Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Why do they hate George Bush?

Here is another big puzzler for me. Why do so many liberals just absolutely HATE the President of the United States?

1) He has been a highly successful executive who began in the corporate world, then became a two-term Governor of Texas and now a two-term President. Those are achievements difficult to match. They say he is incompetent.

2) He is an Ivy League graduate (Bachelor's degree from Yale, then MBA at Harvard Business School) whose grades and IQ tests both exceeded John Kerry's and has tested well above normal on intelligence tests. They say he is stupid. (Since he has above-average intelligence, this indicates that probably the small majority of people who label him as stupid are actually not as smart as he is....ironic, eh?)

3) He served in the military as an officer rather than avoid military service, a fighter pilot, in fact, in the National Guard. They forged documents to try to discredit that service.

4) We can now be certain that the President went to war with Iraq based upon some intelligence that was faulty, but virually the entire world and most of his political enemies also believed the same intelligence. They say he lied. (Ironic again, see number 3. A forgery is a lie in the form of a document.)

I could go on. The President is not a great public speaker, but he is a very straightforward speaker who presents himself as an "everyman" who became President. I get the idea he is remarkably comfortable in his shoes, a man's man who is a good husband and father (no hints of marital infidelity at all) whose family obviously all love him dearly. He is a man of faith, a guy who loves dogs and enjoys clearing brush and fixing fences back home at his ranch. There is a Texas term - "All hat, no cattle" - that is more or less the opposite of George Bush. There is more substance than style to the man, definitely more cattle than hat.

George Bush came into office only to be faced with one of the great trials of the last 100 years - the attacks of 9/11. He has been decisive and determined in his efforts to revive the economy and protect our shores while rooting out and defeating terrorists abroad. Afghanistan has become a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government under his watch and Iraq now follows suit. The deficit is going down and tax receipts have gone up even after the President cut our taxes.

Yet liberals hate him with a remarkable vengeance. Go to the Democratic Underground to see the kind of language typically used about him. Cartoonists portray him as an imbecilic monkey or a crazed dictator, or both at once!!!

Can liberals only respect people who characterize themselves as intellectuals, cheat on their wives and polish up their speaking skills? Is a slick veneer and an aristocratic manner what they consider most important?


I simply don't get it?!

58 comments:

highboy said...

Radar, don't forget that last week saw the anniversary of a rather prominant liberal drowning a prostitute. Also, I'll dispute the "faulty intelligence" claim. They found WMDs, liberals just refuse to acknowledge them as such. Its all in who gets to frame the debate.

creeper said...

Highboy,

"Also, I'll dispute the "faulty intelligence" claim. They found WMDs"

The second part doesn't necessarily support the first. They could have found tons of WMD, and Bush could still have gone to war based on faulty intelligence. The two are not mutually exclusive.

creeper said...

"whose grades and IQ tests both exceeded John Kerry's and has tested well above normal on intelligence tests. They say he is stupid."

I don't know if you've ever seen that comparison of Bush debating in Texas in the mid-90's and Bush's performance at some press conference or debate at some point during the presidency. His performance in Texas was not something you would expect to see from him today at all (in the earlier debate he was remarkably on the ball, quick-witted, in command of his facts, intelligent and well-reasoned), and there aren't that many years between the two.

It has been speculated that his heavy use of drugs and alcohol have taken their toll on his mental abilities. It could also be due to onset of senile dementia.

"The deficit is going down and tax receipts have gone up even after the President cut our taxes."

Link? Which deficit are you referring to?

creeper said...

Incidentally, I hope you're not suggesting that between 50 and 60% of Americans are liberals...

radar said...

"It has been speculated that his heavy use of drugs and alcohol have taken their toll on his mental abilities. It could also be due to onset of senile dementia."

The above statement is astounding! Creeper, what kind of bizarro fantasy world do you inhabit? Who makes up such wild and ridiculous charges? It is appalling!!!

Creeper, all I can glean from this is that you must want the President to be incredibly flawed because his belief system is so different from your own. Perhaps it galls you that an accomplished and intelligent man disagrees with you in so many ways and that the American public has come down on his side in two consecutive elections. So people in your camp make ridiculous, slanderous accusations, forge false documents, make up ugly slogans and wait impatiently for 2008.

"Incidentally, I hope you're not suggesting that between 50 and 60% of Americans are liberals..."

No, I'm suggesting that at least 50 to 60% of liberals are dumber than the President. In some cases, wa-a-a-a-a-a-ay dumber! As I said, a trip down Democratic Underground lane would be instructive.

creeper said...

"The above statement is astounding! Creeper, what kind of bizarro fantasy world do you inhabit? Who makes up such wild and ridiculous charges?"

I guess you haven't seen video footage of Bush over the years, and the remarkable deterioration in his speaking ability. One can speculate about the causes, but the result is clearly visible.

(I do take it you're aware that Bush was a heavy drinker and drug user in his younger years. And that he didn't stop drinking completely at the age of 40, as he claimed. Simple facts, Radar.)

"Creeper, all I can glean from this is that you must want the President to be incredibly flawed because his belief system is so different from your own."

Frankly, I'd much prefer if the President wasn't flawed, whether his belief system is different from my own or not.

"I'm suggesting that at least 50 to 60% of liberals are dumber than the President."

I must've missed that. Sure, a lot of people are dumber than the president; a lot are smarter too. Presidents aren't elected by IQ tests. You're actually being unexpectedly generous here, Radar: you're saying that Bush is not dumber than the average liberal. Nice one!

"As I said, a trip down Democratic Underground lane would be instructive."

Why waste your time visiting DU? It's hardly the most edifying place to hang around, much like Free Republic on the right. A complete waste of time, both of them.

"the American public has come down on his side in two consecutive elections"

And now a solid majority of Americans disapprove of his performance. Go figure.

chaos_engineer said...

Why do they do it? For the endorphin rush. Getting yourself all worked up for a "righteous" cause is exciting and it feels good. Calmly considering both sides of the issue might be more productive, but it's just not as much fun.

This isn't just a liberal problem, of course. Conservatives can be just as bad. We don't have to look too far back on your blog to find people spouting hysteria like, "Why is the United Nations always wrong?" or "Liberal moonbats [] take the side of the terrorists" or "...a rather prominent liberal drowning a prostitute."

(And this is one of the calmer blogs. Compare it to something like Free Republic or Little Green Footballs.)

Anyway, this sort of stuff has been happening in American politics from the very beginning. We get by somehow. Mostly it's just people blowing off steam.

