The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Really, everything that jmfcst has said in that thread has struck me as absurd and ignorant, though to be fair I know that he feels the same about what I've said.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Really, everything that jmfcst has said in that thread has struck me as absurd and ignorant, though to be fair I know that he feels the same about what I've said.

as I said, arguments for waiting out Iran are viable, but claiming [SWAT teams are a "sin" but that sin is sometimes justifiable] is pure deception.  Once thing you'll discover about me is that I HATE attempts to distort language in an blatant attempt to piss down my back.

People who think that only slightly unconventional uses of language are 'distortions' have only their own simplistic view of language to blame. I never said that sin is 'justifiable' (I used words like 'understandable', 'tragic', 'forgivable', and even 'necessary' in response to an absurdly extreme hypothetical that nobody asked you about, always conditioning this by trying to point out the fallenness of the world only to realise that you think that this excuses your own love of crudeness and cruelty, but at no point 'justifiable', a word that you insisted on using after I tried repeatedly to clarify this point) and if you keep saying that I did I'm seriously considering reporting you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you find it half as sickening as I find your aggressively ignorant, arrogant, in-group out-group stupidity and complacency in the face of a sick and fallen world, then that's more sickeningness than anybody should have to deal with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gee, I would've thought that the antithesis of love involved things like demonizing entire populations and describing atomic strikes against civilian targets as completely acceptable and decent.

Calling people out for deception when they weren't trying to deceive anyone and kept trying to steer you in directions that explained the points they were trying to make better than they could, to no avail because of the predetermined remorselessness of your own assumptions and obsessions, is called bullying, sweetie.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

if you want to defend your view that sin is justifiable, then go on the religion board and start a thread and give us some examples where scripture justifies sin...otherwise shut up, because until you can show me some examples, I'm not going to listen to it for it is contrary to everything I have read in my bible

Why would I want to start a thread to defend a view that I don't hold and never said I held, you blithering idiot?

It's amazing to me that somebody who's apparently intelligent enough to run an IT company and teach kids about astronomy is simultaneously mouth-breathingly moronic enough to be somehow completely unaware of 'necessary evils', a concept which is so ubiquitous as for the phrase to be a cliche, morally craven enough to deal with his unfamiliarity with this basic concept by gleefully embracing the way a world that he himself believes is fallen, ruined, and dishonored operates, uncurious enough to completely ignore repeated exhortations to actually read up on an idea that he doesn't understand, and intellectually dishonest enough to continue to misrepresent and demonize a debating opponent's position after it's been made clear to him over and over again that that's what he is doing. Have you even heard of the principle of double effect, or do you just not care about any form of theory or reason other than your own sophomoric, defanged interpretation of the Bible?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If you know you are about to commit an act that is sinful, the correct response is to not act, not prepare a canned, disingenious "I'm sorry" speech to God for when after you're done.

Oh, don't worry, I know that. He was throwing extreme situations at me to see what would stick and my point, which didn't change even after he moved the goalposts repeatedly and started selectively misinterpreting what I was saying, was that the only situation in which killing is remotely acceptable by any stretch of the imagination was when it's an unintended consequence of trying to accomplish something else, because as you said if you're using 'self-defense' however defined as your lodestar for when ending a human life suddenly is magically not wrong any more you have to deal with the twisted definitions of 'self-defense' that everybody has used to rationalize their pointlessly cruel actions.

Only when it's an unintended consequence is it understandable (a word which has a different meaning to 'justifiable', which is a word that he, not I, is insisting on using), and even then if it's a foreseen consequence it's still a venal thing to do. Sin isn't solely limited to planned-out, malicious acts. It's much more insidious than that. This is a completely normal and received interpretation and I'm frankly amazed that jmfcst seems entirely and willfully unaware of it.

Also there is more to any religion than the plaintext of a scripture, particularly if it's being interpreted by a buffoonish idiot.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

ok, this is moving to the Religion Board

Probably a good idea, though I've created a separate thread for the part of the discussion that I'm more interested in if that's okay with you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

North Korea as Liberia is one of the only three countries in the world (along with the US and Burma) that doesn't use metric. I would enjoy overthrowing the corrupt government and reuniting with South Korea.

PEW PEW PEW

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be funny in it's stupidity.  The funny might not have worked. 

