The Good Post Gallery

[asexual trans victimologist]

Here's a really seriously good post from wormyguy:

No, given that it was just a veiled effort to destroy Catholics schools.

And...that's a bad thing how?

Well, besides the fact that Catholic schools consistently produce better-achieving students, at a lower cost per pupil, than public schools, Catholic immigrant students faced extreme discrimination from both teachers and fellow students in public schools in the early 20th century.  They were put in the lowest reading/math groups, given low marks, pressured to drop out as soon as legally possible, made to sit in the back of the classroom, bullied, ostracized etc. (not to mention that there would probably be a few lessons on the evils of Popery).  Also do note that public schools were not any more (and generally less) secular than Catholic schools back then.

Probably not, on the principle that it was a KKK-backed piece of anti-Catholic legislation.

Well considering how you are pretty anti-Catholic (see comments about sex abuse scandals and contraception), I don't see how that'd be a problem, unless you're basically just saying anything the KKK supports should be opposed.

Sometimes, you are obliged to oppose something based on its reasoning rather than its content.  Perhaps on the other side of the spectrum, but Murray Rothbard had a good example; suppose some congressman in 1850 proposed a constitutional amendment declaring the total inviolability of private property and forbidding government interference with it.  Any good libertarian would be obliged to vote against it, since their definition of private property would certainly differ from that hypothetical congressman (who is seeking to protect slavery).

[Communists For McCain]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Yeah, I mean, I don't really care if someone never wants to smoke (or drink, or whatever), but I don't understand why you wouldn't even want to try it. You've only got one life, and there'll be plenty of time to be a prude when you're older, guys.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Yeah, I mean, I don't really care if someone never wants to smoke (or drink, or whatever), but I don't understand why you wouldn't even want to try it. You've only got one life, and there'll be plenty of time to be a prude when you're older, guys.

just the opposite, I plan to do my most serious drug using when I am nearing death.

[Communists For McCain]

God bless you Tweed.

You are a man after Dave Leip's own heart.

[Badger]

Any post ending in "I think I know how, but will not say that much at this time," belongs in the Deluge, not the Gallery.

It is vintage spade.

Yes, but that's the problem.

[opebo]

Seems like a great many recent posts have been removed from this thread.

[Senator Snowstalker]

The fascists are to blame, of course.

[Grumps]

Seems like a great many recent posts have been removed from this thread.

[opebo]

The fascists are to blame, of course.

They used not to carry the removals to accolade-threads such as the comedy goldmine or 'best post' threads. 

[The Mikado]

This site is not pedophile-friendly.

[white trash heroes]

Any post ending in "I think I know how, but will not say that much at this time," belongs in the Deluge, not the Gallery.

It is vintage spade.

Yes, but that's the problem.

There is no problem. He is a national treasure.

[opebo]

This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Well, that's not what the post in question was about at all, Mikado.

But it is an interesting question - what opinions are allowed?  If, in that particular thread, someone proposed a country where 'there was no law against murder', for example, would you allow that?  (I ask because in theory this is a tenet of the more anarchist of the libertarians, and you do provide an avatar for that set of opinions). 

[The Mikado]

This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Well, that's not what the post in question was about at all, Mikado.

But it is an interesting question - what opinions are allowed?  If, in that particular thread, someone proposed a country where 'there was no law against murder', for example, would you allow that?  (I ask because in theory this is a tenet of the more anarchist of the libertarians, and you do provide an avatar for that set of opinions).  

Rules-lawyering and salami tactics won't get you out of this.  The post was completely unacceptable.  There is a certain degree of inherent subjectivity to the job, but it's blatantly clear that you meant what you posted in that thread more than you'd mean, say, proposing your country of 100,000 becoming the site of a reenactment of The Most Dangerous Game.

[opebo]

This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Well, that's not what the post in question was about at all, Mikado.

But it is an interesting question - what opinions are allowed?  If, in that particular thread, someone proposed a country where 'there was no law against murder', for example, would you allow that?  (I ask because in theory this is a tenet of the more anarchist of the libertarians, and you do provide an avatar for that set of opinions).  

