The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

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

Another double whammy:

So about Oldiesfreak being big on anti-racism...

I voted HP by mistake, because I thought you meant Congressman John Lewis.

I don't opppse him because he's black, I oppose him because he's a Democrat.

So you're going to disregard all the work he did for the civil rights movement and at SNCC for 25 years of service in Congress on your opposing team?

You're a joke. I honestly hadn't think I'd find an incident with a Republican that I'd be disgusted in more than when Krazen used the bombings on my city as political fodder, but somehow I have. Sure, I absolutely hate facing Mariano Rivera when my boys are facing the Yankees, but off the field, he's arguably the classiest player of all-time, and I'm sad to see him retire. He's against the people I root for, but I can still like him as a person. The fact that you don't proves incidents like Wallacegate's not about race. You just want to score political points.

No; I have much respect for the work he did for the civil rights movement, but considering that, it's amazing that he belongs to a party that included most of the opponents of the civil rights movement.  And he also compared John McCain and Sarah Palin to George Wallace (who was, of course, a Democrat) during the 2008 campaign: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/John_Lewis_invoking_George_Wallace_says_McCain_and_Palin_playing_with_fire.html

Perhaps someone who was a leader of the civil rights movement understands the actual history of the civil rights movement better than some 19 year old kid reading things on the internet.

Believe me, I've read plenty of history in textbooks (even left-wing ones), and I think I have a pretty good grasp of the history of the civil rights movement.

This

So by that logic, since I've read a bunch of books on child soldiers in Africa, I am now an expert. To hell with college then, I'm going to the United Nations. Thanks, Oldiesfreak!

George W. Bush pardoning Scooter Libby ranks near the top of shameless crony pardons. Worse than Ford/Nixon.

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

I hardly think objecting to referring to people as whores, whether they fit the usual definition of the word or not, is nonsensical, even if you don't agree with it.

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

Sexual liberty is not a bad thing - you're right - but prostitution =/= sexual liberty.

Don't presume to judge for others - it is precisely that for some.

Yeah, it's 'sexual liberty' for the people who can pay.

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

Delaware is extremely democratic, but Tom Carper is one of the biggest Conservadems in the country. Minnesota, meanwhile, has lots of room for Republican victory, but is fairly polarizing, so it tends to elect Liberal Democrats when they do win.

I tend to agree with this, except I would say Delaware.  Of course, Minnesota has Al Franken in the Senate, but I still contend that he was selected, not elected.

Are you THAT dumb? Really? Let's wait and see if he is selected again in 2014.

Probably the best part of that is the addition of SpongeBob. I mean WTF?

How can a show that's set underwater but yet has fire and a squirrel (Sandy) NOT be stupid?

…Oh, wow.
I bet you're that one guy who stands up in the middle of a movie theater and shouts "This movie sucks, there are no pyroclastic explosions in space!"

Oldiesfreak, please don't use this or any thread exclusively as a venue to be passive-aggressive to posters who criticize your bizarre outlook on the world without actually responding to them. If you must use it for that, at least have the decency to use it for other things as well so that your contributions won't be a complete loss.

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

How is my outlook on the world bizarre?  It's based on simple verifiable facts.

The fact that you think that is part of what makes it bizarre.

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

Abrahamic religions are a stain on humanity and the sooner they are wiped clean by the advancement of technology and education the better.

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

Yes...in spite of the great progressive circle jerk, there are still people that believe in traditional marriage regulations.

To me the most interesting thing about this post is the use of 'traditional' and 'regulations' in the same context. It's like he's trying to have both sides of Weber or something.

________________

Looks like a ton of people voted on here. Based on ideology of federal government, Goldwater would have been possibly the greatest president of all-time. McCain and Romney would have done great at bringing the parties together and moderation though.

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

What do countries with the rule of law do with convicted pedophiles?  I'm fascinated to know.

Not sure, but if kids had guns pedophilia wouldn't be a problem.

I'm pretty sure wormyguy is making reference to France's admittedly inexcusable attitude towards the person of Roman Polanski.

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

The fact is that no countries ever have rule of law as a consistent ideal that operates in a consistently ideal way, nor, likely, have any ever or will any ever. This doesn't mean that it isn't a concept worth valuing or that specific betrayals or perversions of it (and Zimmerman's acquittal is a perversion even if not a betrayal) are somehow less objectionable.

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

The fact is that no countries ever have rule of law as a consistent ideal that operates in a consistently ideal way, nor, likely, have any ever or will any ever. This doesn't mean that it isn't a concept worth valuing or that specific betrayals or perversions of it (and Zimmerman's acquittal is a perversion even if not a betrayal) are somehow less objectionable.

