Why am I wasting my time on somebody who can't read?

5/03/2009 03:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Apologies. I only used the term "idiot" because you express yourself so sloppily that it is impossible to understand what you're talking about. So let me take back my epithet. You may not be an idiot, but you simply communicate like one.

5/03/2009 04:02:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Anon:

I'm happy to respond to thoughtful criticism, but I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Take a deep breath, reformulate your thoughts, and be concise.

5/03/2009 04:13:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Best of the Sunday funnies:

“Of the 183 "waterboardings," at least half occurred when KSM couldn't get the mouth of the Perrier bottle past his mustache.”

5/03/2009 04:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was actually pretty straightforward. In actuality, I didn't express any of my own personal opinions. I was merely pointing out that Bobs reasoning abilities are severely handicapped whenever he dips into politics.

I mean, what was sloppy? What didn't you understand? Besides the fact that you didn't get that I was making a pretty solid distinction between making something normal and fighting to allow rights?

But... The fact that you didn't get that even though it was explicitly stated makes me wonder if the problem isn't really my method of conveyance, but rather your abilities to comprehend others. Coupled with your ignorant and non-contributory introduction, I'd think we've already established that there is no argument on who's being an idiot.

You've yet, by the way, to support, negate, or even show signs of understanding anything relating to the original arguments.

5/03/2009 04:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm actually rather calm Bob. You might want to call off your dogs. They come in barking....

By the way, do you know the definition of intrinsic?

We could start there if you have problems digesting.

5/03/2009 04:18:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Thank you for the clear question. The answer is "yes."

5/03/2009 04:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do have one complaint though.

How is it you don't know what I'm talking about, yet Dupree knows enough to barge in with insults with no explanation for his approach?

It was a terrible introduction. I don't expect an apology for it, but I do expect a little more rationality. That's a little presumptuous to assume I'm the one who needs to sort my thoughts when I'm dealing with somebody who thinks a post that simpley says "Cracker!" is actually contributing to a conversation.

5/03/2009 04:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Bob, then "Intrinsic, by its own meaning, is hardly anything but arbitrary and subjective..."

If you're going to accuse liberals of making something arbitrary and subjective, you should make sure it isn't already arbitrary and subjective.

We'll get through this one step at a time. I understand explicitly stating something can sometimes be confusing, so I walk people through the sentences one at a time.

5/03/2009 04:28:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Intrinsic is the opposite of arbitrary or subjective, for it means that something is essential, not contingent. Being so, it partakes of the absolute, and is therefore "of God," not man. For example, sexual differences are intrinsic, not a result of cultural conditioning.

5/03/2009 04:36:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

If you have another question it will have to wait, because it's workout time.

5/03/2009 04:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For example, sexual differences are intrinsic, not a result of cultural conditioning."

True. But we're not talking about sex. We're talking about hierarchies and standards. Intrinsic values are essential to oneself. Are you assuming that two people with different values makes one wrong and one right? If not, their intrinsic values are subjective. In this context, your argument makes no sense.

5/03/2009 04:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I should note that there are numerous intrinsic attributes that I suppose in context either are subjective or are objective. I wasn't considering the context of physical properties, which are objective.

But, looking at that, intrinsic hierarchies are not actually intrinsic if they are of God, they are extrinsic. Just as your weight is an extrinsic property relating to your intrinsic property of mass. If it comes from anywhere but within the object or person, it is extrinsic.

5/03/2009 05:00:00 PM  
Anonymous dame edith waterfowl said...

>>How is it you don't know what I'm talking about, yet Dupree knows enough to barge in with insults with no explanation for his approach?<<

Yes, well, I have wondered about that myself. But no matter, fa-la, and all that.


>>There's a difference between redefining something and giving somebody the right to do something<<

Oh my dear Mr. Anonymous, if that IS your real name. If, shall we say, we gave people the right to murder, would that not that redefine our current definitions of the sanctity of life? If we redefine the right of our "gay" friends - and how I do resent the appropriation of that once cheery appellation, pardon me - to marry, then are we not redefining our current definition of the sanctity of marriage, which in its fullest sense means the divine fusion of polar opposites, ie, the fusion of yang and yin, positive and negative, male and female. If we accord a monkey or a tree as much right to exist as we do a human child, are we not redefining our perception of what constitutes a natural hierarchal order?