The only advice I have is to make sure you don't get the rhetoric confused with reality. If you ever find yourself seriously believing that your political opponents want to "surrender to the terrorists" or "call you a terrorist and ship you off to Guantanamo", then it's probably a good idea to take a break for a couple of days.

highboy said...

The majority of people disapprove of Bush's performance, depending on the questions you ask and why. I disgree with Bush's performance too, but for vastly different reasons then a liberal would. If I approved of Bush 100%, most liberals would scream their heads off even moreso than they are now if that's possible.

Bush isn't the best speaker, but I fail to see how that reflects on his intelligence. I didn't realize public speaking was a gift attributed to high intelligence. You don't have to be smart to be a good talker, and vice versa.

highboy said...

"This isn't just a liberal problem, of course. Conservatives can be just as bad. We don't have to look too far back on your blog to find people spouting hysteria like, "Why is the United Nations always wrong?" or "Liberal moonbats [] take the side of the terrorists" or "...a rather prominent liberal drowning a prostitute."

The difference is that conservatives are right and liberals are wrong. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't be a conservative.

creeper said...

chaos_engineer: "Calmly considering both sides of the issue might be more productive, but it's just not as much fun."

highboy: "The difference is that conservatives are right and liberals are wrong."

Way to prove chaos_engineer's point, highboy.

creeper said...

"The majority of people disapprove of Bush's performance, depending on the questions you ask and why."

Well, it tends to be either "do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?" or a very close variation thereof. It's not a particularly leading question. (You can check www.pollingreport.com for the details.)

And yep, a solid majority disapprove of Bush's performance. Simple fact. Now something tells me those can't just be liberals.

creeper said...

"Bush isn't the best speaker, but I fail to see how that reflects on his intelligence. I didn't realize public speaking was a gift attributed to high intelligence. You don't have to be smart to be a good talker, and vice versa."

That wasn't really the argument, Highboy.

What causes a noticeable deterioration in speaking ability in less than ten years?

highboy said...

"Way to prove chaos_engineer's point, highboy."

I wasn't trying to disprove it. I don't want to understand why a liberal believes what he or she does.

"And yep, a solid majority disapprove of Bush's performance. Simple fact. Now something tells me those can't just be liberals."

You're right. Most true conservatives are ticked at Bush and the Republicans as a whole for the crap job they've done for the past 6 years. We've had the majority, and nothing to show for it. Liberals on the other hand, are probably grateful that what true Republican conservatives want done hasn't happened yet. Like I said, both sides are pissed at him, just for different reasons.

"What causes a noticeable deterioration in speaking ability in less than ten years?"

That wasn't directed to me was it creeper? How the hell would I know?

creeper said...

Highboy,

"I don't want to understand why a liberal believes what he or she does."

It's exactly statements like that that make you the poster child of what chaos_engineer said above:

"Getting yourself all worked up for a "righteous" cause is exciting and it feels good. Calmly considering both sides of the issue might be more productive, but it's just not as much fun."

... which is why you so often make unsupportable statements, yet have difficulty separating yourself from them.

"Most true conservatives are ticked at Bush and the Republicans as a whole for the crap job they've done for the past 6 years. We've had the majority, and nothing to show for it. Liberals on the other hand, are probably grateful that what true Republican conservatives want done hasn't happened yet."

I don't necessarily equate "Republican conservative" with "right-wing Christian fundamentalist". I'm fairly centrist and am well on board with the Republican ideal of smaller government. It's clear that as far as that goes, Republicans - once in power - have failed to deliver on a massive scale, and have no one else to blame it on.

"Like I said, both sides are pissed at him, just for different reasons."

And therein lies some semblance of an answer to Radar's question above, though I don't know why he should find it so puzzling, since Bush and his administration obviously have their flaws in the eyes of all kinds of people, not just "liberals".

highboy said...

"I don't want to understand why a liberal believes what he or she does."

"It's exactly statements like that that make you the poster child of what chaos_engineer said above"

No, its the fact that liberalism disgusts me to the point that understanding them means I'd have to be as crazy as they are I fear. I don't want to understand why a group of people would be all "holier than thou" about a few kids getting bombed in Palestine while they openly support somewhere in the ballpark of 1.3 million babies a year in abortion clinics. You may have a hard time believing this, but I'd be quite content to NOT have to debate about abortion all the time. Dead babies is not a game to me. I don't have a problem separating myself from unsupported statements, you just don't accept the support.

"I don't necessarily equate "Republican conservative" with "right-wing Christian fundamentalist"."

Even though they argue the exact same points on every issue. (What kind of right wing Christian fundamentalists are we talking about? Guys like me or Jerry Falwell?)

"I'm fairly centrist and am well on board with the Republican ideal of smaller government. It's clear that as far as that goes, Republicans - once in power - have failed to deliver on a massive scale, and have no one else to blame it on."

Exactly. They got the majority, for which I cheered, and did nothing with it. Hell, the RINO's in my state (along with their Democratic cohorts) saw fit to vote themselves an illegal pay raise behind closed doors at 2:00 a.m. in the morning! (They're paying for it now though) Then they say they opposed the minimum wage increase, for which I cheered, and then sat back and watched it happen. They have no one to blame but themselves. Period.

Sorry about the rant. But I agree with you totally Creeper.

creeper said...

"What causes a noticeable deterioration in speaking ability in less than ten years?"

That wasn't directed to me was it creeper?

It was directed to anyone who happens to be reading this, but especially Radar.

"How the hell would I know?"

And why should you care?


Radar,

up above you wonder what kind of bizarro world I inhabit to make the statements I did. Here are some simple observations I can make:

1. There has been a noticable deterioration in Bush's speaking ability between the mid-90's (I think that's when that Texas footage was from) and some point during Bush's presidential term. (I'm not sure if he was as bad at the beginning of his first term.) I can easily observe him being quick-witted and in command of his facts at one point in time, and consistently not being anywhere near that level in any public appearance during his presidency.

2. One possible cause for such a decline? Dementia: "Dementia can affect language, comprehension, motor skills, short-term memory, ability to identify commonly used items, reaction time, personality traits, and executive functioning. [...] Chronic use of substances such as alcohol can also predispose the patient to cognitive changes suggestive of dementia."

3. Another possible cause: Stroke: "Cognitive deficits resulting from stroke include perceptual disorders, speech problems, dementia, and problems with attention and memory. A stroke sufferer may be perpetually unaware of his or her own disabilities or even the fact that he or she has suffered a stroke. [...] Other risks include heavy alcohol consumption (see Alcohol consumption and health), high blood cholesterol levels, illicit drug use, and genetic or congenital conditions."

