Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Conservative vs. Liberal Immorality

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:16:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let's start with someone in the headlines right now, John Edwards. Well, firstly, Mr. Edwards has admitted that he had "sex with that woman", and that it was quite wrong. He hasn't made a laughably lame attempt to excuse his marital misconduct, à la Newt Gingrich and his dopey defense that he had an adulterous affair because he was "working so hard for the country at the time".

Secondly, the scandal and situation that Edwards finds himself facing is not as bad as it appears at first blush. That is, he hasn't been convicted of any criminal wrongdoing, he's still innocent until proven guilty. As for the possibility that he'll be proven guilty of any illegalities, well, the talking heads with a law degree that you see on the news shows seem to be of the expert opinion that the prosecution has a fairly difficult case on its hands. This is because it's a somewhat subjective question as to whether the hush money Edwards obtained from supporters was a meant as a campaign contribution or not, and the whole case hinges on this subjective issue! There's really no tangible, definite crime for a trier of fact to look at, the case really will just be a matter of each side, of both the defense and the prosecution, trying to sway how the mind's eye of twelve beholders on a jury perceives and interprets the senator's acceptance of his backers beneficence in his time of need.

Now then, the real distinction with a significant difference between the sexual shenanigans of someone such as Edwards, and a character like Newty, is that Edwards was not the moralistic, family-values-preaching defender of society against moral decline at the hands of gays and other supposed enemies of the family that arch conservative Gingrich was. Ergo and ipso facto, he's certainly not guilty of the same kind or degree of hypocrisy. That is, Edwards hasn't fallen off the same conservative high horse of holier-than-thouness, because he never had the sanctimonious chutzpah to mount it.

Some people might simplistically lump Edwards and Gingrich together because they're both high-profile politicians with embarrassing sexcapades to live down, but although adultery is adultery, and is always an unethical thing to do, Edwards is simply not the same hypocrite as his congressional colleague Newt. Sure, as a politician Edwards had to present the public image of a model family man, and is guilty of being disingenuous in doing so. But, again, he didn't ever play the part of the simon-pure conservative guardian of society's moral fiber.

Nope, sorry conservatives, but the for-public-consumption false face of Edwards is not at all interchangeable with, or equal in its reprehensibility to the pious duplicity of certain members of the self-righteous right. So, the upshot is that conservatives are simply scandalmongeringly using the messes of Edwards and Weiner to try to offset the embarrassment caused by the fall from grace of prominent members of their own camp. But it won't really work, conservatives still come off looking like the bigger moral frauds, the more heinous hypocrites, because they are. John Edwards, for instance, did not hold himself out to be a Jonathan Edwards, a preachy paragon – conservatives do, and for this reason they fittingly have much more to answer for, and their careers are put in much more jeopardy when their peccadilloes and closeted skeletons are eventually exposed by the media's harsh lights.

The lesson of the story is really quite simple, moral phonies such as many of the folks you find on the conservative side of the aisle, are worse scammers of the public's trust, and worse sinners, a good deal worse than mere moral transgressors like Messrs. Edwards, Weiner, Clinton, etc. Why, because they compound the transgressive wrong of cheating on one's wife with a kind of moralistic hubris.

And it's such hubristic goody-goodiness that really goeth before a moral pratfall. Well, according to Dante's imaginative conception of hell, prideful pretenders to moral superiority earn themselves the poetic fate of spending the afterlife walking the perimeter of the hypocrite's circle weighed down by lead-lined monk's robes, "The robes are brilliantly gilded on the outside and are shaped like a monk's habit, for the hypocrite's outward appearance shines brightly and passes for holiness, but under that show lies the terrible weight of his deceit which the soul must bear through all eternity".

At any rate, I think we can all agree that being a hanky-panky perpetrating, unfaithful spouse is bad enough, but to hide the truth of your characterless character behind the moralistic masquerade of being a stalwart champion of the institution of marriage, for example staunchly opposing same-sex unions on the grounds that they undermine the true meaning and sanctity of marriage, adds insult to injury, and insincerity to impropriety.

We also then must wonder where the strong moral stance of conservatives really comes from. Well, if it doesn't just well up from a conservative's inner virtues, where then does it arise from? One partial explanation is of course that conservatives cultivate the public persona of propriety and piety to con voters into electing them to office. This is an obvious explanation, and I'm one that has some truth to it in many cases. However, I also suspect that there's a bit more to it, that there's also a psychological motive at play and underlying the whole conservative mentality.