Well, of course we are, dear. We are merrily redefining.

I am, I should tell you, not a simple commoner cracker, but a ritz cracker.

5/03/2009 05:06:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Anon:

There is where we differ. I am not a relativist. That there is a hierarchy of values -- i.e., degrees of truth, goodness, and beauty -- is only possible in light of the Absolute.

5/03/2009 05:14:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

BTW, you're wrong about God. God is by definition intrinsic to everything because extrinsic; in other words, because God is transcendent, he is immanent. He is closer to yourself than you are, and yet, more distant than anything.

5/03/2009 05:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sir, do you know with whom you speak? I am a person of considerable note.

5/03/2009 06:02:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I think you are confusing "psychologist" with "psychic."

5/03/2009 06:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Bob--

Next time just let me handle it.

5/03/2009 07:09:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

And perhaps when you can grow up Dupree, we can have an adult discussion.

Anonsweetie, your putting can grow up and Dupree in the same sentence, to say nothing of adult discussion, does tell us a great deal as to whether you're an idiot.

5/03/2009 07:27:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Ximeze - *snork* Bwahahaha :D

Ahem.

Dupree, you might enjoy this ;)

Also, I've never heard this tune before. It's pretty catchy...

5/03/2009 07:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Yeah, so there!

Hey, wait a minute....

5/03/2009 07:36:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

It's not an insult, Dupree - just a candid observation that one must be embodied if one is to grow.

Besides, we love you just the way you are ;)

5/03/2009 07:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Clark Kent said...

Uhm yous guyses know who I am, right?

5/03/2009 08:01:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Aninymouse @ 5:13 PM quoted Gagdad’s “Almost every "liberation" group of the left insists that their particular aberration be considered normal”

Then asserted “this is flatly false”

To which I’ll reply, it is actually very deeply true and your assexertion is extraordinarily flat and false.

You follow that up with,

“You wouldn't get far in a debate as this is a straw man.”

(Careful, your stuffing’s falling out)

And,

“"Normal" is pretty subjective; liberals are not trying to redefine it.”

Uh-huh. Just as Dame Edith objects to the absconding of ‘Gay’ by the leftist pack, I am angered by the leftist’s absconding with the name of ‘Liberal’, and for similar reasons… but that’s another argument. Returning to your attempt to mimic an argument, if you pick any normal gay, transgendered, undocumented, anti-trans fat, eco-green- Marxist advocacy group you’d like, their common strategy of community organization, is to attempt to force others to accept their behavior as acceptable, normal and even desirable, and ultimately attempting to legislate their views into law, imposing them upon those who disagree with them. The examples are too numerous to bother googling, but please feel free to yourself.

As any conservative who attempts to express his opinion on a college campus will find, the left will commonly attack those who disagree with them, because leftists at the very least consider it to be ‘insensitive’ to not accept their views as normal, and typically condemn such differences of opinion as either oppressive and/or as examples of ‘hate speech’.

“There's a difference between redefining something and giving somebody the right to do something”

As if anybody, least of all Gagdad, had said anything about depriving the stupid of their right to behave stupidly; in typical leftist fashion, you interpret a lack of approval as a physical threat, hence reinforcing Gagdad’s original point (thanks for the demo).

What we do object to, is the stupid attempting to force the non-stupid to accept their stupidity as being equally worthwhile and as valid as the normal moral principles we hold, and which you are so offended by here.

“Are you assuming that two people with different values makes one wrong and one right? If not, their intrinsic values are subjective. In this context, your argument makes no sense.”

Considering you have supplied no context, that is either a bold, or a stupid statement to make (I’m going with the latter).

What are the values you are speaking of, and what is the context you refer to them in? If you are speaking of two people with opposing views on the value of Italian food versus Chinese food, both positions are equally valid, and neither makes the other normatively right or wrong. However if you are talking about two people with differing views on the value of cannibalism as an acceptable lifestyle and dining choice, there is going to be a very definite normative judgment of Right and Wrong involved… one which, if he attempts to be consistent, the leftist will not be able to make.

Bon appetite.

5/03/2009 08:09:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "Sir, do you know with whom you speak? I am a person of considerable note."

No doubt a man of wealth and taste?

wv:putzi
tee-hee

5/03/2009 08:12:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said “I'd think we've already established that there is no argument on who's being an idiot.”