4. It has been demonstrated that Bush did not stop drinking completely at the age of 40, though as far as I know it's not generally known to what extent he did or does drink, or what kind of substances he consumes these days.

Those are all simple facts, and I don't care if the guy is ultra-conservative, a communist or whatever. Looking at these facts, I'd come to the same conclusion:

"It has been speculated that his heavy use of drugs and alcohol have taken their toll on his mental abilities. It could also be due to onset of senile dementia."

If you think there's anything "bizarro" about that, Radar, then please address the facts.

creeper said...

Just thought I'd ask this again:

Radar: "The deficit is going down and tax receipts have gone up even after the President cut our taxes."

Creeper: "Link? Which deficit are you referring to?"

creeper said...

Highboy,

Again, "No, its the fact that liberalism disgusts me to the point that understanding them means I'd have to be as crazy as they are I fear. I don't want to understand why a group of people would be all "holier than thou" about a few kids getting bombed in Palestine while they openly support somewhere in the ballpark of 1.3 million babies a year in abortion clinics." just drives home chaos_engineer's point once again. Look at each issue on its own, and look at all sides of the issue. Once you construct a clear "us vs. them" line and apply it across a range of issues, your judgement on the whole is bound to be hampered.

Chaos_engineer's advice was pretty good: "The only advice I have is to make sure you don't get the rhetoric confused with reality. If you ever find yourself seriously believing that your political opponents want to "surrender to the terrorists" or "call you a terrorist and ship you off to Guantanamo", then it's probably a good idea to take a break for a couple of days."

"I don't have a problem separating myself from unsupported statements, you just don't accept the support."

I've never argued you on abortion, so that wasn't what I was referring to, but I have witnessed you making a bunch of unsupported (and unsupportable) statements on other subjects from which you were unwilling to separate yourself. In those cases I asked you repeatedly where specifically you thought the supporting statements were, to which you never responded.

"Even though they argue the exact same points on every issue."

I don't quite see it that way. There are different kinds of Republicans and conservatives, with some overlap, but still distinct identities. A pro-business Republican conservative on Wall Street, for example, may approve of Republican tax policy, but not, for example, pushing the teaching of creationism in public schools; he may even be pro-choice. It's an alliance of different interests.

(Got a sizzler of a verification word: "ZSEXP"!! Gasp.)

highboy said...

Creeper: Taking every issue on its own, I agree with the Left on virtually nothing. Its not an "us vs. them" attitude, its a clear difference in world view.

creeper said...

"Taking every issue on its own, I agree with the Left on virtually nothing. Its not an "us vs. them" attitude, its a clear difference in world view."

It's still more constructive to address each issue on its own and based on facts instead of vilifying those who disagree with you as some amorphous enemy.

highboy said...

"It's still more constructive to address each issue on its own and based on facts instead of vilifying those who disagree with you as some amorphous enemy."

Considering what I believe to be at stake, liberalism is the enemy.

creeper said...

"Considering what I believe to be at stake, liberalism is the enemy."

Whatever home-grown definition of "liberalism" you have in mind there...

Nobody can force you to adopt more constructive practices, Highboy. Enjoy your little "us vs. them" game.

highboy said...

"Whatever home-grown definition of "liberalism" you have in mind there..."

The dictionary: "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority."

Which in this country has allowed abortion, big goverment, and tolerance for evil. That is why it is the enemy and not a "game."

Now maybe you can explain why considering it an "us vs. them" battle is not constructive? If one side is wrong, and the other is right, its rather logical to oppose them. If you want to try and figure out why evil is evil, and if you feel that somehow makes you more objective, you knock yourself out.

creeper said...

See? The dictionary definition isn't the one you're using, as the conflation you have to resort to clearly shows:

How did the "political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority" allow abortion, big goverment, and tolerance for evil? How can any political theory do that?

And if so, how is the "political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority" not also responsible for our current democracy?

How can you call a "political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority" evil, or the enemy?

That's why I think you're going by a different definition of "liberalism" to satisfy your wish to define "liberalism" as some kind of enemy. The dictionary definition won't do that job for you.

"That is why it is the enemy and not a "game.""

I wasn't referring to "liberalism" as a "game" - another conflation. I was referring to your rather unhelpful "us vs. them" mindset (unhelpful both to yourself and to others engaged in a discussion with you).

"Now maybe you can explain why considering it an "us vs. them" battle is not constructive?"

I already did that upthread: because it hampers your judgement and blinds you to an objective appraisal of the facts at hand.

"If one side is wrong, and the other is right, its rather logical to oppose them."

If one side of an issue is wrong, and the other side of an issue is right, it is logical to oppose that other side of the issue.

If you want to vilify some group and assign all kinds of horrible traits to them, then your ability to assess a situation as objectively as possible is diminished. Perhaps you see some value in subjecting yourself to distortions and misrepresentations when making up your mind about an issue, but I don't really understand what that value would be.

"If you want to try and figure out why evil is evil, and if you feel that somehow makes you more objective, you knock yourself out."

Now "liberalism" has gone from a "political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority" to "evil". That's how your judgement can get hampered when you play the "us vs. them" game, and simple logic and facts fall by the wayside.

highboy said...

Actually, it doesn't hamper my judgement. Maybe you can prove how my judgement was hampered. The political theory, or rather, those that adhere to it, ARE affiliated to the evil I've listed.

"If one side of an issue is wrong, and the other side of an issue is right, it is logical to oppose that other side of the issue."

Right, and I oppose liberals on every issue that has come before me thus far.

"Perhaps you see some value in subjecting yourself to distortions and misrepresentations when making up your mind about an issue, but I don't really understand what that value would be."

What distortions and misrepresentations would those be? Are you saying its a misrepresenation that liberals advocate
big goverment, legal abortion, high taxes, amnesty for illegals, same sex marriage, and all sorts of things that I would deem "evil"?

creeper said...

"The political theory, or rather, those that adhere to it, ARE affiliated to the evil I've listed."

Ah, now you're taking a baby step to addressing your conflation.

1. The political theory (according to the definition you presented above) is not affiliated with the evils you've listed in any meaningful way. If you think it is, please show how.

I'll try to make this easier for you to understand. Could you define which parts of this political theory you disagree with?

"a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority"

2. Those that adhere to something as vague as "political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority" cover a pretty wide range of people on both sides of the aisle. That's why I'm saying the definition isn't sufficient to justify your villification of those you label "liberals" and deem your political enemies.

"What distortions and misrepresentations would those be?"

