Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if you're tired you should leave. no one would miss you.

if you stay be sure to be on firm ground before making hate attacks- anyone with any integrity who read your attack against me, then read "maybe it was someone else" cannot help but wonder how unhinged you truly are. try there is a reason you have to separately hit a "post" button. it's to make you think and make sure that you should post what you've typed. takle that opportunity.

You could have saved yourself a lot of words by typing, "do as I say, not as I do" you sanctimonious asshole.

ETA: So it was Penske and I merely inferred your agreement from what in context appears to be you concurring with him.

How is the view from up on that horse, anyway?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
You could have saved yourself a lot of words by typing, "do as I say, not as I do" you sanctimonious asshole.

ETA: So it was Penske and I merely inferred your agreement from what in context appears to be you concurring with him.

How is the view from up on that horse, anyway?

where did I say the "soldiers you know" have no right to an opinion, or that I couldn't give a shit about them. Apologize and shut up.

Hank Chinaski
378-23

oh, and so i can get 379, explain how the wife's pain is different from the hundreds of thousands of wives who lost husbands in WW2.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hank Chinaski
378-23

It really sucks when people remember what you have said (and implied) in the past, doesn't it?

oh, and so i can get 379, explain how the wife's pain is different from the hundreds of thousands of wives who lost husbands in WW2.

Was there dispute about this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if you're tired you should leave. no one would miss you.

I would.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
It really sucks when people remember what you have said (and implied) in the past, doesn't it?

dim fuck. what you quoted doesn't say that.

equating me with Penske is calling me the most shallow vapid poster on my side. it's like calling you, well, you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would.

I'll give him the link to your blog.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dim fuck. what you quoted doesn't say that.

Right. You adopt Penske's line of argument four posts after his. Clearly you were attempting to disagree with him.

But at least you have now clarifed* your position.


*Those of us who litigate use this word as a charitable way to avoid pointing out that people are changing their story mid-stream.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'll give him the link to your blog.

You're going to point him to the "www" button below my posts?

eta: Sorry to steal your thunder.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Right. You adopt Penske's line of argument four posts after his. Clearly you were attempting to disagree with him.

I asked you a question about all the soldiers you know. I didn't make an argument.

and "I know some soldiers"- do you realize how pathetic that was? why would you want to repost something that, even for you, was insipid?

and with that i am done with you. I am the only Rep still able to stomach the nonsense here, and I will now be ignoring you. It's like when I pulled my son out of rec basketball because the weak competition ultimately weakens the strong.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I asked you a question about all the soldiers you know.

So you were just curious then? Maybe you were even daydreaming and missed the surrounding discussion about whether agreement with the administration's war policies could be inferred from a soldier's decision to re-enlist.

But your enquiring mind just had to know, what was the personal story of these particular soldiers? It's a wonder, truly, that you did not ask about their favorite color, or whether they prefer anchovies in their ceasar salads. Afterall, you just want to get to know people, because, deep down, you care.

[Gattigap]

Thought I'd recommend Sam Harris' book to you, if you hadn't already read it.

"Faith is what credulity becomes when it finally achives escape velocity from the constraints of terrestrial discourse - constraints like reasonableness, internal coherence, civility, and candor."

- Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p. 65


Damn, Sam. Tell us how you really feel.

***

I came across this book and didn't really expect much of it. I figured that I'd experience another simplistic pro-atheism argument, where since faith can't be proven, it's all nonsense.

Though I'm only in the midst of it, Harris' argument seems more than that. Beyond the logical problems with faith, his argument is essentially that we can't tolerate religion anymore because it's becoming increasingly easy for nutjob fundamentalists to wipe us out*, and that religious moderates are actually exacerbating the problem because their presence actually gives cover to prevent effective criticism of the fundamentalist nutjobs. As a religious moderate, I find this a disturbing point, but one that seems compelling.

I'm not sure I buy the argument yet, but then again I'm only a part of the way through the book. So far, though, I can report that Harris writes quite well, and makes a good argument. Even if I don't recommend the ultimate conclusion, I do recommend the book.

Gattigap





* From the footnotes: "M. Rees, [ in Our Final Hour (New York: Basic Books, 2003)] has given our species no better than a 50 percent chance of surviving this century. While his prognostications are nothing more than educated guesswork, they are worth taking seriously. The man is not a crank."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
So you were just curious then?

I was showing why your argument was stupid. And I shouldn't have replied now, because you've always done a fine job showing how stupid your arguments are. You. Are. Off. To. Fu.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Re Harris' book [/size]

I've not only read it, I have bought and given it to people.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
oh, and so i can get 379, explain how the wife's pain is different from the hundreds of thousands of wives who lost husbands in WW2.

Iraq = WW2 is so 2004. Plus it's only one step away from Saddam = Hitler, which in turn brings you within the penumbra of Godwin's and an automatic loss. I post this as someone who cares for you, and your very impressive w/l record on these boards.

Also, maybe her pain is different because she served as well and had the benefit of seeing what exactly is going on over there. Lots of WWII wives were spared personal experience of the idiocy, brutality, cynicism and waste that have featured in every single war since the dawn of time. Just a thought.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If that is real and not somebody playing a sick joke or writing something they think may help gin up antiwar sentiment, I don't think she was hoping it'd be co-opted for melodramatic smugness.

Don't the craiglist terms of service include a broad waiver of objections to co-option of posts for melodramatic smugness? Maybe there's boxes you can check when you post to opt your material out of certain rhetorical devices.

I think she was hoping that people would talk about the post, and argue about it using all kinds of sneaky and underhanded modes of discourse, thereby fulfilling the promise of the worldwide interweb as a bastion of free speech, cheap jibes and half-assed bullshit.