Nope, no argument here.

Dupree?

“You've yet, by the way, to support, negate, or even show signs of understanding anything relating to the original arguments.”

Heh… are you really under the impression that you’d actually made an argument?

Oh… that’s so cute.

5/03/2009 08:19:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Great post, Bob!
Sometimes seconds taste better than the first serving, and that's the case here.

5/03/2009 11:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Skully said...

Anonymous said...
Sir, do you know with whom you speak? I am a person of considerable note."


Bein' fat don't get you no special rights here.

5/03/2009 11:06:00 PM  
Blogger Mike O'Malley said...

Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...“Of the 183 "waterboardings,... Does not the Sun rise in the East and set in the West? Does not night come after day? ... and so the New York Times mischaracterize the Bush Administration!

Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times

The number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded was the focus of major media attention -- and highly misleading.

By Joseph Abrams

The New York Times reported last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators. The "183 times" was widely circulated by news outlets throughout the world.

It was shocking. And it was highly misleading. The number is a vast inflation, according to information from a U.S. official and the testimony of the terrorists themselves.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face -- not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of "five sessions of ill-treatment."

"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."

5/04/2009 04:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"BTW, you're wrong about God. God is by definition intrinsic to everything because extrinsic; in other words, because God is transcendent, he is immanent. He is closer to yourself than you are, and yet, more distant than anything."

Ok, you're either wrong about your fundamental philosophy or you're wrong about the word. You're choice. If people have different values, and God is intrinsic because he is extrensic, his standards and hierarchies. most certainly are not intrinsic. You keep changing subject. Are God's values intrinsic? If so, why is it that no people share the exact same values? No two people hold all the same values to the same degree. Thus, if God is intrinsic, he most certainly has not made his hierarchies or standards so. Otherwise why even have free will? You're squirming and changing subject.

Bob, I think you need to focus on the conversation and the topics instead of focusing on how to make yourself sound right.

To Van, learn to read. I said, explicitly stated, that Liberals are not trying to make things like homosexuality "normal," they're merely fighting for their right to be that way. Not the same as normal. That single concept entirely defeats the purpose of your post. I said it was false, explained why, then you come back and say I was false, without actually explaining why. You went off on a tangent, explained why you were right, but not why I was false. But why you were right, was also false, because it was the same exact premise that Bob used. Using a defeated argument, Van, leads to yet again defeat. And all I would have had to do is quote myself, as I already explained(and you ignored) why it was wrong. Next time, read.

"“There's a difference between redefining something and giving somebody the right to do something”

As if anybody, least of all Gagdad, had said anything about depriving the stupid of their right to behave stupidly; in typical leftist fashion, you interpret a lack of approval as a physical threat, hence reinforcing Gagdad’s original point (thanks for the demo)."

Van, this really hurts you. There is no way any rational person(who read it) would read or assume that I am implying(because it's definitely not written) a threat... but what is even more absurd is physical threat. A physical threat? Physical? Where in anything I've written have I even said anything of any semblance to physical altercations? Seriously, you have a lot to prove before you make me think you're actually here for an intellectually honest debate van.

5/04/2009 04:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm seriously still dumbfounded by what Van said. Physical? Even if you were correct about feeling a threat, how did you jump to physical?

5/04/2009 05:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Considering you have supplied no context, that is either a bold, or a stupid statement to make (I’m going with the latter)."

Considering you proclaim you don't know enough to know what is being said, and yet still jump to a conclusion, I most certainly already know you're full of it.

"What are the values you are speaking of, and what is the context you refer to them in?"

Any values, but specifically, you should ask Bob. He's the one who was referring to hierarchies and standards, and even though he didn't provide specifics, you seem rather content with his lack of detail, but rather critical of mine.

"What we do object to, is the stupid attempting to force the non-stupid to accept their stupidity as being equally worthwhile "

When you can explain how I'm forcing anything on you, you can complain. If you want to make yourself a victim, there are more legitimate ways than making stuff up. You'd probably be better off carving a backwards "B" in your face.

5/04/2009 05:22:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Mike,
Don’t go pouring water on my joke (ok, Jim Treacher’s joke)
I’m drawin the line on this one. I won’t stand for it.

5/04/2009 05:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Waterfowl:"If, shall we say, we gave people the right to murder, would that not that redefine our current definitions of the sanctity of life?"