To pithily spitball my amateur psychoanalysis, the conservative worldview is fundamentally a projection of an alpha male-female mentality. A dominance-oriented psychology in which everything is interpreted in macholy dualistic terms of strong and weak, winner and loser, worthy and unworthy, righteous and unrighteous. This is why conservatives are wont to favor "solutions" for social ills, such as drugs and crime, that involve viewing the people caught up in these ills as morally weak and wretched losers who deserve punishment, who need to be dealt with from a "position of strength", given a show of society's force in the form of police crackdowns and stern prison sentences. That is, conservatives are the real men from Mars, with a Martian mentality that, apropos of the ancient Roman god of armed conflict, sees every problem facing the nation as something to be resolved with another war. Whether it's a war on crime, a war on drugs, war on undocumented immigration, or a war on terror, aggressively dominating the problem and the people they blame for it, is the conservative's stock answer.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:18:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

This explains why conservatives support the death penalty, it's of course the ultimate show of force. It explains why conservatives tend to be more hawkish, more supportive of their country's wars, and more pro-military. Naturally people with a Martian mind-set are going to stridently support actual wars, and the military personnel who fight in them. After all, the primitive alpha mind views soldiers and veterans as the national tribe's warriors, embodiments of the superior qualities of a dominant male, precisely the kind qualities the alpha mind prizes. Hence the alpha-minded conservative will seldom speak ill of the military, and will back it in all of its actions.

The alpha mentality also explains a host of other conservative opinions and policies. For example, it explains why conservatives are such big fans of capitalism. The capitalist is just our modern society's updated version of an alpha male, exercising social dominance through the amassment of economic wealth and power. Naturally alpha-minded conservatives identify with and take a positive view of alpha capitalists. And naturally they think that a socioeconomic system, such as capitalism, in which people have license to pursue economic and social dominance, is the best of all possible systems. But of course they don't wish to be crude about it, so they formulate a pack of political and economic principles that rationalize Darwinian capitalism into something almost loftily idealistic. They then hide their alpha mentality behind their idealistic ideology, behind the ideology of freedom, and self-deceivingly hold themselves forth as confirmed liberty-loving conservatives. We're back to conservatism's tendency to fall into hypocrisy!

Okay then, let's finally get back to conservatism's fake morality. Quite simply, the pro-family, pro-chastity, "pro-life", anti-abortion stance, and all the social-moral stances of conservatives, are likewise just ways of holding oneself forth as men and women of righteous "values", as ethically superior individuals who have the right to assert a domineering agenda.

Well, the way it works is pretty straightforward. The alpha-minded conservative's Neanderthaloid cognitive binaries of strong-weak, worthy-unworthy, all too easily segue into dualistic moral thinking, into thinking in categories of good and bad, moral and immoral.

And needless to say the alpha-minded individual psychologically prefers to self-identify as one of the morally strong and good, and tends to buttress this identification for himself by being judgmental of others whom he looks down on as morally inferior. Including, yes, the poor, who are adjudged to be lacking in good moral traits such a "strong" work ethic and initiative, and to be morally undeserving of society's compassion. Rather, then, than a genuine ethical desire to be "good", what we find unconsciously producing the priggish conservative philosophy, and the signature moralism and straightlaced image of alpha conservatives, is just the primeval drive to enjoy moral supremacy.

Unfortunately though, living up to their own image and ideal of behavioral excellence, owning the moral supremacy their alpha mentality and ego admires, is not always easy, and many conservatives fall short, grievously short. The result is the hypocrisy that conservative politicians and preachers are famous for. But what do alpha capitalists do to repress the humbling truth of their secret moral shortcomings? Why of course, they overcompensate. They become even more flamingly "moral", they attack homosexuals and unwed mothers as the downfall of Western civilization, they try to legislate our morality for us, and they wage yet another war, a "culture war", to save us all from going to hell in a "liberal" handbasket by benevolently dominating us with their wholesomeness.

Alas, it's in their self-appointed role as heroic culture warrior that many conservatives reach the height of their moralistic hubris, that they set themselves up for a humiliating and harsh come down, a ruinous reckoning with reality. Ironically, when this happens to conservatives who are also office-holders and celebrities it contributes to our modern cynicism and jadedness, to the disturbingly popular attitude that morality is always mere hypocritical humbug, and to the diminishment of the moral excellence of society that conservative culture warriors claim to be fighting for.

