« The Montana Grizzlies Move On | Main | Help Monica Win »

March 17, 2006

Comments

touchstone

Hey, maybe there is an absolute truth...but I seriously doubt that any puny mortal has the sense to understand it...

To wit, an illustrative anecdote.

A US professor of music taught a summer program in Spain. One year he asked his US students in the US to hum what they thought was the "tone of the universe"; he asked his Spanish students in Spain to do likewise.

Nearly all the US hummed the same note, as did the Spanish students, only the note the American students hummed was different than what the Spanish students hummed.

He poked around a little and discovered that each set of students were humming the musical tone that correlated to the electrical current running through their houses.

That's religion in a nutshell to me: a bunch of people humming the noise of the universe, when they're actually humming to the walls of their house.

touchstone

Okay...a little typo, that should be, "...a bunch of people thinking they're humming the noise of the universe, when they're actually humming to the walls of their house."

Tony

Well said Wulfgar and so true as to not be close to funny.
"they will say and do anything to get you to live as they will". Fuck'em.
Greetings from the State of Jefferson.

Vox Populi

Christians are not your problem, and neither are Jews or Muslims. Abortion, pornography, and sodomy have been recognized in all times by the vast majority of people, regardless of their religion, as deviant behavior. Your reliance on laws (or pseudo-rational arguments) that legitimize those deviant behaviors carries no weight whatsoever because such laws do not reflect the moral consensus of the governed. They are amoral laws imposed from above, i.e., by the courts.

As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said only a few days ago, “judge-moralists” are no better qualified than the average man to impose laws controlling such deviant behaviors. In fact, recent history has shown that such “judge-moralists” are actually less qualified, in that they tend to be detached from the mainstream of society and very often espouse the views of loud minorities who have gained their attention.

If you think the imposition of amoral laws by the highest courts is a good idea, because you think the masses have no idea what is morally right or wrong and therefore should have no say in the laws that govern them, then you will have to accept the amendment or nullification of such laws when the composition of the highest courts is changed. Two can play the same game. Once a legal system is corrupted by politics—and that is what we have seen in the cases of abortion, pornography, and sodomy--there is no telling what bizarre legal theories might be produced by that system.

The better way, of course, at least in a democracy, is to let the people decide the moral basis of their laws via the legislative process. And that is your real problem. You hate and fear the judgment of the people.

Vox Populi

Nancy

Very good post, Wulgar! Pay no attention to the idiot who commented before me...

Vox Populi

Too late, Nancy! Read and weep, read and weep.

Wulfgar

Actually, Vox Populi (there's an arrogant little nom de plume) has several points to make. Sadly, they contradict each other. And his reliance on poor understanding of history, and the falacious appeal to that authority doesn't help his cause.

Christians are not your problem, and neither are Jews or Muslims.

No discussion will end well if begun with a complete mischaracterization of what was written by another. Read again, please. I never wrote that Christians, or any other organized religion, are my problem. It would far more accurate to say that I support the idea that poor Christians, drunk on their own power, are a problem for American Democracy.

Abortion, pornography, and sodomy have been recognized in all times by the vast majority of people, regardless of their religion, as deviant behavior.

Note: appeals to the authority of the masses throughout history is still a falacy, but at least it's more persuasive if it's historically accurate. Sodomy (homosexuality) has been a stabilizing force in many militaristic cultures before us. Pornography (depictions of sexual behavior) exists in most all cultures thoughout the history of human civilization, and even adorn some of humanity's great architecture. And women have been using natural abortive agents for thousands of years. You might wish to learn a little of the history of "the people" before pretending to speak for them, Vox.

Your reliance on laws (or pseudo-rational arguments) that legitimize those deviant behaviors carries no weight whatsoever because such laws do not reflect the moral consensus of the governed. They are amoral laws imposed from above, i.e., by the courts.