Rules-lawyering and salami tactics won't get you out of this.  The post was completely unacceptable.  There is a certain degree of inherent subjectivity to the job, but it's blatantly clear that you meant what you posted in that thread more than you'd mean, say, proposing your country of 100,000 becoming the site of a reenactment of The Most Dangerous Game.

But I don't expect to 'get out of it' at all, Mikado!  The point of my exchange with you above was only to try to demonstrate to you of the absolute chilling effect you have put in place. 

[Torie]

This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Well, that's not what the post in question was about at all, Mikado.

But it is an interesting question - what opinions are allowed?  If, in that particular thread, someone proposed a country where 'there was no law against murder', for example, would you allow that?  (I ask because in theory this is a tenet of the more anarchist of the libertarians, and you do provide an avatar for that set of opinions). 

One would think you get enough excitement living on the edge in Thailand opebo, to have any need to do it here.  Or has your life become more pedestrian over there now that you have joined the labor force, and have a more regular partner?

[The Mikado]

This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Well, that's not what the post in question was about at all, Mikado.

But it is an interesting question - what opinions are allowed?  If, in that particular thread, someone proposed a country where 'there was no law against murder', for example, would you allow that?  (I ask because in theory this is a tenet of the more anarchist of the libertarians, and you do provide an avatar for that set of opinions).  

Rules-lawyering and salami tactics won't get you out of this.  The post was completely unacceptable.  There is a certain degree of inherent subjectivity to the job, but it's blatantly clear that you meant what you posted in that thread more than you'd mean, say, proposing your country of 100,000 becoming the site of a reenactment of The Most Dangerous Game.

But I don't expect to 'get out of it' at all, Mikado!  The point of my exchange with you above was only to try to demonstrate to you of the absolute chilling effect you have put in place.  

As well there should be.  Pedophilia as acceptable is not a legitimate position to take, any more than "In my perfect world, we would kill all black people" would be.

EDIT:  This site is not and never was intended to be a "free speech zone" or whatever.

[Torie]

I think the line to be drawn is with respect something involving both 1) a felony if committed, and 2) a felony that most folks would also consider malum in se, rather than merely malum prohibitum (e.g., felonious possession/consumption of pot).  I am all for screwing anything that moves, but the screwee needs to be 18 - going lower is malum in se. So there is the lawyer's answer for you opebo, to stereo out the opera fan's chords on this.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Jeff, you never addressed my question: If you don't go to Kenya, does that mean God changed his mind?

No, it would mean I read it wrong.  I don't forsee that happening, though.

But didn't you say he verbally spoke to you?

Exactly.  Read two things - read the second sentence of the quoted post and read my previous post in response to jmfcst's question.

OK.  But you said he spoke to you.  If he verbally spoke to you, what exactly did he say?  "Jeff, go to Kenya" or something you ahd to interpret?

I am not going to keep answering your questions. Obviously, you either don't belive that God still speaks to His children or you refuse to accept any answer I provide. I know what God told me so people need to accept that.

Besides, this forum thinks the only acceptable answer is to stay in Oklahoma. They refuse to consider that God sometimes asks His children to do things that go against societal thinking.

No one is suggesting that your only options in life is the hell hole of a state you live in or Kenya..

What is being said is you should actually think rationally about what it instead of deciding what you want to do and labeling it as God told you to do it. 

You seem to have such strong feelings about certain things that you convince yourself God is telling you to do something when in fact no such thing is happening.  We have been down this road before, it never ends well....

[opebo]

...Pedophilia as acceptable is not a legitimate position to take, any more than "In my perfect world, we would kill all black people" would be.

I think the line to be drawn is with respect something involving both 1) a felony if committed, and 2) a felony that most folks would also consider malum in se, rather than merely malum prohibitum (e.g., felonious possession/consumption of pot).  I am all for screwing anything that moves, but the screwee needs to be 18 - going lower is malum in se.

So, conflating these two diverse sources, would, for example, posting here in advocacy of a reduction in the age-of-consent to 16 be categorized as pedophilia and thus a disallowed speech?

[Grumps]

Why does the Good Post Gallery only have 3 pages to it?

[opebo]

Why does the Good Post Gallery only have 3 pages to it?

Well they removed a lot of it.

[ModerateCoward]

Graduation is one of life's most pitiable sights.