For example, recently you claimed that it was a fact that a single toke of marijuana killed millions of brain cells. You've never even come close to backing that up with anything, but at the same time you refuse to admit that it was wrong or even that it's not backed up by any facts. It is, quite simply, a distortion and misrepresentation.

You pick an issue, then pick a side based on the biased sources you surround yourself with, then throw rhetoric around, regardless of whether it is based on facts. When challenged on the veracity of the facts you present, you fail to back them up, try to distract, but will never openly and honestly admit that you can't back up your claims.

Sometimes the facts don't back up your assertions, and the tactics you choose when confronted with that do little to enhance your credibility in any debate.

highboy said...

"For example, recently you claimed that it was a fact that a single toke of marijuana killed millions of brain cells."

Nice try, but I gave you my sources, and if you want to debate this again, go the post I wrote and comment. Now you can tell me what this has to do with "us vs. them" game, and what I said about liberals that is a misrepresenation or distortion.

"I'll try to make this easier for you to understand. Could you define which parts of this political theory you disagree with?"

Sure:

"a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans

"That's why I'm saying the definition isn't sufficient to justify your villification of those you label "liberals" and deem your political enemies."

The first sentence is very sufficient.

"1. The political theory (according to the definition you presented above) is not affiliated with the evils you've listed in any meaningful way. If you think it is, please show how"

See above.

"You pick an issue, then pick a side based on the biased sources you surround yourself with"

I pick a side based on the Bible first, sources second. You SAY my sources are biased, but I'd like to see some evidence of that if you please. What you call "biased" I call factual. Its amazing you think that I could totally disagree with the whole ideology of something without being objective. I'd like to see where this is anything but an assumption or speculation on your part.

"Sometimes the facts don't back up your assertions, and the tactics you choose when confronted with that do little to enhance your credibility in any debate."

The handful of people that question my credibility fail to realize that it is those that disagree with my point of view that see me as not credible. Those that agree with my viewpoint see it differently.

creeper said...

Highboy,

creeper: "For example, recently you claimed that it was a fact that a single toke of marijuana killed millions of brain cells."

highboy: "Nice try, but I gave you my sources, and if you want to debate this again, go the post I wrote and comment."


Nice try, but you never gave any source to back up that claim. Not one. I've asked you repeatedly where you thought you had done this, and you evaded it every time. I have commented on the post in question, as you well know, and you're short a few answers.

I'll ask you again: where do you think you presented a source to back up your claim that a single toke of marijuana kills millions of brain cells? Name both the URL of the source and the URL of the place where you pointed to it. In absence of that, it's very easy to admit that (a) the facts don't back up your claim, and (b) you never did present any such facts to back up your claim.

"Now you can tell me what this has to do with "us vs. them" game, and what I said about liberals that is a misrepresenation or distortion."

It was a general comment on your debating tactics, that you pick a side, then ignore inconvenient facts and sling rhetoric around and refuse to admit when facts don't back up your claim - as opposed to looking at facts, then making up your mind, and being open to changing your mind as you become aware of more facts.

As for how what you said about liberals is a misrepresentation or distortion, we're still waiting for a definition of liberalism that isn't your own homegrown one yet justifies your villification of liberals.

creeper: "I'll try to make this easier for you to understand. Could you define which parts of this political theory you disagree with?"

highboy: "Sure:

"a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans

"That's why I'm saying the definition isn't sufficient to justify your villification of those you label "liberals" and deem your political enemies."

The first sentence is very sufficient."


Let me try to unravel what it appears you're saying here: The phrase "a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans" is very sufficient to justify Tim High's villification of those he labels "liberals" and deems his political enemies.

Did I get that right?

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

creeper: "1. The political theory (according to the definition you presented above) is not affiliated with the evils you've listed in any meaningful way. If you think it is, please show how"

highboy: "See above."


Umm, see what above?

"You SAY my sources are biased, but I'd like to see some evidence of that if you please."

I conclude this from some of your statements, which make it clear that you're subjected to a lot of disinformation. The most likely source of that is biased or distorting sources. If you want to show me where else you might be getting some of these ideas (a crazy uncle, perhaps - though even that could fall under "biased source", I suppose), then I could conclude otherwise.

"What you call "biased" I call factual."

Without a specific example, that's a bit meaningless. Even biased sources can contain facts, after all.

"Its amazing you think that I could totally disagree with the whole ideology of something without being objective."

You could, I suppose, but given what I know about your personality and the fact that so far you haven't exactly made much of an effort to explain this, in an objective manner or otherwise, I'm heavily inclined that you're disagreeing with the whole ideology of "liberalism" with extremely little objectivity.

If anything, you're skirting the issue of explaining this, especially with that strange statement in your previous comment ("the first sentence is very sufficient") - way to avoid the topic, highboy.

creeper: "Sometimes the facts don't back up your assertions, and the tactics you choose when confronted with that do little to enhance your credibility in any debate."

highboy: "The handful of people that question my credibility fail to realize that it is those that disagree with my point of view that see me as not credible. Those that agree with my viewpoint see it differently."


The handful of people that agree with you may well agree with your viewpoint, but that doesn't mean that they think your claims are supported by facts - and even if they do, they may be demonstrably wrong.

There is a difference between agreeing with someone's viewpoint (subjective) and being able to assess whether someone's claims are backed up by facts (objective). I could be the biggest marijuana opponent in the world, and I could still see that your claim above is not backed up by facts.

See the difference?

highboy said...

"It was a general comment on your debating tactics, that you pick a side, then ignore inconvenient facts and sling rhetoric around and refuse to admit when facts don't back up your claims."

I ignore "facts" that are not in actuality facts, so you're half right.

"As for how what you said about liberals is a misrepresentation or distortion, we're still waiting for a definition of liberalism that isn't your own homegrown one yet justifies your villification of liberals."

I already gave you one:

The phrase "a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans"

What is it about this that you are not getting? Obviously as a conservative Christian, I'm going to see (quite rightly) an ideology based on the inherant "goodness" of humans as evil.

"The handful of people that agree with you may well agree with your viewpoint, but that doesn't mean that they think your claims are supported by facts - and even if they do, they may be demonstrably wrong."

Little more than a few. It is possible that they are wrong, but I'd have to see that proven as well.

In any event, the point of all this, which you of course diverted us all away from, is that you feel my "us vs. them" attitude is less than constructive. Your only backing for this claim is to assume that I'm not objective enough to take my position by looking at all the facts. Its a nice speculation, but in the end Creeper, that is all you have.

creeper said...

Highboy,

"I ignore "facts" that are not in actuality facts, so you're half right."