(though I did giggle a little at the PEW PEW PEW part because it reminded me of Troy and Abed on Community last week)

I could easily put it in the Goldmine too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This post seems like the best place to share some stories...I'll tell you fellas about aguy I used to supervise when we were building a subdivision.  His name was Peter McCloud but we all just called him Queefy Pete.......don't ask why! Well one day Queefy Pete goes in to a new construciton to inspect the master bath plumbing. Turns out he went into the house and some gal who was touring the community thought it was the model house and was in there doing her business!!!  Well half an hour later Queefy Pete comes back to the office where I was and turns out he railed her bare ass on the bathroom sink!  More later, time for some politics.

It seems we no longer have the need to mine from elsewhere on the forum for purposes of this thread.

We're through the looking-glass here, people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So now you're just self-archiving them directly in here, then?

Has the Deluge thread officially gone PoMo?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That thread is the most fun I've had in a while. Sad, isn't it?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Click for context.

Maybe Vermont.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

We are in fact aware that there's a different historical, cultural, and economic situation, just in general, in Brazil to the one in the United States, right?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Dilma has proclivities towards allowing the free market to take a greater chunk of the economy while increasing or keeping stable the amount of transfer payments by utilizing the private sector deliver on them. Obama prefers using the public sector to administer, manage, and control the transfer payments and to even in a few instances(student loans, automakers, to some extent banking, to some extent healthcare, etc.) take over parts or all of an industry.

In this particular case "Workers Party" and "Democratic Party" are deceiving. The labels don't point to who is more left than the other, but the records, beliefs, positions, etc. do!

Records and positions don't necessarily perfectly reflect beliefs, though. Dilma's strategy is similar to that pursued by various European socialist parties in the 1960s, and I sincerely hope you wouldn't consider Obama to the left of them. Brazil's economy has also been, relative to expectations, outperforming that of the United States for some time now; Obama's policies are those of somebody in charge of a country that's been in more-or-less-permanent crisis mode for years (hence the bailouts if nothing else). Dilma's aren't.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But the sentences right behind the highlighted bollocks are true!

As a product of Christianity-as-done-by-Vermonters, I have to agree with this, though I actually don't like to toot my own horn. I just end up doing it sometimes without noticing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As a product of Christianity-as-done-by-Vermonters

You were conceived during a Christian ceremony in Vermont? Are you sure it wasn't actually a Wiccan ceremony?

No, nothing as interesting as that. I was just baptized and raised in a Vermont Federated Church. And I'm fairly sure it was legit Christian, since there was only the one chalice.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Great, another referendum that will end up a narrow loss and disappointment.

They need 3/5 in both houses to even get referenum status for an amendment. After moaning and groaning and whining about how GOP legislatures were focused on social issues its very funny to see this legislature try to push their wedge issue and insult people of faith.

There's something really viscerally sickening about this particular post for some reason I can't quite put my finger on.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He will be the competent president who made it morning in America again.

Are you getting paid to do this?

I believe in America.
I believe in Mitt Romney.

Thanks for answering the question.

You're welcome.

This is even better, though it probably belongs in the Institute all things considered.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hope? Nope.

Are you given a pellet every time you say that?

Hey, I just want to ride in the pimped out dawg crate on top of the Mittmobile. What can I say?

Politico needs an award for his posting today. I don't even care what award it is any more.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Mitt Romney will be the most right-wing major party nominee in this country's history.

Most people don't define 'right-wing' the same way you do, wormy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Mitt Romney will be the most right-wing major party nominee in this country's history.

Most people don't define 'right-wing' the same way you do, wormy.

Nathan, I know you are a very educated kid when it comes to history man.

Tell me please how Lief's comment is not absurd, considering the presidential nominees we've had in the past?

It's absurd but I don't think it's absurd for the reasons that wormyguy thinks it is. On many issues Romney would be the most right-wing nominee for a very long time, but certainly not in the country's history; on others, he's arguably less right-wing than not only most recent Republican nominees but some relatively recent Democrats as well.

