|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
PolishKnight's unending nonsense
I am not going to reply to the contents of this post in detail,
as very little of it is pertinent to the argument. Instead I will summarise what you are doing, and comment on that. First, you seem to turn every point to your obsessions with leftism/socialism (you deliberately conflate the two) and gays, usually ignoring my actual argument. Indeed, I can say that I have never seen a straight guy as obsessed with gayness as you. Secondly, you seem to be unaware, or deliberately ignore, that you are arguing with me, not with leftism in general, which I do not even represent. You're addressing Michelle Bachmann while debating Newt Gingrich! Thirdly, you do correctly diagnose the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of the Left. But for some reason you are unable to see anything similar on the Right. This blindness, admittedly not uncommon in the world of politics, suggests that you read nothing but right-wing propaganda. Fourthly, you can not admit that big business is at least as corrupt as big government, in spite of all the evidence. My analysis, that you (and other defenders of capitalist ideology) must in their inmost hearts believe in the flawlessness of the free market, seems sound. Last, you seem unwilling to honestly debate. I do not make that accusation against everyone with whom I disagree, as you could find from my history. But you seem to be just playing to the grandstand like a politician. I am not interested in argument under that condition. I will add to be fair that there were a few constructive points in your last post, which I could reply to in a normal fashion. But given this, it seems absurd to do so right now. Andrew Usher |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
PolishKnight's unending nonsense
[Snip Andrew's tedious "debate"] Andrew, perhaps you just don't understand what a newsgroup is for. Let's consider, oh, sci.math. Know why it's called sci.math? Because it's for discussions related to mathematics. See, that's what the "math" part of the name tells you. Just as sci.astro is for discussions related to astronomy. So, when you decide that you want to talk about your own goofy political ideas, you are supposed to leave sci.math (and sci.astro, sci.physics, etc.) off the list. Because you're not talking about mathematics. That's how it works, see. Now, I know that you thought that you should post to every newsgroup you've ever posted to. Since once upon a time you had a discussion (of sorts) on sci.math, it would be nice to grace the group with your political wisdom as well. I'm sure it's a very generous motivation and all, but that's not really how Usenet is supposed to work. Well, perhaps this is too long for a busy man like you, so let me put it in simpler terms and in big letters: TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, ASSHOLE. Much obliged. -- "I am one of those annoying people who is so good at so many things that I can't seem to pick one. I can seriously party. But I can also sit for long periods concentrating profusely on some problem or other."-- James S Harris: Serious partier, profuse concentrator. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
PolishKnight's unending nonsense
Hello Andrew,
It seems like forever since I have commented on soc.men. It wasn't deliberate. I was simply busy with other things and will be busy again in about a week. We'll be vacationing down in the Florida Keys and hoping that the Hurricaines continue their God given mission to terrorize the Northeast states and avoid Florida. :-) In article , Andrew Usher wrote: I am not going to reply to the contents of this post in detail, as very little of it is pertinent to the argument. Instead I will summarise what you are doing, and comment on that. Andrew, what you just did was engage in the classical defense of a strawman: Rewrite my argument for me and argue against it. First, you seem to turn every point to your obsessions with leftism/socialism (you deliberately conflate the two) and gays, usually ignoring my actual argument. Indeed, I can say that I have never seen a straight guy as obsessed with gayness as you. First off (in reply to your "first" claim), your claim is unsupported and a blatant overgeneralization. "Every point?" Hardly. And as I observed before, the people-who-argue-against-gays-are-closet-gays is a classic leftist gay ad-hominem attack. Note that I'm not just arguing against gay men (which you chose to focus on which therefore, using that logic, says that you're obsessed with male homosexuality) but rather against gayness in general and the skyrocketing rates of female homosexuality as they are unable to find the male breadwinners they crave. It's a simple observation that leftism is friendly towards gays and regards them as valuable members of their special interest entitlement groups. If there's nothing wrong with gayness, why the hostility from you and personal ad-hominem attacks against me for observing that leftism is gay? Secondly, you seem to be unaware, or deliberately ignore, that you are arguing with me, not with leftism in general, which I do not even represent. You're addressing Michelle Bachmann while debating Newt Gingrich! Unlike you, I am not taking this personally. I am addressing your arguments. If someone quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, they aren't necessarily a duck but I will address their argument as if they were a duck. Note that I've often gone out and made points that support and even sympathize with leftist positions, just as I have shown sympathy for most positions since very few ideologies are totally devoid of merit at least from their theoretical point of view. "Nice feminism", for example, probably seemed nice at a time but now in hindsight is laughably morally, intellectually, and even economically bankrupt. If I steer the topic of men's interests towards that of the gayness of leftism and leftism's close relationship with feminism, it's because it's appropriate that that philosophies undermine heterosexual masculinity. For all the talk of leftists wanting to make the world into a copy of Sweden, but without emasculating men, it's instead ,aking it look like London or Detroit. Don't shoot the messenger. Thirdly, you do correctly diagnose the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of the Left. But for some reason you are unable to see anything similar on the Right. One of the few merits of a free-market and dog-eat-dog capitalistic position is that it doesn't require much of a need to engage in hypocrisy. :-) I have certainly criticized the right for looking the other way at illegal immigration, for example, because it allows