That doesn't make murder normal. Nor are we redefining the sanctity of life. We're ignoring the sanctity of life. But, that doesn't put murder on the same level as gay marriage either. In the least, allowing gays to marry is not forcing you in any way to deal with that. Nor is it making it normal, as was the only issue I was arguing for, but now I have to broaden my scope for the sake of addressing your change of the initial subject. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get married in the same sex.

But again, making something legal is not the same as redefining "normal." Which was only slightly related to your change of subject, yet you were still logically deficient at supporting.

5/04/2009 05:39:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Anon said,

“To Van, learn to read. I said, explicitly stated, that Liberals are not trying to make things like homosexuality "normal," they're merely fighting for their right to be that way.”

I suppose you mean “their right to be homosexual”. Where in the Constitution does it say they do not have that right, or that they have less rights than heterosexuals? I believe “all men are created equal” pretty much covers it. “Equal protection under the law” more so.

5/04/2009 05:58:00 AM  
Anonymous absurcular said...

Anon:
Welcome to the juvenalia that passes for rebuttal here at OC. We have some rules here, for your consideration.

#1: We outnumber you, which is why we lurk here and not somewhere else. Intrinsic numbers allow us to project our arguments extrinsicly.

#2: We're funnier than you, wittier than you, and smarter than you. If you require further proof, look to the other comments posted by us in appreciation of us.

#3: When you make a point, we take it personally, then take the assault to a personal level. We all "know" you so well that we don't even have to "know" you. That doesn't make it wrong, it simply makes it abnormal, which is really the old normal, which is God-given. For God is Normal, and is for all Normal things like 2.5 kids and a house in the burbs, and against all Abnormal things like single parents and non-Christian religions. For God is Extrinsic, which means transcendent, except where leftists are concerned, which is one place God does not reside, and of course in all abnormal things. He is immanent, subjectively speaking.

#4: You are here to please us; we're not here to please you. As proof, we're not here to prove anything to anyone. We're just a bunch of random people gathered, randomly discussing random stuff. If the stuff we're publicly discussing in print randomly, posted as "comments" under a topic chosen and authored by the same person every time, doesn't sit well with you, why not just leave witout saying anything? Why think that you should chime into the public discussion and be treated civilly? The idea that a differing viewpoint should be treated with anything but sneering disdain makes us sneer disdainfully.

Hope this helps. Rules are in place because they enforce what is Right, Right? And where else to seek proof of this but in the minds of such great people as the random people gathered here.

5/04/2009 06:12:00 AM  
Anonymous absurcular said...

PS: get a nic. We have more fun when we know which self-projection we're batting about.

5/04/2009 06:14:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said “To Van, learn to read. I said, explicitly stated, that Liberals are not trying to make things like homosexuality "normal," they're merely fighting for their right to be that way. Not the same as normal.”

Yeah. Realized that was what you said. Try reading again. The facts as they are don’t agree with the premises you’re trying to assert. IOW you’re full of it.

“I'm seriously still dumbfounded by what Van said.”

Yeah, that’s pretty much the state we find you in too.

“Physical? Even if you were correct about feeling a threat, how did you jump to physical?”

Try not to worry too much about it, it’s a leftist mental handicap. Let me walk you through it real slowly. You said,
“There's a difference between redefining something and giving somebody the right to do something.”
When you give (translation create) a right for someone to do something, you can only do so via the implied force of the state. If you ‘give’ someone the right to healthcare, that means you have to force someone (physically) to supply it to them. If you ‘give’ someone the right to have ramps built on all bldg entrances, etc, etc, etc, that means others are forced (physically) to supply them. Anytime you ‘give’ someone a right, you must ‘take’ the means of supplying that ‘right’ from someone else. None of our valid rights are ‘given’ by the state, valid rights make it against the law for the state to interfere with the exercise of your rights. Give it a few years, you might grasp it eventually. We are not trying to prevent ‘gays’ from being gay, leftists are trying to force others to accept their behavior as normal and acceptable – trying to force someone to think about another in any way, is a most egregious use of force.

“Ok, you're either wrong about your fundamental philosophy or you're wrong about the word.”

Here’s another option: you’re trying to argue about ideas you have no concept of. Move along, nothing to see here. IOW you’re boring, be gone.