Mm-hmm, the short of it is that it's the alpha mentality and the conceited but unfounded sense of superiority of conservative "public servants" that brings about their occasional scandalous undoing, that compounds their indiscretions with bad faith and hypocrisy, and that makes them so much more destructive of society's unraveling "moral fiber" than the similar but less pharisaic failings of "liberals".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 9:19:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd just like to add the disclaimer that I sincerely have no desire to offend any conservative habitués of this site, my intention in the above post was merely to be clinically analytical in dissecting the nature of conservative morality and psychology. If I have offended I apologize – but of course I still stand by my analysis.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 12:01:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 9:19:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
I'd just like to add the disclaimer that I sincerely have no desire to offend any conservative habitués of this site, my intention in the above post was merely to be clinically analytical in dissecting the nature of conservative morality and psychology. If I have offended I apologize – but of course I still stand by my analysis.

If you care so much NOT to affend anyone, why did you post the entire slanderous wall of text above? Come on, brother, you just stereotyped ALL conservatives as immoral, sinful, ect ect. It's never wise to stereotype EVERYONE of a certain political ideology based on a few actions of a certain few politicians.
turn down for h'what
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 12:28:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why is it that your Conclusion is well over half the size of your initial post?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 4:22:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 12:28:39 PM, mongoose wrote:
Why is it that your Conclusion is well over half the size of your initial post?

That's just where I arbitrarily divided the post. Any thoughts on its content?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 10:06:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 12:01:34 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 6/5/2011 9:19:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
I'd just like to add the disclaimer that I sincerely have no desire to offend any conservative habitués of this site, my intention in the above post was merely to be clinically analytical in dissecting the nature of conservative morality and psychology. If I have offended I apologize – but of course I still stand by my analysis.

If you care so much NOT to affend anyone, why did you post the entire slanderous wall of text above? Come on, brother, you just stereotyped ALL conservatives as immoral, sinful, ect ect. It's never wise to stereotype EVERYONE of a certain political ideology based on a few actions of a certain few politicians.

The OP wasn't meant to be "slanderous", it was supposed to be, and I would like to think that it is, rather, trenchantly analytical. As for your comment about stereotyping conservatives, well, I certainly don't wish to engage in, or condone stereotyping anyone, but many conservatives do have certain attitudinal and ideological characteristics in common, which arguably say a great deal about the conservative mentality. I was merely trying to explore this fundamental conservative mentality, in a no-holds-barred fashion. Again, if I've injured anyone's feelings I'm sorry, but I still hold by my analysis.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 10:08:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 4:22:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/6/2011 12:28:39 PM, mongoose wrote:
Why is it that your Conclusion is well over half the size of your initial post?

That's just where I arbitrarily divided the post. Any thoughts on its content?

Actually I'd like to continue the discussion based on the size, without discussing the content if that's OK...

At any rate, congratulations on pushing past the one-huge-post mark, past the two-huge-post mark, and spilling into the three-post-range. Is there a trend of growth I see?

I have an idea... You should start making the very first post just the abstract. This way, when we first see your thread, we can get the general idea of how it's going to play out before we commit the time to reading it. Then the second post can be the table of contents and introduction, with the remaining posts representing the chapters and then, of course, your glorious conclusion and then subsequent disclaimers.

This would be awesome! I'm thinking that each of your threads could start right off in the 10-15 post range. Then you could quiz us when we start responding to make sure we've read it, and chastize us when we miss points within the verbose phrases!

I can see it now... entire 8,000 character posts dedicated to single run-on sentences with words conjugated in ways that would make yoga-masters pull muscles just trying to read them. We could use your posts to haze DDO n00bs and watch them sweat bullets trying to crawl through awkward phrasings - each n00b must read and report on a Charleslb post while being berated by askbob, without food, water, or encouragement for 24 hours.
kfc
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 10:15:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 12:28:39 PM, mongoose wrote:
Why is it that your Conclusion is well over half the size of your initial post?
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 4:51:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/6/2011 10:08:30 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Actually I'd like to continue the discussion based on the size, without discussing the content if that's OK...

Thanks for the constructive contribution to the thread, the thoughts you share do so much to advance the discussion.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 8:02:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charleslb, I have seen you post like this on more than just this website... I have seen your far-left positions phrased in the most pretentious manner on other political forums... and you receive the same criticism.

