In the whole Train Wreck Of Clowns (Part Two) that is Jack Dean Tyler’s screed on circumcision, the one thing I can’t figure out is if JDT really means it all.
I bounce back and forth between thinking that he’s just a sophisticated troll, and that he’s a true believer who would put any creationist fundie to shame. That someone could hold that ugly mass of contradictory, free-floating, dogmatic axioms in their head and not use a gun to relieve the pressure is incredible.
BTW, thanks to Jodi (?) for the most apt characterization of these threads I’ve seen yet.
I think he’s quite sincere. That’s what frightens me.
I’ve taken to beginning off-the-wall debates with him in that thread, since common logic doesn’t seem to work on him. Heck, it makes no nevermind to me if guys are circumcised or not. But he’s making some truly outlandish claims and statements in his defense of anti-circumcision, and he’s backing them up with ravings and opinions (since he’s a self-professed penis expert). Ticks me off.
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, four weeks, one day, 17 hours, 54 minutes and 3 seconds.
8509 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,063.73.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 13 hours, 5 minutes.
If Jack has his way, ‘intact’ men will never achieve penetration again.
Cross-referencing this with the evolution debates we’ve had, we have a prime example of natural selection in action! Watch in awe as an entire species of men self-select out of reproduction…
Well, I’m convinced he’s sincere, which is why I find him amusing. If I thought he was a poser, he’d piss me off – because I have no time for phonies. But I think he’s on the level – pathetic and sad but on the level.
Of course, Dionne Warwick’s psychic friends are sincere, too. So were Anton LaVey and Charles Manson.
What gets me the most about him, and I shake my head in dismay when I’m just f’chrissakes thinking about him, is how he repeatedly states that there have been no studies on the physiology of the foreskin, and then in the very next paragraph makes assertions based upon studies of the physiology of the foreskin.
And then tells people that they don’t understand the concept of logic.
Well, here’s hoping that The Onion does a story on him. Preferably one where about him perishing in an ironic fashion. (bear in mind, I do not wish death upon him. His life is punishment enough)
I agree that he’s for real. I laugh at him, but at the same time, I can’t imagine what it would be like to really, passionately believe in something and have the whole world laugh at it.
I find it sad. I mean, here’s a guy who appears to be passionate about something, but he’s got so little to go on . . . he’s like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest. If he tries to do something, he’s going to fall over no matter how smart or quick he is.
And of course, the fact that I hate him passionately has nothing to do with it.
Yeah, and I found his “hidden” links and foolishly clicked on one at work. I seriously do not need my boss walking over and catching me looking at webpage with photos of penises (penii?).
I was with him up until the “I think we should spend 1/2 the national budget” studying his “issue”. That just seemed to set off red flags to me that this is someone having fun at our expense. I was wrong once before, though. Could be happening again.