1. How do you propose you would demonstrate a "fact" is not in actuality a fact other than by presenting facts that contradict it?

2. You actually promote "facts" that aren't in actuality facts, like so:

"The fact that we all know marijuana burns millions of brain cells at every hit should have clued us in to all of this already, but apparently potheads need to educated on their addiction. Yes, I said addiction."

You see, calling something a "fact" that isn't in actuality a fact is not ignoring it.

"Obviously as a conservative Christian, I'm going to see (quite rightly) an ideology based on the inherant "goodness" of humans as evil."

Wow. What do your theology professors make of this view? Have you discussed this with them? Is someone who believes in the natural goodness of mankind really to be thought of as evil?


"It is possible that they are wrong, but I'd have to see that proven as well."

You're proving that on an on-going basis by not rising to this challenge: Name both the URL of the source to back up your claim that a single toke of marijuana kills millions of brain cells, and the URL of the place where you pointed to it.

"In any event, the point of all this, which you of course diverted us all away from, is that you feel my "us vs. them" attitude is less than constructive."

I didn't divert from it, I responded to it: it hampers your judgement by making you less objective, and prone to distortion and misinformation. Maybe I'm a fool for thinking those are less constructive than a more objective approach, but perhaps you could present an example of a case in which they are more helpful in trying to come to grips with an issue with an open mind.

"Your only backing for this claim is to assume that I'm not objective enough to take my position by looking at all the facts. Its a nice speculation, but in the end Creeper, that is all you have."

I have no idea if you're objective enough to take your position by looking at all the facts. You've not really struck me as a paragon of objectivity up to this point. I do know that you're not looking at all the facts, and on occasion even make stuff up and present it as "facts", then refuse to back down when you are challenged to back up your claims.

Now, maybe there's some value to freely inventing so-called "facts" that I have failed to appreciate so far. For some reason I was told that people who did that were, in polite company, to be referred to as "liars". You seem to see a virtue in it. Could you explain why?

scohen said...

Creeper,
Do you take some sort of perverse delight in backing Radar and highboy into insescapable and shockingly uninformed corners and watching them squirm? I mean, I did the same thing on Highboy's blog, and I'm waiting patiently for him to approve the comment, but he hasn't done so yet. I'm not making any accusations here, but my last comment was approved in under 30 minutes, and my second one appeared about ten minutes after that. I"ll do as Michelle Malkin does and just say it's 'Interesting'.

I've done the initial research, and highboy has an extremely untenable position... I can't wait to see how he escapes this one. Unfortunately for him, his blog post leaves no way for him to claim hyperbole as he used the word 'fact'.

That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means.

-scohen
P.S. It's also interesting how Radar has not talked about evolution in any length since the Morowitz fiasco.

highboy said...

"Wow. What do your theology professors make of this view? Have you discussed this with them? Is someone who believes in the natural goodness of mankind really to be thought of as evil?"

No more evil than the next guy. What do you think Christianity is Creeper? Why would this shock you? You know we Christians believe humanity to be in a fallen state, born inherantly evil. (Did I spell that right?)

" Creeper,
Do you take some sort of perverse delight in backing Radar and highboy into insescapable and shockingly uninformed corners and watching them squirm? I mean, I did the same thing on Highboy's blog, and I'm waiting patiently for him to approve the comment, but he hasn't done so yet. I'm not making any accusations here, but my last comment was approved in under 30 minutes, and my second one appeared about ten minutes after that. I"ll do as Michelle Malkin does and just say it's 'Interesting'."

I have a wife, a baby, a job, and ministry. Sorry if my schedule isn't always solid for you. And if you would stop patting yourself on the back for finally having a coherant and valid argument for once since I've started blogging with you, and actually looked at my blog, you and Creeper both would see that your comments have spoken volumes to my position on marijuana. As I said repeatedly, I have no problem admitting I when I am wrong, as I have already done many times with Creeper in particular in the past. Its just that it doesn't happen very often.

scohen said...

Highboy,
I said I wasn't making any accusations. Anyone with "Basic Reading Comprehension" would know that, right?

So, are you going to post a link to the millions of brain cells with every toke argument, or are you going to change your post to reflect the truth?

Creeper and I are still waiting.

"you and Creeper both would see that your comments have spoken volumes to my position on marijuana"

What, that it's not based in fact or substance? That you just make stuff up? Clue me in.

"Did I spell that right?"
No, it's spelled inherently.

-scohen

creeper said...

scohen,

Amen.

creeper said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
creeper said...

Highboy,

the belief itself doesn't shock me. Your lack of logic still on occasion has a shocking quality to it, though I know it shouldn't. Well, not really shocks... more like titillates.

"No more evil than the next guy. What do you think Christianity is Creeper? Why would this shock you? You know we Christians believe humanity to be in a fallen state, born inherantly evil. (Did I spell that right?)"

Curiouser and curiouser...

Now, do you think of "liberals" as evil because they are human and therefore fallen and in an inherently evil state?

Or do you think of "liberals" (as per the definition of "liberalism" you chose, though I have my doubts that you actually subscribe to this particular definition) as evil because they disagree with the view that we are all evil? Are such people some kind of extra-special evil? If so, what do your theology professors make of this view?

And why would you, as a Christian, have anything less than a forgiving attitude to an inherently evil human, which includes all of us, liberals, conservatives, George W. Bush, your baby, scohen, everyone?

"No more evil than the next guy", indeed. As a justification for the vilification of "liberals" this just doesn't add up in any way.

"I have no problem admitting I when I am wrong"

For some reason in this case it's taking you a heck of a long time:

Name both the URL of the source to back up your claim that a single toke of marijuana kills millions of brain cells and the URL of the place where you pointed to it. In absence of that, it's very easy to admit that (a) the facts don't back up your claim, and (b) you never did present any such facts to back up your claim.

highboy said...

"(a) the facts don't back up your claim,"

Looks that way.

The list of evils I have attributed to liberalism all stem from the belief that all humans are naturally good, a belief that is itself an evil in a Biblical sense. My theology professors would obviously agree with me since this is foundational Christian teaching. Man is in a fallen state.

"And why would you, as a Christian, have anything less than a forgiving attitude to an inherently evil human, which includes all of us, liberals, conservatives, George W. Bush, your baby, scohen, everyone?"

Who says I don't have a forgiving attitude? Just because I call "evil" what it is, doesn't mean I don't love sinners. Though I admit that I'm quick to anger when modern day liberals, instead of recognizing evil, merely make excuses and relativist philisophical statements to try and justify evil behavior.

This has been my beef with the idea of natural goodness and naturalism iteself all along.

creeper said...