I would say Zimmerman's acquittal goes one step further than most of the other perversions we have witnessed so far.

I would agree with that, at least if we're limiting ourselves to recent years.

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

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=177352.0

The worst part is like the Sandra Fluke threads, the people involved probably actually think they're being clever.

Came here to post that.

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

The one who's ideology doesn't involve killing me and my family for the sake of revolution.

You cannot say such horrible things of Groucho, the most influential thinker in History.

The fact that you think Karl Marx is the most influential thinker in historyis absurdity and ignorance in its own right.

You know perfectly that only Jesus Christ is comparable to Karl Groucho Marx in influence. Another question is if you are not willing to admit the simple fact.

Plato? Aristotle? Sophicles? Voiltare? Locke? Jefferson? None of these people are as influencial as Marx? None? Not one?

Plato is arguable, and Aristotle is probable, but none of the others, at least not as individuals, no.

At least at our moment in history, Confucius, Shakyamuni, Aristotle, Christ, Muhammad, and Marx, and potentially a few others who I would be forgetting rather than deliberately leaving out, are pretty much in a class of their own in terms of historical influence. Marx is, however, so much more recent than all of the others that it might not look that way three or five or eight hundred years down the road. The only individual, specific liberal (broadly speaking) thinker who I think could possibly fit into this class is indeed Locke, but I just don't think Locke's contributions are as irreplaceable as all that.

I guess Galileo or Newton could be considered vaguely deserving of placement in such a pantheon, but more as symbols than as men, really. (Then again, this could be argued to be true of several of the others as well.)

In any case I don't think this sort of speculation is really all that helpful beyond being fun to think about for obsessive-categorizer types like me.

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

Et tu, Nathan?

? I said it was a type of speculation I don't really take all that seriously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Accurate.

I'd throw Martin Luther if the standard is influencing the geo-political scene.

Good point, actually.

Of course you are right (I'm afraid I know little about Shakyamuni) including Muhammad and Confucius, from a global perspective. We are always too Eurocentric. On the other hand, it's nice to read a serious and knowledgeable poster and I like speculations sometimes.

Shakyamuni is better known as Gautama Buddha, but 'Shakyamuni' ('Sage of the Shakya Clan') or 'Shakyamuni Buddha' is the name that my professors generally prefer for whatever reason, so it's the one I generally use. And thanks!

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

I'm not sure how our esteemed and admired brother memphis managed to pack so much Deluge-worthy material into such a short post, but he did. That's our memphis!

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not only is it (obviously, to anybody not going out of their way to be disingenuous or simply bigoted or both) a laughably puerile understanding of religion, it's a laughably puerile understanding even of Jonathan Edwards!

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

I'm not sure how our esteemed and admired brother memphis managed to pack so much Deluge-worthy material into such a short post, but he did. That's our memphis!

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not only is it (obviously, to anybody not going out of their way to be disingenuous or simply bigoted or both) a laughably puerile understanding of religion, it's a laughably puerile understanding even of Jonathan Edwards!

Ah ha ah ha ah ha (snort) a ha.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate.

An understanding of Jonathan Edwards that seems to be limited to the title and general gist of his most famous sermon is, in fact, a puerile one.

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

I'm not sure how our esteemed and admired brother memphis managed to pack so much Deluge-worthy material into such a short post, but he did. That's our memphis!

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not only is it (obviously, to anybody not going out of their way to be disingenuous or simply bigoted or both) a laughably puerile understanding of religion, it's a laughably puerile understanding even of Jonathan Edwards!

Ah ha ah ha ah ha (snort) a ha.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate.

An understanding of Jonathan Edwards that seems to be limited to the title and general gist of his most famous sermon is, in fact, a puerile one.

How much of an insufferable queen you can be in your catty and acerbic take downs of posters who are perhaps not so agile in defending themselves.

Oh. In that case, fair point. I can't really deny that.

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

I'm not sure how our esteemed and admired brother memphis managed to pack so much Deluge-worthy material into such a short post, but he did. That's our memphis!

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not only is it (obviously, to anybody not going out of their way to be disingenuous or simply bigoted or both) a laughably puerile understanding of religion, it's a laughably puerile understanding even of Jonathan Edwards!

Ah ha ah ha ah ha (snort) a ha.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate.

An understanding of Jonathan Edwards that seems to be limited to the title and general gist of his most famous sermon is, in fact, a puerile one.

How much of an insufferable queen you can be in your catty and acerbic take downs of posters who are perhaps not so agile in defending themselves.