them to undermine labor costs while at the same time foolishly importing future leftist voters. In terms of social issues, the left has revealed itself as laughably hypocritical and I enjoy deflating them when they try to portray the right as prudes. Was Anita "Coke Can" Hill a right winger? Of course, the left tried to claim she was a church going Republican but the book by David Brock (before, as a gay, he went to the left what a surprise) exposed her as a typical affirmative action recipient leftist. This blindness, admittedly not uncommon in the world of politics, suggests that you read nothing but right-wing propaganda. Nonsense for this simple reason: I read your posts. I may disagree with them or disregard what you say, but certainly I am exposed to different points of view. As you know, I was one of the few to welcome Parg on this forum. So I'm hardly a closed minded true believer hanging around in church. There you go quacking like a duck again. A classical hallmark of leftists is for them to accuse their opponents of being victims of right wing propaganda. I honestly don't know what to make of you. But you seem 'obsessed' as you would put it, with categorizing me in order to neatly file my opinions away as irrelevent. There's no need. Believe whatever you like. I accept that I cannot force people to change their minds. It's one of the most powerful weapons in my debate arsenal because having accepted that reality, while they cannot accept that they cannot change my mind, causes them to grind their gears like a BMW driver caught in mud. :-) FYI, I prefer to watch CNN Headline news, Russia Today, France News, and even the BBC if only because I prefer their format. (I like how CNNHN puts multiple stories out in a few minutes. Russia Today is sadly looking more like Foxnews in it's format with half hour long discussions rather than the multiple news stories I originally started watching it for.) Fourthly, you can not admit that big business is at least as corrupt as big government, I'll disprove that right now. I totally agree that big business is corrupt as big government. Or heck, even small business. I've worked for a lot of jerks over the years. In fact, one of my best anti-socialist arguments it to observe that as government grows bigger, the centralization of the state and size of businesses grow in tandem making it even harder to regulate big business. How much of that stimulus money did the average worker see? :-) I'm a realist in the sense that I don't think a utopia is possible and that we'll have to take a founding fathers' approach and set up a system of checks and balances to keep the various elements of society from destroying each other. I'm not an anarchist and I'm not a socialist. I wouldn't even say I'm a libertarian since that term is also laden with baggage. In many ways, I agree with socialists although I do not share their worship of big government. in spite of all the evidence. My analysis, that you (and other defenders of capitalist ideology) must in their inmost hearts believe in the flawlessness of the free market, seems sound. Strawman. I never said the free market was flawless. I think even most free market advocates will acknowledge that the free market is at best the most efficient system around although certainly not fair or perfect. Last[sic, should be lastly], you seem unwilling to honestly debate. I do not make that accusation against everyone with whom I disagree, as you could find from my history. But you seem to be just playing to the grandstand like a politician. I am not interested in argument under that condition. The fundamental problem with that accusation is that those who debate dishonestly will almost always accuse those they disagree with as being dishonest as a preemptive strike. I will add to be fair that there were a few constructive points in your last post, which I could reply to in a normal fashion. But given this, it seems absurd to do so right now. Andrew Usher I happen to believe that there's a point in a debate where it's sometimes good to just let things rest for a while rather than getting into a flame war. It appears you drew the same conclusion. Good. regards, PolishKnight |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
PolishKnight's unending nonsense
On Jul 31, 8:28*pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" wrote:
* ASSHOLE. Damned with faint praise? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
PolishKnight's unending nonsense
In article ,
"Jesse F. Hughes" wrote: [Snip Andrew's tedious "debate"] Andrew, perhaps you just don't understand what a newsgroup is for. Let's consider, oh, sci.math. Know why it's called sci.math? Because it's for discussions related to mathematics. See, that's what the "math" part of the name tells you. Just as sci.astro is for discussions related to astronomy. So, when you decide that you want to talk about your own goofy political ideas, you are supposed to leave sci.math (and sci.astro, sci.physics, etc.) off the list. Because you're not talking about mathematics. That's how it works, see. Now, I know that you thought that you should post to every newsgroup you've ever posted to. Since once upon a time you had a discussion (of sorts) on sci.math, it would be nice to grace the group with your political wisdom as well. I'm sure it's a very generous motivation and all, but that's not really how Usenet is supposed to work. Well, perhaps this is too long for a busy man like you, so let me put it in simpler terms and in big letters: TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, ASSHOLE. Much obliged. Jesse, that was so unmathematical but I was laughing my head off anyway. I'd laugh even if you levied it at me. Could you please express that sentiment more mathematically? regards, PolishKnight |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
PolishKnight's unending nonsense
In , on 08/28/2011
at 01:07 PM, PolishKnight said: Newsgroups: soc.men,sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics,sci.math,sci .astro Do you make a habit of posting to off-topic groups? It seems like forever since I have commented on soc.men. Too bad it wasn't longer, if you croos-post to unrelated groups. rather against gayness in general It's not the homosexuals who are spamming sci.*. *PLONK* -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Before the nonsense breaks out | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 50 | April 18th 08 08:48 PM |
Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense | Ian Parker | Policy | 135 | November 16th 06 06:29 PM |
Parallel nonsense | blink182chris | Misc | 24 | March 22nd 05 05:33 PM |
Faq and some other nonsense! | Brian Gaff | Space Station | 1 | October 5th 03 08:11 AM |