Grossbottom - let's stop distracting the thread, shall we?

Here’s your chance. Explain yourself. Or not. I don’t care.

Sorry - thread here. Look down towards the bottom of P2 and onto P3.

My first impression is that the ‘distraction’ was created by you and Frylock by pouncing on his off-the-cuff remark and requesting a clarification. He should have ignored you instead of responding with jargon and hostility, the latter getting him a justified warning.

Personally, I think “irreconcilable with morality” suggests amorality, not immorality (immoral suggests to me that something was reconcilable, but got a negative score on a morality “scale”), but I’m not eager to supply a proof of an arbitrary distinction. There’s more than enough of that crap around here, with people breaking out the electron microscopes to find some miniscule basis on which they can claim their position was not incorrect, even if it’s something as trivial as, say, an additional sub-definition of an obscure word Noah Webster suggested that one time in 1798 he was loaded on opium, though even the cited reference suggests the anecdote may be apocryphal.

In any case, I see no heroes, here. He’s a jerk, but exposing him as one is a feat worthy of at most three claps of sarcastic applause. Bra-vo.

A pointless semantic nitpick! On the SDMB! Who woulda thunk it?

Amorality is to morality as atheism is to theism.

It’s phrases like this that keep me out of GD, and I’m sure that’s much to everyone’s satisfaction.

Or as about is to bout, I guess.

::golf clap::

I’ve put alot of time and thought into this. This is science and I’ve got charts on it. After extensive research and testing, after a nearly endless pouring over of leather-bound volumes in literally thousands of libraries around the world, I feel I’ve finally got an explanation for you as to what went wrong there. And the explanation is that, unsurprisingly: you’re a stupid cunt. Specifically, you’re a stupid cunt who:

  1. Didn’t know what “irreconcilable” meant,
  2. Wouldn’t admit it when he didn’t know what that word meant,
  3. Ran into a chickenshit semantic argument like a fucking coward because he couldn’t figure out how wrapping himself in an American flag and jumping on my case didn’t result in an expected pile-on and his becoming an internets hero;
  4. Began misattributing positions to me despite being repeatedly corrected,
  5. Sat there snivelling like a little baby when I kept asking him to cite what he claimed I had said, and in general who,
  6. Is a fucking cunt who is, in fact, fucking stupid.

Now that’s our outline, but let me explain in detail how your being a stupid cunt resulted in the quasi-trainwreck under discussion. Here’s a note from the real world of social interaction: if you don’t understand something and as a result jump on someone’s case, do you know what you’re supposed to do?

Say you’re fucking sorry.

Don’t sit there wasting people’s time with your stupidity and semantic horseshit and generally pissing them off further. Don’t tap dance for me cocksucker, because I got a tv. Be a man, grow a pair, own up to the mistake. To do otherwise gets you called a stupid cunt. I may even call you a shit weasel. And whatever points your cuntery and shit weaselishness might net you in that sad pseudo-intellectual subculture which encourages acting like a troglodyte no matter how fucking wrong you are, it’s exactly bullshit like yours that turns GD into a bunch of pretentious asswipes sitting around debating evolution v. creationism every three months. Brain trust numero fucking uno.

So for the record, irreconcilable doesn’t mean “opposite of.” Insisting that it does when it clearly fucking does not, coupled with every other incidence of idiotic cuntery you displayed in that thread, annoyed me and resulted in a level of assholishness on my part which you well fucking deserved. If you didn’t enjoy it, then the next time your being a stupid cunt results in a wee faux pas, say you’re fucking sorry. Because that’s what people do when they’re fucking wrong, which you clearly fucking were.

Incident: Explained.
Stupid cunt: GomiBoy.
Rant: Overdue.
Two snaps: Circle.
Kiss: My ass.

Happy Friday, fuckface. Love ya, mean it.

I did not read the linked thread, so I have no idea who is wrong or right here. But that, my icky posteriored friend, was a Thing of Beauty. Bravo.

So, to repeat from the other thread -


I responded to you in the other thread.

First off, well done, that was amusing. No I didn’t read the thread.

But what the hell does this phrase mean?

And it shows. Bravo. That was epic.

It means he has enough banal entertainment already.

You’re an asshole, but you’re an extremely funny asshole, and in this case you’re absolutely on the money. Koo motherfuckin doze.

For those involved or watching the discussion over whether “irreconcilable with morality” implies “immoral”:

It strikes me that we may be using a word differently, but it’s not “irreconcilable,” but rather, “morality.” I am using it in this case to mean something like “Conformity to moral law,” or, in one word, “virtue.” Are others meaning something other than this by “morality?”

To say something is “irreconcilable with conformity to moral law” or “irreconcilable with virtue” is clearly to say that it is immoral or vicious (i.e. the opposite of virtuous). But it may be that you guys have not had this sense of “morality” in mind.


The behavior of my dogs is “irreconcilable with conformity to moral law.” It is not immoral. Or vicious, for that matter. It is outside the realm of morality. The two (dog behavior and morality) cannot be reconciled.

I take it we’re assuming dogs have no moral sense–that their behavior is morally neutral.

“Irreconcilable with conformity to moral law” means the same as “Can not be made compatible with conformity to moral law.” But if your dogs’ behavior is morally neutral, then it is compatible with conformity to moral law. Nothing about your dog’s behavior makes it the case that moral laws have been broken. Certainly, your dog is not acting with the intention to conform to moral law (it wouldn’t be morally neutral then) but that is beside the point. For something to be incompatible with conformity to moral law, it would have to be that the thing makes it the case that some moral law has been broken.


No, the dog’s behavior is amoral. Not neutral, not positive, not negative. Moral law does not apply to dogs.

Morality concerns itself with behavior; with what should or should not be done, according to some abstract code, given certain circumstances. Canine behavior does not. There is no moral element. There is no abstract code. There is no right or wrong.