Hmmm. So what you're saying is that laws don't come from the people, they come from the people. Welcome to America, where we are governed by a Constitution, duly ratified by the people, allowing laws to be made by legislative action and interpreted in practicum by the courts. Yet, if the people really had their way, we wouldn't have our laws made this way. For all the world, Vox, it would appear that you're calling for an overthrow of the Constitution. Is that what you are implying?

Furthermore, you are saying, and tell me if I'm incorrect in interpreting you, that the morality of a law is the province soley of the majority opinion of the people. Is that a fair restatement of your view; that morality comes from the mob?

If you think the imposition of amoral laws by the highest courts is a good idea, because you think the masses have no idea what is morally right or wrong and therefore should have no say in the laws that govern them, then you will have to accept the amendment or nullification of such laws when the composition of the highest courts is changed.

Can you say Strawman? There, I thought you could. You are assuming, with no basis whatsoever, that laws interpreted by the highcourt are instead, given by the highcourt, as an imperative, based soley on the will of some people. That isn't how it works, and you know it. Further, and this is the important point, you put forth a false dicotomy. Read the bolded part of your statement. You have attempted to establish that what is morally right is variable, based only on the will of the majority of people. And yet, to reject that view of what is moral is to reject the idea that laws reflect the will of the people in total? That's not even remotely necessary. Nor does your posit have any basis in reality. Interpretations of the Constitution and law can and do change given the makeup of the highcourt, and the people can affect these changes through legislation.

So let's review the world according to Vox:

1) The basis of morality is the will of the majority of the people.
2) Vox knows what that is, and others (me) don't.
3) The majority of the people accept the rule of law as per the Constitution.
4) The courts, as established and sanctioned by the will of the people, are handing down immoral law.
5) Therefore, the will of the people stands against the will of the people.

Addendum: People like Vox, who know the will of the people that we others don't, must resolve this by foisting their agenda on the rest of us. Hence, this very post of mine, decrying the absolute and uncompromising nature of our nanny moralists.

Thank you, Vox. Thank you for making my point ever so clear.

The better way, of course, at least in a democracy, is to let the people decide the moral basis of their laws via the legislative process. And that is your real problem. You hate and fear the judgment of the people.

Vox, our Constitution was constructed such that individual liberty never again be enslaved to the tyranny of the majority. That's why we have a representative Republic, and a Bill of Rights. I don't hate or fear the judgement of the people because I don't live in a country where I am answerable to the rule of the mob. I live a country where we have the rule of law. See how spiffy that works?

And as this post of mine clarified, my only real problems are the ignorant and self-rightious who wold put aside the rule of law for the rule of a morality that they barely even understand. My problem, Vox, is you.

Chris

Touche', my Love.

Alex

Very nicely put, Wulfgar. I've also got a list of herbal abortants and how to use them if you'd like to poste that at some point. BTW, where do you find these trolls, dude? You've got some kinda weird talent there.


And, Mr. Vox, how is it more immoral to have an abortion to rid oneself of a child one is not capable of taking care of, vesus bringing that child into the world to suffer horribly when you cannot provide for it? And do not site adoption to me. The American foster care system is one of the most corrupt organizations in this country. For the most part, children coming out of the foster care system carry emotional scars that take years to get over. Do you really hate children so much that you wish such a fate on them? Abortion is legal for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is acknowledged that if there are not going to be adequate resources to support this new child, it is better off not existing. Do some research. Talk to someone that's had an abortion and actually listen to what they have to say rather than immediately condemning them on moral grounds. More often than not an abortion is not done for convenience, but out of necessity for one's mental and physical survival.

What say you, Mr. Vox? Can you debate the point, or are you blindly defending an unrealistic ideal?

moorcat

Speaking as one that has been the route of abortion for medical necessity (well, my wife was but the child was mine...), fundies like Vox chap my ass. They lump "morality" issues such as pornagraphy, sodomy, and abortion together (for mass apeal no less) without the slightest understanding of even the subjects they are ranting against. I am quite sure that Vox (or any other fundie) is incapable of giving an all-encompassing definition of even those three terms that all fundies could get behind. Is an underware ad pornagraphy? Is the Venus De Milo or a Raphial painting pornagraphy? Is a Playboy centerfold pornagraphy? What seperates those things? Is oral sex sodomy? (Be very careful answering that, Vox, as sodomy is defined by law in many states - even though those definitions usually aren't consistant...).