"This has been my beef with the idea of natural goodness and naturalism iteself all along."

The two are very different things.

creeper: "(a) the facts don't back up your claim,"

highboy: "Looks that way."


Presumably then also "(b) you never did present any such facts to back up your claim".

Will you be adding an update to your blog post to reflect this?

"The list of evils I have attributed to liberalism all stem from the belief that all humans are naturally good,"

How do those so-called "evils" spring from this belief?

"a belief that is itself an evil in a Biblical sense."

Could you clarify this in a bit more detail? Are there any particular sources you had in mind?

Oh, and I'd been meaning to ask: "last week saw the anniversary of a rather prominant liberal drowning a prostitute"

Who was that? Sorry, I wasn't keeping up.

highboy said...

"How do those so-called "evils" spring from this belief?"

Because there is no basic goodness of humans. Take homosexuality. It is portrayed by those that hold humans to be naturally good as something totally natural.

"Could you clarify this in a bit more detail? Are there any particular sources you had in mind?"

Genesis Chapter 3 for one. Satan poses as a humanist through and through. God recognizes humanity to be sinful, not naturally good, throughout the Bible. So in a Biblical sense, the opposite idea is evil.

"Oh, and I'd been meaning to ask: "last week saw the anniversary of a rather prominant liberal drowning a prostitute"

Who was that? Sorry, I wasn't keeping up."

Ted Kennedy.

creeper said...

Ted Kennedy drowned a prostitute? When was this?!

Wait a minute... you're busy making up "facts" again, aren't you?

creeper said...

"Take homosexuality. It is portrayed by those that hold humans to be naturally good as something totally natural."

Given that homosexuality also occurs in nature, i.e. among animals, there's good reason to think that this is the case.

Aside from that, it seems to me that you may be conflating "naturally good" and "natural" as in "naturalism".

"Genesis Chapter 3 for one."

Interesting choice. The serpent addresses two human beings who actually happen to be naturally good.

"Satan poses as a humanist through and through."

By Satan I take it you mean the serpent. How do you think he poses as a humanist?

"God recognizes humanity to be sinful, not naturally good, throughout the Bible. So in a Biblical sense, the opposite idea is evil."

That doesn't really add up to a position that those who subscribe to such a belief are some kind of extra special evil. And of course if they are, you should be reaching out to them, not villifying them.

But anyway. So "natural goodness" doesn't suit you. I would think it's not that difficult to find a closely neighboring concept that could suit you, such as perhaps "capacity for goodness" or "potential goodness". I didn't think the intended meaning was some kind of perfection or infallibility.

So what do you make of the other elements of the definition you posted?

"A political theory founded on (the natural goodness of humans and) the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority"

Are they similarly odious to you?

highboy said...

"Wait a minute... you're busy making up "facts" again, aren't you?"

Or not.

"Given that homosexuality also occurs in nature, i.e. among animals, there's good reason to think that this is the case."

Maybe. There's still some debate on that. Animals are born with two heads but that doesn't make it natural. Some animals also devour their offspring, that doesn't make it natural. Observing animal homosexuality is hardly a compelling case for claiming that homosexuality is natural. The female and male bodies on all God's creatures are clearly designed to couple. This is not the case among homosexuals. Here is a good site to check out while you're at it.

"Genesis Chapter 3 for one."

Interesting choice. The serpent addresses two human beings who actually happen to be naturally good."

They were created good to be sure, but were simply unaware of sin. This can no longer be said of us.

"By Satan I take it you mean the serpent. How do you think he poses as a humanist?"

I mean Satan throughout the Bible, and yes, the serpent, who tempts and misguides people into thinking their desires, no matter how sinful or unnatural, are good.

"That doesn't really add up to a position that those who subscribe to such a belief are some kind of extra special evil"

I never said they were extra special evil. You gave them that label. Though they are certainly lost. Christians, who recognize their sinful nature and have repented, accepting Jesus as their Savior, are not lost, and are no longer evil, though they still commit sinful acts sometimes.

"And of course if they are, you should be reaching out to them, not villifying them."

I reach out to them on a daily basis, thanks.

"So what do you make of the other elements of the definition you posted?"

Good question. They certainly sound good, the way they are posted, but its hard to reconcile that definition with modern day liberalism. I prefer the traditional values of Christian conservatism.

loboinok said...

"Given that homosexuality also occurs in nature, i.e. among animals, there's good reason to think that this is the case."

Are you saying that homosexuality occurs in nature in the same way it does in society, or are you saying it occurs in the same way it does in our prison systems?

creeper said...

creeper: "Wait a minute... you're busy making up "facts" again, aren't you?"

highboy: "Or not."


Did you mean to link to something that was connected to your bizarre claim that Ted Kennedy drowned a prostitute? Because this isn't. It's about Chappaquiddick.

creeper said...

"Are you saying that homosexuality occurs in nature in the same way it does in society, or are you saying it occurs in the same way it does in our prison systems?"

If you intend to draw a distinction between living freely or in captivity, as I understand it homosexuality has been observed among animals in both situations.

creeper said...

Highboy,

"Good question. They certainly sound good, the way they are posted, but its hard to reconcile that definition with modern day liberalism."

That's exactly why I suspect you didn't post a definition that you actually agree with, but rather that you have a home-grown one that justifies your villification of "liberals". Do share.

creeper: "That doesn't really add up to a position that those who subscribe to such a belief are some kind of extra special evil"

highboy: "I never said they were extra special evil. You gave them that label. Though they are certainly lost. Christians, who recognize their sinful nature and have repented, accepting Jesus as their Savior, are not lost, and are no longer evil, though they still commit sinful acts sometimes."


I used the "extra special evil" label to distinguish the "evil" you apply to "liberals" from the "inherent evil" that was part of the same discussion. You can't villify "liberals" if they're only inherently evil, because then what makes them so special? To single them out for villification, obviously "liberals" have to be some kind of "extra special evil".

If you want to say that they are "lost", and that is why you villify them, well that's another matter. Not particularly Christian, but hey.

creeper: "And of course if they are, you should be reaching out to them, not villifying them."

highboy: "I reach out to them on a daily basis, thanks."


I meant in a positive way.

highboy said...

"If you want to say that they are "lost", and that is why you villify them, well that's another matter. Not particularly Christian, but hey."

I villify liberals who spread the lies of modern day liberalism. There is a difference. Jesus did the same thing to those that spread lies, or do you think "brood of vipers" was a common term of endearment? I suggest you read the Bible before labeling what is or isn't "Christian."