5/04/2009 06:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"in typical leftist fashion, you interpret a lack of approval as a physical threat,"
"If you ‘give’ someone the right to healthcare, that means you have to force someone (physically) to supply it to them"
", leftists are trying to force others to accept their behavior as normal and acceptable "

Your defense of what you said has absolutely nothing to do with what you actually said. You accused me of feeling physically threatened, and then try to prove I was wrong because I'm trying to physically force my behavior on somebody. It's called a non-sequitur.

You can't even keep up with yourself Van. Enough said. You accuse me of feeling physically threatened, and then you change subjects to say you were right because you were actually talking about physical force required to accomplish something. Right. At this point you've definitely proven you don't even know what you're talking about yourself.

Additionally, Van, you've yet to state why I'm wrong, and keep repeating that I'm wrong. How am I wrong again? Instead of simply saying it, back it up. Point out something I've said as false, without changing the subject.

"Here’s another option: you’re trying to argue about ideas you have no concept of. Move along, nothing to see here. IOW you’re boring, be gone."

Van you're nothing if not amusing. You've proven you can't keep up with yourself, and you say I'm boring. How in the world can you understand what I'm saying if you can't understand what you've said yourself?

You care to explain yourself or are you just going to keep saying I'm wrong without actually, you know, backing up any concepts.

I mean, if I'm mistaken in a concept, perhaps you could correct me. But instead you simply say I'm too stupid to understand. I'm rather surprised you get it. I'm also surprised you didn't want to address your hypocrisy of expecting more from me than you do from Bob. Maybe if you didn't act like his pet, I'd think you were smarter than a dog. You are most certainly loyal, but have provided no substance to your arguments.

To absurcular, you need to prove your points instead of just stating them. Nobody here has said anything witty, or acted smarter than me. Especially not Dupree or Van.

5/04/2009 06:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yeah. Realized that was what you said. Try reading again. The facts as they are don’t agree with the premises you’re trying to assert. IOW you’re full of it."

Oh really, do you see liberals going door-to-door trying to convert you into homosexuality? I didn't think so. Sorry Van, this isn't a hard concept, and you're still not grasping it. It must be frustrating being so handicapped.

5/04/2009 06:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Cory said...

If the effort is simply to establish that people have a "right" to act in any manner they wish so long as, I assume, in so acting they do not negatively effect others then the argument was won many years ago. But this is not what the argument is about.

The argument is about making others "do right". And this inevitably involves coercion. The push by various activist groups - almost all of whom are politically on the "left" - is for laws aimed at not just getting their "right" to act stupidly recognized but also at coercing others into catering to whatever "right" is being pushed. Thus a photographer in Arizona can be fined thousands of dollars for declining to work at a homosexual wedding. Thus a minister in Canada can be fined and threatened with imprisonment for writng a letter to the editor excoriating homosexuality. Thus, in about half the EU, anyone can be charged with a "hate crime" if they dare express an opinion critical of deviancy of almost any kind.

There will be "hate speech" laws passed by our federal government very soon now. These are aimed at thought and the punishing of thought not approved by whatever party is currently ruling the nation. This is far, far beyond simply acknowledging a "right" to act wickedly.

The mechanism for all this is to invent a "right" then use it to trump other rights.

And efforts to have books like "Heather Has Two Mommies" included as texts in elementary schools - how is that not an effort to mold thought with a view to "normalizing" the abnormal?

The whole push of the spirit of antichrist is toward a coerced vision of the world that, superficially, "celebrates diversity" but, in fact, crushes anything like real diversity. All is well so long as one goes along with any insane, wicked activity. But try and express support for a standard or right and face the onslaught of vituperation that will not end until you shut up and go with the flow.

And standards do exist in every culture. There is certainly disagreement about what constitutes, say, truthfulness. But they all recognize that there is truth. They won't agree on n the details of what constitutes chastity. But they all recognize that chastity exists and is a value upon which a culture is built. And so on down the list.

I am unimpressed by smooth arguments and impeccable logic (so long as one remains within the proper framework the logic is always impeccable). There IS a God. He will NOT be mocked. Fools prattle on and on is if they actually understood something or had anything new or important to say. They have their reward.