Fanatics are dangerous - whether they are religious fanatics, legal fanatics, or personality fanatics. Our founding fathers understood that, and provided a set of rules to protect us from them. What is truly scary today is seeing those rules slowly eroded because of an overbearing fanatical (usually religiously based) outcry.

I want to see a return to the basics that the founders of this country envisioned - a simple set of rules (read laws) that maintain our freedom, protect our life style, and ensure our welfare. Beyond that, government has no place dictating our sexual preference, our chosen entertainment or how we deal with our bodies.

Moorcat

Vox Populi

Wulfgar has once again demonstrated his belief that bombast always trumps facts, and that, whenever the facts are undeniable, a misstatement of the facts will likely pass unnoticed; for Wulfgar knows the adolescent mentally of this faithful fans, and that they would rather cheer than think.

1. Wulfgar whines, “I never wrote that Christians, or any other organized religion, are my problem. It would [sic] far more accurate to say that I support the idea that poor Christians, drunk on their own power, are a problem for American Democracy.” [Now there is a “howling” contradiction for you--just the sort of thing one would expect to hear when a little creature gets its paw caught in a trap. Wulfgar has no problem with Christians, personally. They are democracy’s problem!]

[Here, we hope it is not necessary to prove the widely acknowledged historical fact that all modern Western democracies were established by Christians. But for Wulfgar’s sake, we explain that “modern” in historiography means from the Renaissance to present; that “Western” means, generally, European culture and the derivatives thereof, such as the North American and Australian cultures; and that “Christians” means those people who were born into the Christian faith, were converted to the Christian faith, or who adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ as published in the New Testament. Also, we note for Wulfgar, that the New Testament is the second of the two major divisions of the Bible.]

2. So we must suffer through a wandering 1100-word “essay“ about “mullah Tony Perkins” and other religious types, their belief in God and the theological texts they read, the rules and laws they are presumably responsible for, and the “fact” that they are a “disease in this country,” only to learn that Wulfgar has no problem with Christians and other religious people. What? (At this juncture, if we were certain that we had accidentally snared an immature creature, we would surely let it go, which would be the Christian thing to do, naturally. But this little creature could be rabid. Who knows?)

3. “[A]ppeals to the authority of the masses throughout history is [sic] still a falacy [sic], but at least it's [sic] more persuasive if it's [sic] historically accurate.” [Wulfgar does not know who makes history. Perhaps he thinks it comes from books! [He also does not seem to know that a plural subject takes a plural predicate.]]

4. “Sodomy (homosexuality) has been a stabilizing force in many militaristic cultures before us.” [What could that possibly mean? Certainly, Wulfgar cannot mean our US Marine Corps! Oh, maybe he is hinting at the ancient Spartans or perhaps the ancient Celts. Or perhaps he is saying that, if men acted like women, there would be no wars! Who can say? Who can say what underpins a statement without any follow-up explanation? But one thing is certain: Wulfgar is stretching now, probably all the way back to pre-Christian cultures.]

5. “Pornography (depictions of sexual behavior) exists in most all cultures thoughout [sic] the history of human civilization, and even adorn some of humanity's great architecture.” [Here we are treated to Wulfgar’s parenthetically inserted definition of pornography. Golly, it’s anything that depicts sexual behavior! We need not go any further and ask what Wulfgar knows about “great architecture,” and neither should we remind him that we are not talking about “all cultures,” but rather only our own.]

6. “And women have been using natural abortive agents for thousands of years.” [So what? we answer. People have been owning slaves for thousands of years. People have been committing genocide for thousands of years. Pray tell, how do the immoral acts of a very small minority of people create a precedent for the majority?]