"Did you mean to link to something that was connected to your bizarre claim that Ted Kennedy drowned a prostitute? Because this isn't. It's about Chappaquiddick."

Its about Ted Kennedy drowning someone. She's not a prostitute, I stand corrected on that. But in either case, she's dead because of Ted Kennedy. That's hardly a bizarre claim, unless you can't read.

"I used the "extra special evil" label to distinguish the "evil" you apply to "liberals" from the "inherent evil" that was part of the same discussion."

*buzzer* Wrong. Again, that is your label, and it is you trying to distinguish them. I villify liberals because they (generally speaking) are not just inherently evil but assert that the inherent evil is not evil at all. Get the difference?

highboy: "I reach out to them on a daily basis, thanks."

"I meant in a positive way."

Other than the door to door ministries, ministries for veterans, Men's Accountability at the Lighthouse, Saturday Night Bible Study, not to mention prison and drug and alcohol related prison ministries, all of which give me ample time to build relationships with liberals of all shapes and sizes? Or are they not positive? Or are you just speculating again?

loboinok said...

"as I understand it homosexuality has been observed among animals in both situations."

Homosexuality has been observed or homosexual like behavior has been observed?

creeper said...

loboinok,

"Homosexuality has been observed or homosexual like behavior has been observed?"

How would you define the difference between the two?

creeper said...

"I villify liberals who spread the lies of modern day liberalism. There is a difference."

Coming from someone who has such a tenuous grasp of "truth" and "facts" as yourself (take for example the whopper at the top of these comments and the other one that you finally admitted after much discussion, but have not yet seen fit to correct on your blog), perhaps you should take some Christian teachings on board. "All ye without sin may cast the first stone" and "judge not, lest ye be judged", for example.

Your reading of the Bible tends to focus on the Old Testament and the more violent aspects of Jesus's utterances. The Sermon on the Mount and smaller texts like the story of Zacchaeus, for example, seem to have passed you by without leaving any impression.

"Jesus did the same thing to those that spread lies, or do you think "brood of vipers" was a common term of endearment? I suggest you read the Bible before labeling what is or isn't "Christian.""

I do look at the Bible on occasion, even for reasons unrelated to these blog discussions. Jesus lambasting what he perceived as the hypocritical establishment of the day is not a carte blanche to villify anyone you happen to disagree with.

"Its about Ted Kennedy drowning someone. She's not a prostitute, I stand corrected on that. But in either case, she's dead because of Ted Kennedy. That's hardly a bizarre claim, unless you can't read."

You've repeatedly mocked other people's supposed inability to read, and yet you read about Chappaquiddick and walk away with the impression that "Ted Kennedy drowned a prostitute". Nice one.

Ted Kennedy got drunk, tried to get laid, sped away from a cop, drove a car into the water, failed to save the girl inside and allowed her to drown, and tried (and partly succeeded) to cover the whole thing up with corruption and family connections. He's guilty of recklessness, criminal negligence and who knows what other crimes behind the scenes that we'll never hear about. I'm amazed he ever got re-elected.

Did he actually drown Mary Jo Kopechne? Nope. Was she a prostitute? Not even close. In your claim that "Ted Kennedy drowned a prostitute", the only thing you got right was his name. Maybe you're the one who should brush up on your reading skills.

"*buzzer* Wrong. Again, that is your label, and it is you trying to distinguish them. I villify liberals because they (generally speaking) are not just inherently evil but assert that the inherent evil is not evil at all. Get the difference?"

No, not wrong. "Extra special evil" is the label that I apply to that difference, here highlighted in bold: "I villify liberals because they (generally speaking) are not just inherently evil but assert that the inherent evil is not evil at all."

"Other than the door to door ministries, ministries for veterans, Men's Accountability at the Lighthouse, Saturday Night Bible Study, not to mention prison and drug and alcohol related prison ministries, all of which give me ample time to build relationships with liberals of all shapes and sizes? Or are they not positive? Or are you just speculating again?"

Not at all. You've clearly reached out to "liberals" in a negative way in many, many instances. At the very least you should curtail this and confront so-called "liberal lies" with truth and facts that contradict those you disagree with, instead of with lies of your own.

loboinok said...

"How would you define the difference between the two?"

Well, not being well versed on the subject and it being relatively new-to me anyway-I'd have to say...

I have two black lab pups that are about 6 months old. They are very active and playful.

In the course of their play, they will occasionally jump onto each others back and start humping each other.
Likewise,deer and cows in the field will do the same thing. Neither actually copulate they just go through the motion.

I have never observed this behavior in other animals around here such as cats, chickens, buzzards,eagles, roadrunners and other birds, lizards, bobcats, coyotes, armadillos, opposum, raccoons, skunks,etc.

On the other hand, prisoners often engage in homosexual acts, for various reasons, even though they are admittedly heterosexual.

In both cases, they are engaging in homosexual acts or homosexual like activity, yet neither are homosexual.

So my question to you would be, in what animals, captive or free, was homosexuality observed?

creeper said...

loboinok,

I can't claim to be an expert on the subject either. Humping a leg is one thing, but the examples I'd heard about were (in captivity) penguins who had male partners, not just for copulating but being mates for extended periods of time, similar to heterosexual couples and (in nature) American bison mounting each other with full anal penetration.

The modern scientific consensus is that there is a wide range of bisexuality throughout the population, and that only a minority are either heterosexual or homosexual. Your example of prisoners turning to homosexual acts when confined to single-sex environments would fit right in with that. Whether they themselves are willing to admit to being bisexual in a society that often has a negative attitude toward homosexuals is another story.

"In both cases, they are engaging in homosexual acts or homosexual like activity, yet neither are homosexual."

Would you then draw the line at an emotional level, or perhaps the level of a romantic involvement? I would think even being sexually aroused by a member of the same sex would put one somewhere on that bisexual scale, and much more so if actual penetration occurs.

scohen said...

"The modern scientific consensus is that there is a wide range of bisexuality throughout the population, and that only a minority are either heterosexual or homosexual."

Sounds a lot like what was found in the Kinsey report. It's interesting that human sexuality isn't so much different than that of other animals.

-scohen

creeper said...

scohen,

Sorry, that was meant to refer to the human population. Clumsy of me to have that line follow the preceding one about animals without clarifying that.

Apparently there's some book that documents homosexual behavior in three or four hundred animal species, so this bisexuality range thing may well hold true throughout part or all of the animal kingdom.

highboy said...

"All ye without sin may cast the first stone" and "judge not, lest ye be judged", for example."

You missed a large chunk of the Bible, but if you want to get into passing verses back and forth, I'll be happy to run circles around you. Just say when.