[Senator Napoleon]

My impression is social conservatives are generally more traditionalist and authoritarian than most people, and those who are left-of-centre on economic issues are especially more willing compared to other groups when it comes to codifying their stringent interpretations of morality. However, the normatively conformist folks in an economically centrist or right-of-centre society are not going to vocally advocate for left-wing goals unless they become convinced such an agenda is legitimized by an urgent higher calling or a serious religious mandate (e.g., liberation theology in Latin America).

That is to say, in a place like the States a lot of social and classical liberalists, social democrats, and democratic socialists seem to be relatively non-conforming - not caring enough about traditions and social norms to enforce them all using state coercion, whereas the socons and some of them pseudo-libertarian types really do care enough to make many tenets of their respective cultures into law. The ones with leftist sympathies on economic matters are conservative on most issues - not just "social" ones - hence they go along with a mixed economic agenda and perhaps utilize community service and charitable donations (which are culturally approved of) rather than politics (which would be a deviant break from old, tried-and-true methods) as their outlet for compassion?

It would be the socons with right-of-centre views who would usually not have their own parties in a world where socialist policies are the well-established norm. The capitalists amongst socons, in their conservative political mindset, would ally with mainstream factions rather than break off on their own to form some kind of radical alternative. The changes to society they want have to stay within the bounds of traditional norms and policy goals. Likewise, in a sufficiently secular society, socons would be anti-religious even as they treat their views with reverence and tend to think of folks as fitting into hierarchies of superior and inferior positions. Or is there a better explanation?

Edit: This would also account for Pingvin's observation. In Russia some conservatives and many reactionaries adhere to Marxist-Leninish or Stalinish views on the economy - their yearning for tradition and restoration of the good 'ole days involves a throwback to aspects of Soviet rule as opposed to what the paleoconservatives here conjure up in their minds about the States' past.

[Torie]

My impression is social conservatives are generally more traditionalist and authoritarian than most people, and those who are left-of-centre on economic issues are especially more willing compared to other groups when it comes to codifying their stringent interpretations of morality. However, the normatively conformist folks in an economically centrist or right-of-centre society are not going to vocally advocate for left-wing goals unless they become convinced such an agenda is legitimized by an urgent higher calling or a serious religious mandate (e.g., liberation theology in Latin America).

That is to say, in a place like the States a lot of social and classical liberalists, social democrats, and democratic socialists seem to be relatively non-conforming - not caring enough about traditions and social norms to enforce them all using state coercion, whereas the socons and some of them pseudo-libertarian types really do care enough to make many tenets of their respective cultures into law. The ones with leftist sympathies on economic matters are conservative on most issues - not just "social" ones - hence they go along with a mixed economic agenda and perhaps utilize community service and charitable donations (which are culturally approved of) rather than politics (which would be a deviant break from old, tried-and-true methods) as their outlet for compassion?

It would be the socons with right-of-centre views who would usually not have their own parties in a world where socialist policies are the well-established norm. The capitalists amongst socons, in their conservative political mindset, would ally with mainstream factions rather than break off on their own to form some kind of radical alternative. The changes to society they want have to stay within the bounds of traditional norms and policy goals. Likewise, in a sufficiently secular society, socons would be anti-religious even as they treat their views with reverence and tend to think of folks as fitting into hierarchies of superior and inferior positions. Or is there a better explanation?

Edit: This would also account for Pingvin's observation. In Russia some conservatives and many reactionaries adhere to Marxist-Leninish or Stalinish views on the economy - their yearning for tradition and restoration of the good 'ole days involves a throwback to aspects of Soviet rule as opposed to what the paleoconservatives here conjure up in their minds about the States' past.

Indeed a fine and thought provoking post. I read it twice, word for word.  I would only add, that as a practical matter, something that breaks the norm and upsets traditionalists, which then for whatever reason works reasonably well, even from a traditionalists perspective, than of course it becomes more of a consensus that even hard right but pragmatist traditionalists, dare not cross swords with. That is my attempt at an explanation of the apparent irony embedded in the post. In fact, it is not ironical at all.

[Communists For McCain]

Very good point here from Mr. Morden about one of my threads:

Why is this in FC now? It was intended to be in the 2012 board.

Because the 2012 board is intended for discussion of the 2012 election, not rhetorical questions about Atlas itself.