On pocketbook issues I'd describe him as very, very rightist relative to most nominees within living memory, but Goldwater for instance might well be an exception, and if you go back to Coolidge and Harding and beyond they certainly are (but then, pre-New Deal the political structure of the country was sufficiently different that I'd caution against defining these terms the same way we now do).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To celebrate his absence I'll submit this as my pick for the single most idiotic posting ever in the history of Atlas:

Canadians can not view Hulu.

It's not the only website. There are a lot of websites that Americans can visit, that Canadians can not.

Perhaps other non-autistic canadians do not get offended, but I do. Every time I hear the word "Hulu" it gets translated in my head as "F*** you canadian, I am American, thats right you f***ing Canadian, I am American and I'm better than you cause I can watch this clip and you f***ing looser can't"

You're really not being very Christian about this, BRTD.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To celebrate his absence I'll submit this as my pick for the single most idiotic posting ever in the history of Atlas:

Canadians can not view Hulu.

It's not the only website. There are a lot of websites that Americans can visit, that Canadians can not.

Perhaps other non-autistic canadians do not get offended, but I do. Every time I hear the word "Hulu" it gets translated in my head as "F*** you canadian, I am American, thats right you f***ing Canadian, I am American and I'm better than you cause I can watch this clip and you f***ing looser can't"

Fyi, one of the traits of Autism Spectrum Disorders is that they are more likely to get offended by perceived injustices, especially arbitrary-seeming ones.  Autistic folks fixate on this stuff until they get a satisfying resolution.  They are unable to let it go like we can.  (Imagine how mad you feel when someone does something arbitrarily cruel or thoughtless to you; that's about what it's like for them.)   When you know this, his post makes total sense.

You're really being an ass here, although I understand that you probably didn't realize that.

I can vouch for this. I should mention that I've spent a great deal of time and effort working on empathy and a sense of perspective despite (or perhaps because of) being diagnosed with high-functioning autism myself very early in life.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To celebrate his absence I'll submit this as my pick for the single most idiotic posting ever in the history of Atlas:

Canadians can not view Hulu.

It's not the only website. There are a lot of websites that Americans can visit, that Canadians can not.

Perhaps other non-autistic canadians do not get offended, but I do. Every time I hear the word "Hulu" it gets translated in my head as "F*** you canadian, I am American, thats right you f***ing Canadian, I am American and I'm better than you cause I can watch this clip and you f***ing looser can't"

Fyi, one of the traits of Autism Spectrum Disorders is that they are more likely to get offended by perceived injustices, especially arbitrary-seeming ones.  Autistic folks fixate on this stuff until they get a satisfying resolution.  They are unable to let it go like we can.  (Imagine how mad you feel when someone does something arbitrarily cruel or thoughtless to you; that's about what it's like for them.)   When you know this, his post makes total sense.

You're really being an ass here, although I understand that you probably didn't realize that.

I can vouch for this. I should mention that I've spent a great deal of time and effort working on empathy and a sense of perspective despite (or perhaps because of) being diagnosed with high-functioning autism myself very early in life.

Never would have guessed (seriously).

Yeah. I've been working very hard on the subject of other people for a very long time.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, yes, all 3 are highly popular policies among the US electorate.

It's a little odd to describe them that way when one no longer enjoys majority support nationwide and another has to be pitched through immensely odd semantics to get the numbers that it does (one assumes, otherwise there would be very little reason to use the English language in such strange ways), but whatever.

Somewhere between -5 and -10 for gay marriage in Minnesota considering the (for better or worse) cultural reticence of many Iron Range Democrats seems reasonable to me at the time being. This poll just has somewhat higher undecideds than many so, of course, the support numbers are commensurately lower. If you split the undecideds it comes out to something like 45.3-54.7, which strikes me as a little on the low end but not outside the range of where I had perceived things as standing at this point in these sorts of states.

Given its long streak of 30+ successes at the polling booth it is very natural to describe the sanctity of traditional marriage as a popular policy. Dubious surveys are of course secondary to concrete actual electoral results.

Nothing particularly stupid about this post, I just really don't like this guy and I giggle at the use of the term "traditional marriage".

There actually is something stupid about it, namely his failure to understand that Time is a thing. I don't even believe, philosophically, in linear time and I still find this absurd.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Romney is improving his message and delivery. He is finding his voice, and Obama is clearly in trouble unless 500,000 jobs are created per month and gas nosedives to $2.50/gallon.