5/04/2009 07:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And standards do exist in every culture. There is certainly disagreement about what constitutes, say, truthfulness. But they all recognize that there is truth. They won't agree on n the details of what constitutes chastity. But they all recognize that chastity exists and is a value upon which a culture is built. And so on down the list."

I disagree completely. There is a fundamental value for chastity, but there is a majority in the nation that do not hold this value at all. A majority. Now I shouldn't need to explain why the premise is flawed(because your example is) but there are few singular values that are unanimously shared, and of those that are, they are not of equal importance across our culture.

But moving on. There is no honest argument against legalizing certain rights for certain minorities, especially if those rights do not interfere with your rights. Saying that some laws are unfair would be true, but that has nothing to do with legalizing gays' rights to marriage, for example. Should somebody be fined for choosing to not shoot for a gay wedding? No, but should we keep gay marriage illegal for that purpose? No.

"But try and express support for a standard or right and face the onslaught of vituperation that will not end until you shut up and go with the flow."

Seriously, it goes both ways. The right fights for its right to discriminate based on their beliefs, everybody does and it's dishonest of liberals to say they wouldn't do the same. But for the right to say gay marriage shouldn't be legal because it infringes on their freedom of expression is merely a diversion. There is no way gay marriage will infringe on your right to freedom of expression. Only other laws would do that. It's as much a diversion to keep something illegal as the left fighting for gun control because it leads to murder.

5/04/2009 07:51:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "Your defense of what you said has absolutely nothing to do with what you actually said. You accused me of feeling physically threatened..."

blink

"..., and then try to prove I was wrong because I'm trying to physically force my behavior on somebody."

stare

"It's called a non-sequitur."

Certainly is. Good bye.

5/04/2009 07:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"in typical leftist fashion, you interpret a lack of approval as a physical threat,"

"When you give (translation create) a right for someone to do something, you can only do so via the implied force of the state."

Check and check. You definitely said both of those. I'm glad you recognize your own non-sequiturs.

5/04/2009 08:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And you DID say the other one as a response to the previous accusation, as you quoted me before that quote I took from you. So, I claimed you did two things, you quote me as if my summaries don't make any sense, and yet my interpretations accurately represent what you said.

Huh, when I say it, it doesn't make any sense to Van. But when Van says it, it makes perfect sense.

5/04/2009 08:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""in typical leftist fashion, you interpret a lack of approval as a physical threat,"

Tell me how you jumped from that, to this:

"“Physical? Even if you were correct about feeling a threat, how did you jump to physical?”

Try not to worry too much about it, it’s a leftist mental handicap. Let me walk you through it real slowly. You said,
“There's a difference between redefining something and giving somebody the right to do something.”
When you give (translation create) a right for someone to do something, you can only do so via the implied force of the state. If you ‘give’ someone the right to healthcare, that means you have to force someone (physically) to supply it to them. If you ‘give’ someone the right to have ramps built on all bldg entrances, etc, etc, etc, that means others are forced (physically) to supply them. Anytime you ‘give’ someone a right, you must ‘take’ the means of supplying that ‘right’ from someone else. None of our valid rights are ‘given’ by the state, valid rights make it against the law for the state to interfere with the exercise of your rights. Give it a few years, you might grasp it eventually. We are not trying to prevent ‘gays’ from being gay, leftists are trying to force others to accept their behavior as normal and acceptable – trying to force someone to think about another in any way, is a most egregious use of force."

You went from accusing me of taking something as a physical threat, to explaining why it takes physical force to do something as a reason for explaining why I was accused of feeling physically threatened. It just doesn't make sense.

5/04/2009 08:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

abcirculur,

That's funny stuff!

Anon

5/04/2009 08:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Julie,
I cannot stand the suburbs because they are intrinsicly ugly--just like I can't stand strip malls, and those giant metallic crosses strewn all over the midwest interstate highways--not because I am a leftist. For some folks, beauty is a real value.

5/04/2009 09:00:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"you quote me as if my summaries don't make any sense"

Well you got that part correct.

At the risk of beclowning myself, you make an assertion and behave as if it is an argument and whine that no one will play with you.

I respond with an argument about the concept of rights and the effects of false rights, and you avoid that by lamenting about how it makes YOU feel.

You've made assertions, foolish statements and loads of meaningless html. Sorry, not doing the troll dance today.

Make an actual argument and support it or go force yourself.

5/04/2009 09:05:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home