7. “So what you're saying….” [And here we lapse into Wulfgar’s standard ploy of distorting the plain meaning of words, which we need not quote verbatim. The gist of his obfuscation is that the “mob”—his favorite term for his fellow citizens—created the US Constitution, which in turn created the Supreme Court, which in turn created the inferior federal courts, which in turn interpreted the laws that the “mob” now finds so repulsive. What Mr. Wulfgar’s middle-school civics lecture leaves out, until the very bitter end, is that the “interpretations” of law issued by a politicized judiciary bend with the political wind. It is the changing direction of the wind that makes Wulfgar bark at the trees.]

8. “[O]ur Constitution was constructed such that individual liberty [sic] never again be enslaved to [sic] the tyranny of the majority.” [More on mob rule. Tsk, tsk, democracy is such an abomination. Where are our philosopher kings, dear Plato? Ah, behold Wulfgar and his immutable laws! If we did not know better, we would say Wulfgar is some sort of elitist conservative. Or possibly a Nazi—one of those weird boys who liked to invent crazy laws because they knew what was best for the people.]

But no. We all know that Wulfgar is merely just another hapless victim of moral relativism, who, having lost his moral compass, is now wandering around aimlessly in the Temple of Reason, chanting incantations to save the abortionists, the pornographers, and the sodomites from the rising tide of morality. He implores the mob to abandon God and to turn on those who would believe in God. In short, to see the world according to Wulfgar. But he is living in a madhouse of his own making, shut in with his fellow cultists and no longer able to see the broad sweep of history and its changing horizon. All he sees are his own self-referential arguments spinning like a top before his glazed eyes. Such is the fate of one who wants to believe that the law is ultimately grounded in reason, rather than in the morals, customs, and traditions of the people.

Jon

"But he is living in a madhouse of his own making, shut in with his fellow cultists and no longer able to see the broad sweep of history and its changing horizon."

We got a live one here. And he's a talker too. Boy is he a talker. Glazed eyes indeed.

So I guees the argument is that Wulfgar is an ignorant, foolish sinner? Is that the point? Or are you trying to convince us you can be more tedious and pointless than anyone on Earth?

Wulfgar
Wulfgar has once again demonstrated his belief that bombast always trumps facts, and that, whenever the facts are undeniable, a misstatement of the facts will likely pass unnoticed; for Wulfgar knows the adolescent mentally of this faithful fans, and that they would rather cheer than think.

Sad little Vox, relying on ad hominem because he has no facts. Look at what you've written, Vox. You presented no facts that need be obscured. And quit insulting my readership. If you don't, you won't like the results.

1. Wulfgar whines, “I never wrote that Christians, or any other organized religion, are my problem. It would [sic] far more accurate to say that I support the idea that poor Christians, drunk on their own power, are a problem for American Democracy.” [Now there is a “howling” contradiction for you--just the sort of thing one would expect to hear when a little creature gets its paw caught in a trap. Wulfgar has no problem with Christians, personally. They are democracy’s problem!]

Funny, you accuse and yet you can't show any contradiction. Some Christians, and it's an insult to Christianity to refer to them as such, are indeed the problem. There is no inconsistancy in what I've written; only in how you stupidly try to twist it.

2. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah.

Still got nothin' of substance, do you?

3. “[A]ppeals to the authority of the masses throughout history is [sic] still a falacy [sic], but at least it's [sic] more persuasive if it's [sic] historically accurate.” [Wulfgar does not know who makes history. Perhaps he thinks it comes from books! [He also does not seem to know that a plural subject takes a plural predicate.]]

'Got no clue how to use parenthesis and brackets do you? Of course, since your only argument here is that puncuation and spelling trumps the facts and reason, I guess you lose.

4. ... Who can say? ...

Certainly not you. My counter example to your poor grasp of fact stands, until you can "say'.

