Fuck You Conservative Stupid-Making Machine

[mhendo]

@Starving_Artist

Right. :rolleyes: And you attempt to begin this rational, considered debate by saying:

Once again you have me perplexed. I simply cannot work out whether you are the most mendacious person alive, or the most stupid.

Once again, as usual, you confuse the order of things in a dishonest way that demonstrates how fucking stupid and detached from reality you are.

Those insults came after (do you understand the concept of chronology, or do you need that explained?) my earlier posts, in which i made genuine attempts to engage you as if you were not a masturbating, poo-flinging chimpanzee. But you continued to jerk off and to throw your feces, so i simply resigned myself to the fact that it’s all you know how to do.

@Starving_Artist

…so fraught with duplicity and dishonesty and apparent intellectual contempt for the posters on this board whom you apparently consider to be on your side…

And yet most of those posters seem to consider you to be one spouting shit here. Despite your implication that i’ve somehow been stringing everyone along, the fact is that it’s you who looks like a chump. Again. No doubt the fact that people don’t swallow your duplicitous bullshit constitutes yet more evidence of the problems with the liberal mindset.

@Starving_Artist

So, ball’s in your court. Are you willing to confess to being an utter ignoramus on this issue simply in order to cause me to have to do the work of proving myself right, or do you want to just admit you’re full of shit on both this issue and in your so-called attempt at rational, considered dialog with me and just slink off under a rock somewhere and pretend all this never happened?

I’m no longer interested in whether you want to do the work or not. Your “offer” here is nothing more than an attempt to delude yourself into thinking that you have actually been honest in this debate. You’ve been complaining for your last three or four posts that there’s so much evidence that it’s just lying around, and yet you also claim not to want to waste your time providing any evidence. Do whatever the fuck you want to do. I don’t care anymore.

You’ve trolled me out of my self-imposed avoidance of you, and i made the mistake of treating you like a rational human being with an honest bone in his body. That was silly of me, and i take full responsibility for it. But i won’t be baited by your mendacity and your goalpost shifting again.

This will, of course, in your mind be an admission of defeat on my part. If that helps you get to sleep at night, knock yourself out.

Adios, asshole.

[Starving_Artist]

@mhendo

@Starving_Artist

Right. :rolleyes: And you attempt to begin this rational, considered debate by saying:

Once again, as usual, you confuse the order of things in a dishonest way that demonstrates how fucking stupid and detached from reality you are.

Those insults came after (do you understand the concept of chronology, or do you need that explained?) my earlier posts, in which i made genuine attempts to engage you as if you were not a masturbating, poo-flinging chimpanzee.

Of course I understand the concept of chronology. Allow me to present the chronology of your posts to or about me throughout this thread.

Post 39: (Your first to me)

*OK, i’m officially nominating this for the laugh-out-loud paragraph of the year, or maybe the Unintended Irony Award.

The very idea of you, Starving Artist, invoking William F. Buckley in making a call for “intelligent, dignified discussions of opposing viewpoints” is perhaps the most hilarious thing ever to grace these message boards.

I don’t like Buckley’s politics, but his intellect was never in question, and neither was his influence in bringing together the traditionalist and the libertarian factions of American conservatism to form a reasonably cohesive and quite influential intellectual movement.

Which brings me to the crux of the issue here:

I have no hesitation is saying unequivocally, Starving Artist, that if William F. Buckley were a member of this message board, he would want nothing to do with you or with the vast majority of your arguments. If he were at a gathering with you, and you made some of the same arguments you’ve made here, he would look down that patrician nose of his, sniff a little, and probably move to the other side of the room. You would embarrass the hell out of him, precisely because you lack every single facet of the intellectual engagement and rigor that he brought to his ideology. You’re a cartoon; you are the anti-Buckley, the type of person from whom he was trying to rescue conservatism.*

Post 132: (You get a pass on this one because you’re talking about conservatives in general rather than me specifically. Still, not exactly highbrow thinking…)

This is simply perfect. Almost a case of meta-ignorance.

Post 179:

When SA was in school, no-one ever had to put a “Kick me” sign on his back, because he did it all by himself. He’s still doing it.

Post 231: (Where we arrive at the post I quoted above and which is where you claim to have given up on trying to engage me honestly in an attempt to have a rational, considered debate)

Once again you have me perplexed. I simply cannot work out whether you are the most mendacious person alive, or the most stupid.

And remember when you said this:

“Those insults came after (do you understand the concept of chronology, or do you need that explained?) my earlier posts, in which i made genuine attempts to engage you as if you were not a masturbating, poo-flinging chimpanzee.”

Could you perhaps point to just where in this chonology you made these attempts to engage me in rational, considered debate, because I’m just not seeing it. (And while you’re at it, perhaps you could point also to just where in this thread you ‘made the mistake of treating [me] like a rational human being with an honest bone in his body’ - which you also claim toward the end of your excruciatingly foolhardy last post.)

And so it is you who have been unquestionably shown to be both mendacious and stupid, and by your own hand, no less. Can you say “hoist on my own petard”? Yeah…I thought that you could.

And yes, I will regard your declination of my offer to post cites proving you wrong as an admission of defeat, thank you very much.

Now, is there anything else I can do for you, or do you want to be left alone to hide under your rock and hope that the fewest number of people possible see how badly you’ve shown your lying, dishonest and faux-intellectual ass in this thread?

[Lobohan]

@Starving_Artist

Now, is there anything else I can do for you, or do you want to be left alone to hide under your rock and hope that the fewest number of people possible see how badly you’ve shown your lying, dishonest and faux-intellectual ass in this thread?

Absolutely no one here thinks you actually won. You’re declaring victory because you’re a lying coward.

[Starving_Artist]

nm

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Lobohan

@Starving_Artist

Now, is there anything else I can do for you, or do you want to be left alone to hide under your rock and hope that the fewest number of people possible see how badly you’ve shown your lying, dishonest and faux-intellectual ass in this thread?

Absolutely no one here thinks you actually won. You’re declaring victory because you’re a lying coward.

Just to clarify: Nobody. None. No one. Not a single person. Nada. Zip. Zero.

But please, Starving Artist, Feel free to declare Victory and run away.

I find you absolutely hilarious. You’re like performance art.

[mhendo]

@Starving_Artist

Could you perhaps point to just where in this chonology you made these attempts to engage me in rational, considered debate, because I’m just not seeing it. (And while you’re at it, perhaps you could point also to just where in this thread you ‘made the mistake of treating [me] like a rational human being with an honest bone in his body’ - which you also claim toward the end of your excruciatingly foolhardy last post.)

You actually quoted from the relevant post, but, as predictable as the sunrise, in the chronology you provided, you left out the part that was not convenient to your dishonesty.

Here are the specific paragraphs where i treated you like a rational human being:

@mhendo

Presumably, if liberals blurring the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is so prevalent that it is responsible for “many people” confusing the two, then surely you can provide us with at least a couple of examples in places where people might have been likely to see them, and thus influenced by them.

I mean, a claim about influence, especially on a national scale (which is what you’re making here), should at least be able to turn up a little bit of evidence in the historical record, surely? I don’t even expect the evidence to come from the scientific community. I’d happy if you could provide some from “around here and on television talk shows or elsewhere in public discourse.”

I know you have read them, because you’ve spent three posts since then whining and worming and weaseling your way out of actually providing any evidence for your assertions.

[elucidator]

Liberals had nothing to do with the misapprehension of Darwinism as an argument to demonstrate and validate atheism. That started over one hundred fifty years ago, when Darwin first opened his big fat mouth. There was an instaneous furor and revulsion, however ill-deserved. And so, in the popular opinion, Darwinism became synonymous with atheism. And a Betty Noyer for mouth-breathing yokels throughout the Chigger Belt.

And it has been handed down, from generation to generation, along with biblical inerrancy and end-times lunacy. Down through time, through the Scopes Trial and to this very day, long, long before Adlai Stevenson was even born. It was the fervent belief of ignorant people, it was the lever by which unscrupulous politicians manipulated them. And to this very day, they are still doing it.

Its not my fault that the conservative wing of our politics is most prone to such sordid alliances. If I could stop them from doing so short of throttling them with my bare hands, I would.

[Starving_Artist]

@mhendo

@Starving_Artist

Could you perhaps point to just where in this chonology you made these attempts to engage me in rational, considered debate, because I’m just not seeing it. (And while you’re at it, perhaps you could point also to just where in this thread you ‘made the mistake of treating [me] like a rational human being with an honest bone in his body’ - which you also claim toward the end of your excruciatingly foolhardy last post.)

You actually quoted from the relevant post, but, as predictable as the sunrise, in the chronology you provided, you left out the part that was not convenient to your dishonesty.

What dishonesty? Please be specific.

@mhendo

Here are the specific paragraphs where i treated you like a rational human being:

Which you immediately preceeded by posting a sentence observing that you weren’t sure whether I were the most mendacious person alive or the most stupid. I doubt even the radically partisan crowd around here would agree that you were trying to engage in honest, rational debate by beginning it in that way.

@mhendo

I know you have read them, because you’ve spent three posts since then whining and worming and weaseling your way out of actually providing any evidence for your assertions.

I’ve weaseled my way out of nothing. I asked first if you’d be willing to wager your money vs. my ability to post the evidence you’re asking for, and then I offered to post fifteen links to examples of it in return for your admission that you are genuinely ignorant of the fact that the left has been framing the issue as one of evolution vs. creationism. I made the offer in this way because I simply don’t want have to go to the time and trouble of looking up examples and copying and pasting links to them if you already know they exist anyway, as I’m certain you do. But, if I am wrong and you are truly ignorant about this issue and you’re genuinely interested to see how the issue has been framed that way, I would then be perfectly amenable to looking up and posting examples for your edification.

You quailed from each challenge.

[elucidator]

Guys, you know, you’re running a risk, here. I mean, you keep pressing on Starving’s patience like that, he might just snap. Run out and apply his mad intertube skills and get those pages and pages of references. I mean, how hard can it be, since every school kid knows about it, right?

Be awful damn humiliating, have him rub your noses in those pages upon pages. Wouldn’t want to be you, if you push him too far.

But, you know, I think you can rely on **Starving’**s grace and genial good nature, that he’s not likely to do that to you. Call it a hunch.

[Starving_Artist]

@elucidator

Liberals had nothing to do with the misapprehension of Darwinism as an argument to demonstrate and validate atheism. That started over one hundred fifty years ago, when Darwin first opened his big fat mouth. There was an instaneous furor and revulsion, however ill-deserved. And so, in the popular opinion, Darwinism became synonymous with atheism. And a Betty Noyer for mouth-breathing yokels throughout the Chigger Belt.

And it has been handed down, from generation to generation, along with biblical inerrancy and end-times lunacy. Down through time, through the Scopes Trial and to this very day, long, long before Adlai Stevenson was even born. It was the fervent belief of ignorant people, it was the lever by which unscrupulous politicians manipulated them. And to this very day, they are still doing it.

Its not my fault that the conservative wing of our politics is most prone to such sordid alliances. If I could stop them from doing so short of throttling them with my bare hands, I would.

I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about the fact that so many people in today’s society are of the mistaken belief that evolution accounts for both the beginning and development of life on the planet as we know it today, and that to a very large degree this is because the left constantly uses evolution to deny creationism. This creates a false impression, given that creation is involved with, you know, the creation of life, and it causes people to think that evolution is being alleged to be responsible for the creation of life.

It’s easy to see why the left poses the issue in this way though: abiogenesis still doesn’t have the answers. So it can’t be used by athiests and anti-Christian liberals to counter creationism. So now we have a situation where the left apparently is deliberately creating the impression that evolution accounts for life on this planet, while simultaneously making fun of people for thinking that liberals believe that evolution accounts for life on this planet.

So, if a person truly wants to be honest and understand where people are coming from when they say the things they do, then that person needs to understand that the population at large has been mislead as to what is meant by evolution, and also what is meant when they talk about the “theory of evolution”, which is in reality abiogenesis - a term rarely used in the national dialog between science and creationism.

[elucidator]

It was Steven Jay Gould, wasn’t it? Trying to figure who to blame it on, somebody poltically leftish but a bona fide evolutionary scientist, and he’s pretty much it. Plus, it’s likely that his writings would be widely read by the tea party crowd, and that ilk. Me, I think The Mismeasure of Man is his best, but I bet tea partiers would by and large lean towards The Panda’s Thumb.

C’mon, you can tell us! Was it Mrs. Gould’s boy, Stevie?

[Starving_Artist]

Beats hell outta me, I’m just a poor country boy. When it comes to Gould, I know Dick.

[MovieMogul]

@Starving_Artist

and that to a very large degree this is because the left constantly uses evolution to deny creationism. This creates a false impression, given that creation is involved with, you know, the creation of life, and it causes people to think that evolution is being alleged to be responsible for the creation of life.

The “left” :rolleyes: does not and never has used evolution to deny creationism. Starting with Darwin, evolution was just positioned as a theory to explain a biological process, not to wrap up all the mysteries of Life with one big fat bow, and certainly not to deny God or Genesis or whatever.

But Creationism has unequivocally been used to deny Evolution. The “righties” take a complex scientific mechanism like evolution and apply the most reductive interpretation (“man from monkeys”) and have their inevitable knee-jerk reaction—not based on any actual scientific disagreement but one purely grounded in backlash to the boogeyman of Science upturning their little apple cart of “faith” (put in quotes because their faith is so fragile, it can’t handle even the itsiest bitsy little threat like a reasonably compatible theory).

So, quite predictably, you have it backwards. It wasn’t those Libs that created this specious oppostion. It was the religious diehards and true-believers who decided that creating a Culture War over something they don’t understand is far far preferable to letting everyone believe their own thing.

[mhendo]

@Starving_Artist

I’ve weaseled my way out of nothing. I asked first if you’d be willing to wager your money vs. my ability to post the evidence you’re asking for, and then I offered to post fifteen links to examples of it in return for your admission that you are genuinely ignorant of the fact that the left has been framing the issue as one of evolution vs. creationism. I made the offer in this way because I simply don’t want have to go to the time and trouble of looking up examples and copying and pasting links to them if you already know they exist anyway, as I’m certain you do. But, if I am wrong and you are truly ignorant about this issue and you’re genuinely interested to see how the issue has been framed that way, I would then be perfectly amenable to looking up and posting examples for your edification.

You quailed from each challenge.

You made an assertion. I asked you for some evidence. You keep threatening to provide such evidence, and i continue to waited with bated breath.

Also, as i’ve pointed out on more than one occasion, i don’t deny that some on the left have framed the debate as one of “evolution vs. creationism.” As Bryan Ekers noted, and as i noted in a previous post, there are good reasons for using such a shorthand in the context of particular debates, especially those about what to teach in the schools.

What i asked you for, very clearly and straightforwardly, was evidence that leftists and liberals have blurred the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution.

You can keep going on like a whiny bitch about how you’ll only present your evidence in return for money or a specific admission of ignorance, but you’re getting nothing like that from me, so you might as well take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

If a person of reason and integrity had, in the spirit of fun or competition, made similar offers, i might have been tempted to take them. But you don’t get any such concessions, because you’ve proven yourself to be a dissembling, dishonest, mendacious, insincere, equivocating piece of shit.

[Starving_Artist]

@ArchiveGuy

@Starving_Artist

and that to a very large degree this is because the left constantly uses evolution to deny creationism. This creates a false impression, given that creation is involved with, you know, the creation of life, and it causes people to think that evolution is being alleged to be responsible for the creation of life.

The “left” :rolleyes: does not and never has used evolution to deny creationism…

Sure it does! And it does that by drawing an equivalence between evolution and creationism.

Every time some leftie points and laughs at a creationist and questions how he or she can believe in creationism when the science behind evolution is undeniable, they are using evolution to deny creationism. Whenever an article in the NYT discusses evolution vs. creationism, it is creating an implication in the reader’s mind that one or the other is the answer to the beginnings of life. Etc., etc.

What started this whole line of discussion was my trying to point out why so many people in this country refer to evolution as though it were abiogenesis, and why it is that some people make reference to the “theory of evolution”. More than once I’ve seen people around here make snide remarks about it when someone - usually a conservative - mentions the ‘theory of evolution’, countering that evolution is settled science and not a theory. This tells me that person doesn’t understand what the speaker is thinking when he or she uses that term. What they mean is that evolution as an explanation for the beginning of life is only a theory, and IMO the reason they come to be of this opinion is because of often erroneous descriptions of what evolution is, oftentimes by proponents of evolution who don’t fully understand it themselves. I’ve heard proponents of evolution say things like this myself. They’ll make comments along the line of “Yeah, evolution can’t explain how life started, but it’s getting there.” This is the kind of thing that leads to talk of the 'theory of evolution".

But I digress. The main point is that the left, mostly in print and on television, creates the impression that the argument boils down to creationism vs. evolution by constantly framing the issue in that way. Thus, given that evolution is often presented as the scientific alternative to creationism with no mention of abiogenesis, people are often led to believe that evolution is held to disprove creationism by providing an allegedly scientific alternative explanation for the beginnings of life.

[Starving_Artist]

@mhendo

@Starving_Artist

I’ve weaseled my way out of nothing. I asked first if you’d be willing to wager your money vs. my ability to post the evidence you’re asking for, and then I offered to post fifteen links to examples of it in return for your admission that you are genuinely ignorant of the fact that the left has been framing the issue as one of evolution vs. creationism. I made the offer in this way because I simply don’t want have to go to the time and trouble of looking up examples and copying and pasting links to them if you already know they exist anyway, as I’m certain you do. But, if I am wrong and you are truly ignorant about this issue and you’re genuinely interested to see how the issue has been framed that way, I would then be perfectly amenable to looking up and posting examples for your edification.

You quailed from each challenge.

You made an assertion. I asked you for some evidence. You keep threatening to provide such evidence, and i continue to waited with bated breath.

Not so. I’ve not ‘threatened’ to provide such evidence, I’ve merely set out the terms under which I’d be willing to do so. This is pretty much the opposite of threating to to provide it, as if anything it amount to withholding the evidence. And you’ve hardly been waiting with bated breath…or if you have, you haven’t given any evidence of it.

@mhendo

Also, as i’ve pointed out on more than one occasion, i don’t deny that some on the left have framed the debate as one of “evolution vs. creationism.”

If you’ve pointed that out, then I don’t see what the area of disagreement is.

@mhendo

As Bryan Ekers noted, and as i noted in a previous post, there are good reasons for using such a shorthand in the context of particular debates, especially those about what to teach in the schools.

That may well be, but it doesn’t obviate in the slightest the confusion and wrongful beliefs you create when you do. It’s hardly kosher to create the shorthand impression that evolution explains the origins of life, and then point and laugh at people who take away from that unqualified shorthand that evolution purports to account for the origins of life.

@mhendo

What i asked you for, very clearly and straightforwardly, was evidence that leftists and liberals have blurred the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution.

And yet you’ve just admitted that you’ve used that very shorthand yourself.

Curious, that. I guess if the time comes when I go ferreting about for evidence to present in support of my position, I can find some of that evidence in posts of your very own. Who’da thunk it, eh?

@mhendo

You can keep going on like a whiny bitch about how you’ll only present your evidence in return for money or a specific admission of ignorance, but you’re getting nothing like that from me, so you might as well take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

Fine, works for me.

@mhendo

If a person of reason and integrity had, in the spirit of fun or competition, made similar offers, i might have been tempted to take them. But you don’t get any such concessions, because you’ve proven yourself to be a dissembling, dishonest, mendacious, insincere, equivocating piece of shit.

I think I’ve shown with your own words which of us in a dissembling, dishonest, mendacious, insincere, equivocating piece of shit. Frankly I’m surprised you have the gall to show your face after all the lies you posted about your behavior in this thread, lies that were clearly shown to be just that in the post-by-post breakdown I did of what you’d actually said and how you’d actually behaved.

So if I were you I think I’d do myself a favor and slink away and try to pretend to myself that this thread never happened, because you certainly haven’t done yourself any favors here…

Hey, I’ve got an idea. How’s about you copy this thread, or at least the part pertaining to us, to a word processor and then change your name so people won’t know who you are, and then present the thread to your class and see which one of us they think is correct and honest and which one is a mendacious, deceitful, lying, equivocating sack of shit.

I’m confident, how about you?

[Robot_Arm]

@Starving_Artist

Sure it does! And it does that by drawing an equivalence between evolution and creationism.

It seems that creationism is rather an ambiguous term, then.

1. The forming of the first organic molecules.

2. The origin of fully-formed humans (and all other life forms, presumably) as directed by an omnipotent creator.

But does anyone really use the former meaning? There may well be people who believe that God formed the first amino acids and let them marinate for a few billion years, but I’ve never heard that referred to as “creationism”, or its proponents as “creationists”. I’d like a cite for that usage if anyone has one.

Every time some leftie points and laughs at a creationist and questions how he or she can believe in creationism when the science behind evolution is undeniable, they are using evolution to deny creationism. Whenever an article in the NYT discusses evolution vs. creationism, it is creating an implication in the reader’s mind that one or the other is the answer to the beginnings of life. Etc., etc.

What started this whole line of discussion was my trying to point out why so many people in this country refer to evolution as though it were abiogenesis, and why it is that some people make reference to the “theory of evolution”. More than once I’ve seen people around here make snide remarks about it when someone - usually a conservative - mentions the ‘theory of evolution’, countering that evolution is settled science and not a theory. This tells me that person doesn’t understand what the speaker is thinking when he or she uses that term. What they mean is that evolution as an explanation for the beginning of life is only a theory,…

And this is where you’re trying to have it both ways. When liberals frame the debate of evolution vs. creationism, you think they’re using meaning 1, and therefore confuse people because that process is not truly understood, and a teachable controversy does exist. You’ve even said that mis-usage is deliberately intended by liberals. Ah, but when a conservative (quite reasonably, of course) metions creationism, now the liberals jump to meaning 2, and use the misunderstanding to discredit the poor, put-upon conservative.

And let me guess, in both cases the misunderstanding is the liberals’ fault.

[Acid_Lamp]

@Starving_Artist

Beats hell outta me, I’m just a poor country boy. I know Dick.

snip.

FTFY

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Those damn pernicious liberals had already done their dastardly work as early as 1925. The Butler Act shows the product of their efforts to cleverly make conservatives stupid through willful misinformation:

“That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”

Butler Act

Clearly they established that the theory of evolution was a direct challenge to creationism. This act of course led to the Scopes Monkey Trial. Wow, we liberals sure can work fast!

Wouldn’t most conservatives prefer that Starving for Attention’s theory is not accurate? I mean, he kind of portrays conservatives not only as stupid and easily misled, but also as real pussies. Liberals are capable of establishing a false debate, and conservatives not only buy in completely, but are completely incapable of educating themselves as to the actual facts of the situation?

I think part of the problem inherent in the process laid out by the OP is exemplified by Starving for Attention. Sure, I agree that a great deal of the conservative machine’s effort is to garner support by misinforming their base and keeping them stupid. However, many conservatives bring a boatload of stupid to the table to begin with. Starving, for example, is exceptionally and irredeemably stupid. Years and years on this board of complete idiocy. The death blow for his ultimate aptitude is his complete lack of awareness of just how dumb he is. He is the Man of LaMancha, only with extreme cognitive impairment.

[Walther_Ego]

So you need higher order animals in order to teach evolution? How high?