LEARN FROM YOUR CRITICS. Also, your rant is just too typical of a liberal-lubbing fan who will support the left no matter what they do. /rantend
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:23:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 8:02:19 PM, rarugged wrote:
Charleslb, I have seen you post like this on more than just this website... I have seen your far-left positions phrased in the most pretentious manner on other political forums... and you receive the same criticism.

LEARN FROM YOUR CRITICS. Also, your rant is just too typical of a liberal-lubbing fan who will support the left no matter what they do. /rantend

Perhaps you've then noted that virtually all negative responders to my posts are of the conservative persuasion. That is, right-leaning folks who are biased against my point of view in the first place are the ones who tend to blast me with criticisms and reproachful remarks. Apparently you've also selectively failed to take note of the fact that I do occasionally receive positive feedback and even compliments from people who aren't pro-capitalist, pro-military, libertarian, conservative, etc.

Unfortunately though, there's apparently more of a conservative than a leftist presence on political forums, which of course means that a disproportionate percentage of replies are hostile, giving the impression that there's some kind of consensus that I'm an annoying fellow to the average person, when in fact I'm only annoying to the average conservative person.

Oh well, all of this is just to say that what it boils down to is rather simple indeed, with a few exceptions people who like what I have to say like me, and people who don't like what I have to say dislike me and take cheap personal shots at my personality, my intelligence, my verbosity, my style of writing, etc. And somehow another ad hominem response from someone such as yourself, i.e. from someone who calls himself "rugged", only seems to confirm this rather obvious explanation.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:26:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:23:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 8:02:19 PM, rarugged wrote:
Charleslb, I have seen you post like this on more than just this website... I have seen your far-left positions phrased in the most pretentious manner on other political forums... and you receive the same criticism.

LEARN FROM YOUR CRITICS. Also, your rant is just too typical of a liberal-lubbing fan who will support the left no matter what they do. /rantend

Perhaps you've then noted that virtually all negative responders to my posts are of the conservative persuasion.
If he had he'd be wrong, fairly few are conservative. Most responders of any sort to your posts are libertarian whether ancap or minarchist, but those aren't conservatives. And Rob1billion has one of the most scathing satires of you-- right in this thread. The ideological distance between you and Rob is virtually nil.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 10:53:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:26:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:23:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 8:02:19 PM, rarugged wrote:
Charleslb, I have seen you post like this on more than just this website... I have seen your far-left positions phrased in the most pretentious manner on other political forums... and you receive the same criticism.

LEARN FROM YOUR CRITICS. Also, your rant is just too typical of a liberal-lubbing fan who will support the left no matter what they do. /rantend

Perhaps you've then noted that virtually all negative responders to my posts are of the conservative persuasion.
If he had he'd be wrong, fairly few are conservative. Most responders of any sort to your posts are libertarian whether ancap or minarchist, but those aren't conservatives. And Rob1billion has one of the most scathing satires of you-- right in this thread. The ideological distance between you and Rob is virtually nil.

Yes, right-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, i.e. pro-capitalists who find my anti-capitalism and "communism" to be infuriatingly imbecilic and therefore can't contain their contempt and derision when responding. As for Rob, who says that there can't be exceptions, that someone can't be rubbed the wrong way by someone of similar views. It happens, but by and large most people who find me to be offensive, pompous, stupid, etc. are biased against me by their political viewpoint, yourself included, dear ragnar the libertarian. Well, you're certainly not a libertarian socialist, now are you. No, you're yet another in the right-libertarian chorus of prattling pundits of polemicism, and by weighing in on my unlikeability you only lend further confirmation to my analysis that it's primarily those who disagree with me who find me to be aggravatingly disagreeable.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:25:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 10:53:14 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:26:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/7/2011 10:23:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/7/2011 8:02:19 PM, rarugged wrote:
Charleslb, I have seen you post like this on more than just this website... I have seen your far-left positions phrased in the most pretentious manner on other political forums... and you receive the same criticism.

LEARN FROM YOUR CRITICS. Also, your rant is just too typical of a liberal-lubbing fan who will support the left no matter what they do. /rantend

Perhaps you've then noted that virtually all negative responders to my posts are of the conservative persuasion.
If he had he'd be wrong, fairly few are conservative. Most responders of any sort to your posts are libertarian whether ancap or minarchist, but those aren't conservatives. And Rob1billion has one of the most scathing satires of you-- right in this thread. The ideological distance between you and Rob is virtually nil.