5. “Pornography (depictions of sexual behavior) exists in most all cultures thoughout [sic] the history of human civilization, and even adorn some of humanity's great architecture.” [Here we are treated to Wulfgar’s parenthetically inserted definition of pornography. Golly, it’s anything that depicts sexual behavior! We need not go any further and ask what Wulfgar knows about “great architecture,” and neither should we remind him that we are not talking about “all cultures,” but rather only our own.]

Really? You wrote, and I quote you:

Abortion, pornography, and sodomy have been recognized in all times by the vast majority of people, regardless of their religion, as deviant behavior.

You contradict yourself blatantly. So I guess you're just a lying piece of shit, aren't you?

6. “And women have been using natural abortive agents for thousands of years.” [So what? we answer. People have been owning slaves for thousands of years. People have been committing genocide for thousands of years. Pray tell, how do the immoral acts of a very small minority of people create a precedent for the majority?]

Right to the heart of it, huh? Women are a small minority, at least in your view. And remember, cupcake, it was your argument that morality is set by the will of the majority, not mine. You wanna explain the horrors of history according to your moral arguments, please do so.

Here's the thing, shithead: you are desperately seeking to claim that morality is based on the Bible, and so should American law be, and yet through several comments in several threads, you remain too cowardly to openly state that. Quit being a chickenshit. Say it, quote your scripture, and bring it on. At least then you'll appear to be a zealot, and not a moron.

7. “So what you're saying….” [And here we lapse into Wulfgar’s standard ploy of distorting the plain meaning of words, which we need not quote verbatim. The gist of his obfuscation is that the “mob”—his favorite term for his fellow citizens—created the US Constitution, which in turn created the Supreme Court, which in turn created the inferior federal courts, which in turn interpreted the laws that the “mob” now finds so repulsive. What Mr. Wulfgar’s middle-school civics lecture leaves out, until the very bitter end, is that the “interpretations” of law issued by a politicized judiciary bend with the political wind. It is the changing direction of the wind that makes Wulfgar bark at the trees.]

Now that's just stupid on your part. You call what I've written an obfuscation, and yet you claim that I'm upfront about how our legal system works? The only possible explanation for your stupid mischaracterization is that you are appealing to a higher will for the law of the land then the people (and yet you want so desperately to claim that the people speak for the will of God.) Come on, little camper. Let it out. Jesus wants you to rant about sinful American laws, and how his Godly flock prefers Constitutional protections over holy punishments. Just do it. Quit hiding and let it out.

8. “[O]ur Constitution was constructed such that individual liberty [sic] never again be enslaved to [sic] the tyranny of the majority.” [More on mob rule. Tsk, tsk, democracy is such an abomination. Where are our philosopher kings, dear Plato? Ah, behold Wulfgar and his immutable laws! If we did not know better, we would say Wulfgar is some sort of elitist conservative. Or possibly a Nazi—one of those weird boys who liked to invent crazy laws because they knew what was best for the people.]

Is that the royal "we" you keep using? 'Cause no one you can show agrees with you. I never claimed that Democracy is an abomination. You're making that up. But Democracy is also not the system of government that we have. And philosopher kings would be an oligarchy. You're pulling your ad hominem laden arguments right out of your ass, aren't you, dipshit? That's actually probable because what you've just spit all over the comments of my website is that the founding fathers were nazis, based on the fact that they created crazy laws because they knew what was best for the people and the people agreed by ratifying those crazy laws. Weird.

I'd quote the rest of what you wrote, except that all you're doing is calling me a satanist baby killer who hates Jesus and wants sin for all American kind (which in your view is somehow better than all other kind). But I would be remisss if I didn't point out that you pathetically engage in yet another false dicotomy. Law is grounded in reason and custom, prevailing morality and traditions of the people. You've missed that boat, cupcake, not me. So don't be blaming my ass for your cowardice about speaking up when it matters.