Oh. In that case, fair point. I can't really deny that.

What would be worrying is if you actually liked it.

I could take or leave that part of my personality, to be honest, although the fact that other people tend not to like it very much inclines me towards 'leave', if I were better at exercising self-control over these things.

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

Random observation on the above: Atlas Forum, the guy, I find a lot like the pony tailed dude from Good Will Hunting. There is a tendency to take esoteric bits of information, treat it like the most elementary knowledge and then belittle those who did not know it. The overall hubris may even be more off putting about the place to females than the presumed misogyny. 

It's not so much that I think that familiarity with the thought of Jonathan Edwards is or should be elementary knowledge as that taking the title and gist of 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' and using it, independent of context, to convey some sort of Salient Point about American Christianity is a specific pet peeve of mine, but yeah, I think you're right about this, and I certainly wouldn't call myself 'part of the solution' (although I'm not sure I'd agree that women as a class are a group that this alienates necessarily more than others).

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

Jesus Christ guys, I was not being serious with that post. Kind of a poor taste joke, sure, but I think the Bad Post/Absurd part was pronoun I used, which was unfortunate but entirely unintentional - I imagine it will take me a while to get used to referring to Manning as 'her' etc.

I've got very little respect for Manning in general, sure, but I'd like to think however bad my posts may be I'm not known for uniroincally posting bro-ish conspiracy theories about why people have gender identity issues.

I, at least, could tell you were being facetious and wasn't including you in the group of posters I was not-mad-at-just-disappointed-in, because even though we have very different positions on the whole Manning/Snowden/security/leaking set of issues (except, presumably, Assange, because seriously, [Inks] that guy), I trust you not to be a dudebro.

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

Invisible sky wizards and the act of eating metaphorical bits of his son's flesh and blood are also pretty "focking" weird too.

Pretty much just for the first three words as a characterization of the God of, one assumes, Christianity.

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

Invisible sky wizards and the act of eating metaphorical bits of his son's flesh and blood are also pretty "focking" weird too.

Pretty much just for the first three words as a characterization of the God of, one assumes, Christianity.

I think it must be a reference to Dumbledore in the 7th Harry Potter book.

That would certainly make more sense, and considering the demographics of the forum might actually make it a pot-shot at the beliefs of more regular users.

In fairness a lot of what Cathcon's saying in that thread for Joe to respond to by saying this would belong here as well, but it's not interestingly-worded enough and I'm pretty sure he's not entirely serious anyway.

(Not that there's anything even slightly interesting, original, or clever about posturing atheists using any combination of the words 'magical', 'invisible', 'sky', 'fairy', and 'wizard' in this context, but it's at least not entirely generic.)

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

Continuing in this vein:

Apparently Nathan objects to the term 'invisible sky wizard'. Generic it may be, but accurate nonetheless.

In addition to seeming to have misread my previous post in this thread, Joe doubles down and insists on continuing to confuse his demeaning stereotype of Christianity with a demeaning oversimplification of what I think might be some form of Tengriism.

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

Am I the only one who do the responsible thing if I caught HIV/AIDS?

Kill yourself (and the person who gave it to you). It's what any decent person would do.

I'm still kind of reeling from this, honestly, and come to think of it, following the link back to the thread because I guess I'm a masochist or something, a little confused as to why the responses to it were deleted but it itself wasn't. If there was ever a post that makes the Forum as a whole look worse for having it...

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

My, my... Cory is quite the first syllable of country, is he not?

Whenever I turn over the phrase 'liberal eugenicist' in my head I initially think that it seems more appropriate to use in some sort of ill-advised 'setting update' of That Hideous Strength or something than in real life that real people have to live in or on the real internet that real people use, but then remember certain facts about the real world and the nature and history of ideas within it that make me very distraught.

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

Would I be giving him too much credit to suggest that maybe Cory's over-the-top reaction should be taken as a kneejerk expression of disgust at the actions of the individual the thread's about rather than a general policy? Bear in mind I've avoided most of whatever the Cory controversy is so I might be way off.

Am I the only one who do the responsible thing if I caught HIV/AIDS?

Kill yourself (and the person who gave it to you). It's what any decent person would do.

I think what oakvale is asking is if it's possible that that post is itself a kneejerk overreaction rather than something Cory means seriously. To which I'd respond that Cory has in the past been (and had to be) very assiduous in trying to define how exactly the type of eugenics that he self-confessedly believes in differs from other types of eugenics, so while this is a particularly severe expression of hostility and honestly not one that even I would have expected, it's really not outside the range of the rest of his thinking.