Yes, right-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, i.e. pro-capitalists who find my anti-capitalism and "communism" to be infuriatingly imbecilic and therefore can't contain their contempt and derision when responding. As for Rob, who says that there can't be exceptions, that someone can't be rubbed the wrong way by someone of similar views. It happens, but by and large most people who find me to be offensive, pompous, stupid, etc. are biased against me by their political viewpoint, yourself included, dear ragnar the libertarian. Well, you're certainly not a libertarian socialist, now are you. No, you're yet another in the right-libertarian chorus of prattling pundits of polemicism, and by weighing in on my unlikeability you only lend further confirmation to my analysis that it's primarily those who disagree with me who find me to be aggravatingly disagreeable.

Find five people who actually like your posting style. Go!
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2011 11:28:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How about what someone who doesn't know you, and is a leftist too, thinks of your writing style (or, rather, similar writing styles--not yours specifically)? http://www.resort.com...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 2:53:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/7/2011 11:28:25 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
How about what someone who doesn't know you, and is a leftist too, thinks of your writing style (or, rather, similar writing styles--not yours specifically)? ...

At his website, Language Log, linguist Geoffrey Pullum comments on:
"... the lasting damage done by George Orwell's dishonest and stupid essay 'Politics and the English language', with its pointless and unfollowable insistence that good writing must avoid all familiar phrases and word usages". Pullum also describes the essay thusly: "Orwell's Politics and the English Language is a beautifully written language crime".

In other words, not every language maven agrees with Mr. Orwell, you see. In fact, to cite him and his classic essay as a way of authoritatively damning my style of writing is to blatantly commit the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, i.e. the fallacy of appeal to authority. Which is why I counter by citing a credentialed and respected academic who staunchly disagrees with your authority. You see, we just end up with dueling authorities and neither of us is proven correct, precisely the problem with the appeal to authority fallacy.

Quite simply, much of Orwell's critique is just his own subjective opining about other people's writing style, hardly the word of God written in stone and brought down from a mountain by Moses! Oh well, instead of challenging yourself to construct a good case of your own that damns my writing, you resort to referring me to the personal peeves of a famous author, kind of weak.

And hey, why would someone with your screen name and ideological point of view reference Orwell, don't you know that he was a socialist?! And no, btw, he didn't write 1984 because he renounced and turned against socialism, he never did. 1984 merely expressed his concerns about the dangerous potential of Soviet-style "communism", not socialism per se.

At any rate, I think that you might find the following essay quite interesting: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 2:59:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
and is a leftist too
Seriously, Charles, you write those long tracts and you can't even read when someone sends two lines at you.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 3:02:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 2:59:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and is a leftist too
Seriously, Charles, you write those long tracts and you can't even read when someone sends two lines at you.

I was simply surprised that someone who proudly styles himself laissez-faire would be reading a leftist.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 3:06:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It shouldn't be terribly surprising. Now go read someone you disagree with. ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 5:05:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Talking with charleslb is more arguing semantics than actually having a productive two-way conversation.

He's probably going to respond to the post either by: asserting my ignorance, reaffirming my far-right views (negatively), mockery, satire, posting a 3-paragraph essay, posting a "witty" one-liner to utterly confuse me.

THE JOY OF INTERNET!
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 4:43:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Seriously Charles, you are missing on your purpose in communicating whatever it is you have to say because your format is wrong for this site. I probably would be interested in hearing what you have to say, but i never ever can get through your rants because of the superfluous verbiage. Actually i think that you would make a great contributor to this site if you were able to interact more productively, but as it is few have the patience to read what you write. Give it a shot, and see what happens, try to post a normal thread OP.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 5:10:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charles, would you be interested in playing in Feverish's mafia game? I reckon you'd enjoy it a lot and no-one would complain about the length of your posts.

Sign-ups:
http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 4:24:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 5:10:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Charles, would you be interested in playing in Feverish's mafia game? I reckon you'd enjoy it a lot and no-one would complain about the length of your posts.

Sign-ups:
http://www.debate.org...

Thank you for the invitation.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
smc_gamer
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 8:23:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 4:43:03 PM, innomen wrote:
Seriously Charles, you are missing on your purpose in communicating whatever it is you have to say because your format is wrong for this site. I probably would be interested in hearing what you have to say, but i never ever can get through your rants because of the superfluous verbiage. Actually i think that you would make a great contributor to this site if you were able to interact more productively, but as it is few have the patience to read what you write. Give it a shot, and see what happens, try to post a normal thread OP.