One final note, loser. You try, ever so desperately, to claim 'we this' and 'we that' on my website. You already know that most, if not all, people here think you're majorly full of shit. So why waste your time? My arguments are better than yours. My reasoning is better than yours. And most people who read this site understand that my morals are better than yours. I state what I believe, without cowardly waffling around my belief in a loving God. You can't do that. So why do you persist in this stupidity?

Don Mellon, peretending to be Ed Kemmick

Wulfgar:

I don’t think using phrases like “shithead, “chickenshit,” “dipshit,” “full of shit,” and “lying piece of shit” do much to enhance your reputation as one of our premiere blog debaters. Such usage also seems to be contrary to your strict policy against personal attacks.

I’d suggest you do what I do on my blog: Don’t publish any posts you disagree with. You’ll save yourself a lot of grief and embarrassment, and nobody will know the difference.

Ed

Wulfgar
I don’t think using phrases like “shithead, “chickenshit,” “dipshit,” “full of shit,” and “lying piece of shit” do much to enhance your reputation as one of our premiere blog debaters.

The funny part is, Ed, that's not a mantle I ever requested, and to this day don't understand just how I deserve it. Lately I've picked up more than my share of trolls, and, perhaps purely coincidentally, they started showing up shortly after Eric started his website. If someone comes here looking for debate, I'm perfectly happy to oblige them. But these guys are looking for the online version of a fist-fight. I tend to think that a little harsh language is called for at that point.

Such usage also seems to be contrary to your strict policy against personal attacks.

You'll notice I recinded that almost immediately. I don't care one whit if someone wants to attempt to insult me, because I'm certain that I can give better than I get. Here's my problem, though. Unlike you, Ed, the vast majority of my readers and commenters are my closest friends and family. Ignorant dipsporks who blithely insult those folks deserve no civility from me. I'll happily play polite at the websites of others, but people who come here looking for a fight need to remember that this is my backyard, and I have the power to deal with them as I wish. Nasty epithets are just that, and as such are pretty meaningless, you're right. I take much greater pleasure in showing a troll's self contradiction and lies. I sadly believe that if we were really paying attention in this country, we'd care a helluva lot more about that, then about calling someone a shithead.

I’d suggest you do what I do on my blog: Don’t publish any posts you disagree with. You’ll save yourself a lot of grief and embarrassment, and nobody will know the difference.

I'm not willing to take that step quite yet. I don't mind disagreement; hell, sometimes I even crave it. I do, as has been noticed before, carry a pathological agression towards blatent willful stupidity. Given that, I might be a bit happier by filtering comments. I seriously do thank you for your suggestions, though.

David Summerlin

Wulfgar, you know that isn't Ed, right?

moorcat

You carry the mantle of "Blog Debater" because you are a debater - and have the medals to prove it. It may not have been something you sought, but debating is a part of who you are. Besides, you LOVE it - especially when you get to really hammer some asshat like Vox...

Moorcat

Wulfgar

Actually, David, I didn't. But Thanks for clueing me in.

Gil Lopez

Row row row your boat, gently down the stream,
merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream.

Gil Lopez

hee hee it looks tlike deeply stupid is gonna have to work full time on this

Ed Kemmick

Wulfgar: I felt sorry for you when I saw that your blog was the latest to be invaded by Don Mellon, but I was going to stay quiet, as I've learned that Don only wants to preen, but then he goes and uses my name, which in his catalog of uncivilized infractions hardly even rates. Calling him a piece of shit is an insult to all the shits ever shat. My advice is to ignore him. Too many people have wasted too much time trying to address him as a fellow human being.

Wulfgar

Thanks for the heads up, Ed. At least now I've got a name for one these critters. The problem with trolls is they travel in flocks, like other chickens.

Ed Kemmick

No, Mellon doesn't travel in a flock. He justs uses lots of different names, to give the appearance of being interesting to other human beings. It's a pathetic sight, sort of like his juvenile obsession with (sic)-ing, but oh, well.

Sheila N

Ok, now I see why they're called trolls....

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad