Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: It's as though there was a discussion about math 49
Me: "2 + 2 = 4"
Him: "You're incapable of seeing beyond your affirmations."
Me: "What, then? Can you sketch an alternative to traditional math?"
Him: "Look, you're just regurgitating the same old stuff. If you won't give that up, there's nothing I can do."
Me: "Sorry! I thought this was an exchange of ideas, not a con job."
--
Wow. I thought I was supposed to be the one who's nuts for thinking that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.
But you won't begin to catch me evangelizing the meaning of life in the kind of anti-intellectual mode I have conveyed above.
And, no, the above dialog is not a literal one. I've taken what I consider the gist of another discussion with someone else here on /. and recast it from scratch.
Him: "You're incapable of seeing beyond your affirmations."
Me: "What, then? Can you sketch an alternative to traditional math?"
Him: "Look, you're just regurgitating the same old stuff. If you won't give that up, there's nothing I can do."
Me: "Sorry! I thought this was an exchange of ideas, not a con job."
--
Wow. I thought I was supposed to be the one who's nuts for thinking that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.
But you won't begin to catch me evangelizing the meaning of life in the kind of anti-intellectual mode I have conveyed above.
And, no, the above dialog is not a literal one. I've taken what I consider the gist of another discussion with someone else here on
:-) Nice one (Score:1)
You: God sayez "2 + 2 = 4"
Me: What does 'god' have to do with anything? Don't be cluttering up biology with your 'cosmik debris'. I don't care about your 'alternatives', and your other rationalizations. I'm only telling you that your actions prove without any doubt your animal nature still prevails, and that only by arrogance do you place yourself above it all, and try to distance yourself from what you are. And of course you need to create a supreme being to protect and justify your supreme authority. You
Re: (Score:2)
Not that you'd accept any secular data [cdc.gov] either, if it went against your convictions.
Re: (Score:1)
What, it just means people should be more careful when they have sex. No real controversy there.
Re: (Score:2)
But telling people to be more *serious* about having sex, gets in the way of their atheistic Right to the Holy Orgasm, which they should be allowed to experience without your naysaying.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not an order, it's a suggestion.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, any suggestion against the Holy Orgasm to liberals is met by a lynch mob.
Re: (Score:1)
That's another issue, and those kind of people are not liberals, not in the classic sense anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Should we just give up on these left/right, liberal/conservative labels and just go with Rousseauan and Lockean?
BHO is going to defend the Orwellian state, and liberals are going to rush to call him 'conservative' for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Should we just give up on these left/right, liberal/conservative labels...
Yes, of course.
No, in the physical world strong and weak will suffice. We can drop the 'philosophical' charade.
You all can call Obama what you like. I just see him as a paid actor, reading his lines, and not bumping into the furniture. The camera loves him. What else is there to say? Your 'Orwellian state' is propped up by none other than your John Galt. They need each to exist at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not at all. "Orwellian" is Galt. There is no "fairness". There is only force and resistance. The subject and object are irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct- they're libertines. Sexual side, or fiscal side, take your pick, they've made liberty their new Goddess.
Re: (Score:1)
You say that as if we should all submit to oppression. Don't think you'll find much luck there. There is no 'right' to authority, only might. The morality angle is bogus, a thinly veiled attempt to hide powerful bullies.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no difference between the authority of the libertines and the authority of the government. The government is made up of libertines.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's mostly composed of neo-liberals that cater to the ancient system of mercantilism. It's strictly business.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no profit in mercantilism for reduction of population. It is in fact very bad business to reduce either your labor or consumer supply. Only the fiscal libertine side can be described by this, not the sexual libertine side, so you just revealed yourself to be rather partisan.
Re: (Score:2)
And it just occurred to me that I have a blind spot due to my Catholicism. It isn't the sexual libertine side. It's the *sensual* libertine side, which includes abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.
Re: (Score:1)
Because we are animals with a single motivation, fiscal and sexual cannot be separated, like authority and cruelty. One is used to get more of the other. Doesn't matter which direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why are all the big fiscal liberty families so small? In fact, it's almost a cliche- the richer you are in America, the fewer heirs you have.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Very Zen. Should I expect to be told that it's not 'official'? Somebody might waltz in and say, "That's not eeein th' baahble!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Zen Catholic, and even I understand it. Why don't you?
Re: (Score:1)
Who said anything about not understanding? I certainly had no trouble. There are just some people that want to believe that those quotes came from some foreign communist bible and not the Original American one.
Re: (Score:2)
It must be flag day [blogspot.com] or something. That's the second time today I've run into somebody referring to the Heresy of Americanism [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer my Bible in Latin. But really, the original *AMERICAN* Bible is the 1611 KJV with several books removed. I always blamed that on Martin Luther, but he just said they were unnecessary; it took American printers working under Capitalism to notice they could sell a thinner Bible for the same amount, less cost, and more profit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm only telling you that your actions prove without any doubt your animal nature still prevails, and that only by arrogance do you place yourself above it all, and try to distance yourself from what you are.
And yet, still, you haven't shown me an alternative.
Nor have I ever explicitly denied an animal nature. In fact, I've got 23 pairs of chromosomes that underscore the existence of such.
Nor do I see how I've placed myself above it all, in positing that there is an universe within which we all sit. I have stated that there is a purpose.
Nor am I seeking to "distance yourself from what [I am]". I'm out to maximize the value of that which I am, through developing it.
Maybe, just maybe, you're ignorant of what
Re: (Score:1)
2 + 2 = 10
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2_4+%2B+2_4+ [wolframalpha.com]
Or you might be talking to the wrong people. Or being in the wrong conversation.
Re: (Score:1)
If you swapped from base10 to base2 at the equals sign, that would make a twisted form of sense.
Re: (Score:1)
No it's all base 4.
2_4 + 2_4 = 10_4
It makes normal sense, in a base-4-environment. Just like miracles make sense in a biblical environment.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It can be... A person just has to make it so...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing so intricate, just don't count your thumbs. They're for something else entirely...
Re: (Score:1)
The priests are raping young boys...
Well, sure, they have to until you can give them an alternative. Boys are having sex with boys, and the priests have to have sex with boys to show that having sex with boys is wrong.
Either you can continue living and acting as animals, or you can try to be a human being. Those are your choices, pick one.
Re: (Score:1)
As a Baptist, I can tell you that
try to be a human being
is a side-effect of pursuing Jesus Christ. Back atcha.
Re: (Score:1)
...is a side-effect of pursuing Jesus Christ.
If he is found, he'll end up in Gitmo, if not droned.
And I doubt propping up your favorite bandits is a very good method of 'pursuing Jesus Christ', unless there's some other Jesus Christ on the wrong side of the Rio Grande we are unaware of.
Re: (Score:1)
. . .if not droned.
*Sigh* Whatever happened to traditional rejections of Truth, like crucifixion? You kids are so over-caffeinated these days.
Re: (Score:1)
The truth you're after?? Who would've known? Well you sure won't find it by chasing ghosts and rationalizing premeditated murder by the state (the uber-state!)... Besides that, it will destroy all your preconceptions, so I fully expect an out of hand dismissal as such if you ever bump into it. For some the truth is a wall instead of a window. And crucifixion really has gone out of style, only ceremonially practiced by those kinky types who like to be tied to the bedposts during sex.
Re: (Score:2)
I can say the same about you....with preconceptions like pedophile priests that turn out to specifically NOT be pedophiles, even when guilty.
Re: (Score:1)
It's an analogy, ok? The man is rationalizing bad behavior because he claims there's no alternative. To which, the only logical response is, hogwash! When you pursue the 'lesser' evil, you still only get evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Once I get through your insulting analogies, I kind of agree. Too bad I know that you're also for just the lesser evil.
Re: (Score:1)
the man is rationalizing bad behavior because he claims there's no alternative
Wut? To claim no alternative, you'd have to destroy free will. And I assure you, I'm not a materialist.
Re: (Score:1)
Only a horny priest who can't keep his vows, or just about any other hypocrite would take it as an insult. A regular person would understand the point without having to think twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I just had this conversation with somebody who insisted that what the priests did was specifically not pedophila (well, ok, I was relating it to heterosexual men wanting 8 year old girls with precocious puberty, but when you look at the actual cases, NONE of the boys were actually "young" as in under the age of puberty).
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah well, there is that little statutory issue, regardless of whether it's valid or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Which I brought up. To which I was treated with a round of "your definitions are bigoted and illogical and against the Holy Orgasm as preached by St. Freud" or some such equivalent nonsense.