"Your reading of the Bible tends to focus on the Old Testament and the more violent aspects of Jesus's utterances. The Sermon on the Mount and smaller texts like the story of Zacchaeus, for example, seem to have passed you by without leaving any impression."

Oh, I see, and this new speculation (your full of them apparently) is based on a few comments I've made via internet, unless you claim to have access into my bedroom to know which books I'm reading and focusing on.

"Jesus lambasting what he perceived as the hypocritical establishment of the day is not a carte blanche to villify anyone you happen to disagree with."

So when I lambaste what I percieve to be hypocritical ideologs its villification. Nice double standard there Creeper. You're the king of objectivity.

"Maybe you're the one who should brush up on your reading skills."

Actually, I corrected my claim, long before this meandering response you have given me now.

"No, not wrong. "Extra special evil" is the label that I apply to that difference, here highlighted in bold: "I villify liberals because they (generally speaking) are not just inherently evil but assert that the inherent evil is not evil at all."

Right, that is YOUR label. Not mine. I never said liberals are "extra special evil", or even implied it.

"At the very least you should curtail this and confront so-called "liberal lies" with truth and facts that contradict those you disagree with, instead of with lies of your own."

I never posted any lies, and when shown that I'm wrong I correct it, so this statement is totally irrelevant. By the way, the "update" you keep whining about: I admitted my error in our discussion in the comments section. If you expect me to plaster this to every post I make, its not going to happen. But you keep harping on this error, as I know its one of the few in your arsenal.

And since my previous comment about homosexuality went unresponded to, I'll repost it:

"Animals are born with two heads but that doesn't make it natural. Some animals also devour their offspring, that doesn't make it natural. Observing animal homosexuality is hardly a compelling case for claiming that homosexuality is natural. The female and male bodies on all God's creatures are clearly designed to couple. This is not the case among homosexuals. Here is a good site to check out while you're at it."

creeper said...

Highboy,

creeper: "All ye without sin may cast the first stone" and "judge not, lest ye be judged", for example."

highboy: "You missed a large chunk of the Bible, but if you want to get into passing verses back and forth, I'll be happy to run circles around you. Just say when.


No need. I just note that you pay no heed to those ones.

creeper: "Your reading of the Bible tends to focus on the Old Testament and the more violent aspects of Jesus's utterances. The Sermon on the Mount and smaller texts like the story of Zacchaeus, for example, seem to have passed you by without leaving any impression."

highboy: "Oh, I see, and this new speculation (your full of them apparently) is based on a few comments I've made via internet, unless you claim to have access into my bedroom to know which books I'm reading and focusing on."


That's right, I draw conclusion from your actions, not from what you keep hidden in your bedroom. And those actions lead me to believe that the Sermon on the Mount has not yet featured in a major way in your decision-making process. Of course it's speculation, which I clearly labeled as such ("seems").

creeper: "Jesus lambasting what he perceived as the hypocritical establishment of the day is not a carte blanche to villify anyone you happen to disagree with."

highboy: "So when I lambaste what I percieve to be hypocritical ideologs its villification. Nice double standard there Creeper. You're the king of objectivity."


I guess Jesus lambasting what he perceived as the hypocritical establishment of the day is a carte blanche to villify anyone you happen to disagree with after all.

creeper: "Maybe you're the one who should brush up on your reading skills."

highboy: "Actually, I corrected my claim, long before this meandering response you have given me now."


Actually, you didn't. You only corrected part of your claim. Whatever made you think the woman was a prostitute is beyond me. Did you completely make that up, or what?

creeper: "No, not wrong. "Extra special evil" is the label that I apply to that difference, here highlighted in bold: "I villify liberals because they (generally speaking) are not just inherently evil but assert that the inherent evil is not evil at all."

highboy: "Right, that is YOUR label. Not mine. I never said liberals are "extra special evil", or even implied it."


Yes, it is a label that I created for the purpose of this discussion, to differentiate from the "inherent evil" that supposedly applies to all of us. What's the problem?

creeper: "At the very least you should curtail this and confront so-called "liberal lies" with truth and facts that contradict those you disagree with, instead of with lies of your own."

highboy: "I never posted any lies, and when shown that I'm wrong I correct it, so this statement is totally irrelevant. By the way, the "update" you keep whining about: I admitted my error in our discussion in the comments section. If you expect me to plaster this to every post I make, its not going to happen."


Interesting. So when you're shown wrong you correct the mistake... except that you refuse to correct the mistakes you make. Got it.

Well here's what happened, Highboy:

1. You did post lies.

2. You were shown to be wrong.

3. You did not correct them.

4. You refuse to correct them.

Throw me a bible verse that justifies that.

"But you keep harping on this error, as I know its one of the few in your arsenal."

Because it's such a blatant compound lie that you refuse to correct. You only admitted part of the "error"... on another blog. Calling it an "error" is actually charitable - since you're aware that it's wrong and still refuse to correct it, it is quite simply a lie.

"And since my previous comment about homosexuality went unresponded to, I'll repost it:

"Animals are born with two heads but that doesn't make it natural. Some animals also devour their offspring, that doesn't make it natural. Observing animal homosexuality is hardly a compelling case for claiming that homosexuality is natural. The female and male bodies on all God's creatures are clearly designed to couple. This is not the case among homosexuals. Here is a good site to check out while you're at it.""


What am I supposed to respond to?

Okay, "designed to couple": Is an erection "designed" to be placed in the mouth of a female, or in her vagina? What is your position on fellatio? Should fellatio be forbidden?

Homosexuality does occur in nature, and is therefore "natural", contrary to your earlier claim. It is not my argument, however, that because something occurs in nature, that we should be practicing it - I just wanted to correct your erroneous claim.

My take on the tolerance of homosexuality is simply the pursuit of happiness. If someone loves someone of the same sex and that makes them happy, I don't have a problem with that. Consenting adults, no harm done, etc. If they use their genitals in ways other than their primary function, well they are free to do that, and nobody should dictate to consenting adults what they can do in the privacy of their own home. I know you're on board with at least part of that argument.

loboinok said...

"Would you then draw the line at an emotional level, or perhaps the level of a romantic involvement?"

Before either. But then I can see you and highboy covered that for the most part.

I'm aware that all creation is under the fall and as such, nothing we term as natural, is in fact, natural.

That includes being carnivores as well as homosexual. (animals and human)

loboinok said...

"I would think even being sexually aroused by a member of the same sex would put one somewhere on that bisexual scale"

There was a time in my youth, that a mailbox could have aroused me but I still had no sexual interest in the mailman.