I second this. Sorry, Charles, but your posts are too long for casual reading.
"If good things lasted forever, would we appreciate how precious they are?"
-Hobbes
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 7:07:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 8:23:39 AM, smc_gamer wrote:
I second this. Sorry, Charles, but your posts are too long for casual reading.

My apologies. Oh well, perhaps one day if you have a little spare time to kill you might read one.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2011 4:16:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 5:05:11 PM, rarugged wrote:
Talking with charleslb is more arguing semantics than actually having a productive two-way conversation.

He's probably going to respond to the post either by: asserting my ignorance, reaffirming my far-right views (negatively), mockery, satire, posting a 3-paragraph essay, posting a "witty" one-liner to utterly confuse me.

THE JOY OF INTERNET!

And what, pray tell, would be an acceptable response, for me to collapse before your feet and agree with you perhaps? This is what you're blatantly trying to reduce my options to, after all. But let's see if I can't find another option you haven't covered. Oh yeah, you mentioned "witty one-liners", how about an unwitty one-liner? Here it goes, grow up and stop whining "semantics" when someone refuses to be pinned down by your superior conservative common sense and libertarian logic. Well, how was that, unwitty enough for you?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2011 8:06:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/13/2011 4:16:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/8/2011 5:05:11 PM, rarugged wrote:
Talking with charleslb is more arguing semantics than actually having a productive two-way conversation.

He's probably going to respond to the post either by: asserting my ignorance, reaffirming my far-right views (negatively), mockery, satire, posting a 3-paragraph essay, posting a "witty" one-liner to utterly confuse me.

THE JOY OF INTERNET!

And what, pray tell, would be an acceptable response, for me to collapse before your feet and agree with you perhaps? This is what you're blatantly trying to reduce my options to, after all. But let's see if I can't find another option you haven't covered. Oh yeah, you mentioned "witty one-liners", how about an unwitty one-liner? Here it goes, grow up and stop whining "semantics" when someone refuses to be pinned down by your superior conservative common sense and libertarian logic. Well, how was that, unwitty enough for you?

Actually respond to libertarian arguments. I've seen your debates. I've seen liberal progressives make FAR better arguments than you in a FAR more mature manner than you. If you are trying to prove your side, pray make logical and intellectual arguments, rather than just complaining, "It doesn't happen in the real world!"
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 10:02:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/13/2011 8:06:17 PM, rarugged wrote:
Actually respond to libertarian arguments. I've seen your debates. I've seen liberal progressives make FAR better arguments than you in a FAR more mature manner than you. If you are trying to prove your side, pray make logical and intellectual arguments, rather than just complaining, "It doesn't happen in the real world!"

Yes, how lame and rude of me to offer up empirical rebuttals to your camp's ivory-tower pro-capitalist dogmas. Mm-hmm, I should play nice by allowing you-all to frame the issues and discussion within your own self-serving and rationalizing logic, i.e. fight on your ideological ground, where you inherently own the advantage. Mucho shame on me for not realizing and accepting that this is how the debate game is played on the right side of the political aisle.

Well, silly me, I thought that the ole "real world", and what goes down there, had some small bearing on our philosophical views, I guess I was just being naïve. Thanks then for wising me up to the requirement that one can only argue with politically starboard-leaning individuals if one's willing to use their ideologically loaded dice, as it were. In future debates with conservatives-libertarians-AnCaps-etc. I'll try harder to refrain from factoring too much reality into my arguments. NOT!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 10:12:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/13/2011 4:16:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/8/2011 5:05:11 PM, rarugged wrote:
Talking with charleslb is more arguing semantics than actually having a productive two-way conversation.

He's probably going to respond to the post either by: asserting my ignorance, reaffirming my far-right views (negatively), mockery, satire, posting a 3-paragraph essay, posting a "witty" one-liner to utterly confuse me.

THE JOY OF INTERNET!

And what, pray tell, would be an acceptable response, for me to collapse before your feet and agree with you perhaps? This is what you're blatantly trying to reduce my options to, after all. But let's see if I can't find another option you haven't covered. Oh yeah, you mentioned "witty one-liners", how about an unwitty one-liner? Here it goes, grow up and stop whining "semantics" when someone refuses to be pinned down by your superior conservative common sense and libertarian logic. Well, how was that, unwitty enough for you?

And mockery it is!
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.