Zzzzzzzzz…
You’re a narcoleptic lying pathetic self-pitying troglodyte with delusions of grandeur.
Im here for the intellectual stimulatuion :rolleyes:
OK, THAT was funny.
Got to admit it was. 
Me too. It was this, or one of your stories.
Me, I’m here for the intellectual simulation.
My point, which I’m sure you’re smart enough to’ve seen if you hadn’t thought you’d get more mileage out of dishonestly mischaracterizing my post, was that racism was systemic: it was part of the fabric that made up your golden years. It was part of what made them golden. The paradigm shift that began with the Civil Rights movement and eventually opened up the white male ivory tower to other segments of society is exactly the “incivility” you bemoan.
To pine for that time, to wish things were the way they were then, is to wish to condemn huge segments of society to inequal treatment and to fewer rights than you.
You can’t have the facade of social stability that people associate with that era without keeping blacks and women in their place. To yearn for a return to that time is to reverse all the social progress made by non-whites, non-heteros, and non-males.
That was my point: you can’t have your cake and eat it too. And to value your cake over the individual freedoms of the non-straight/white/males is, just to focus on the issue at hand, implicitly racist: it values the social standing of whites over the social standings of blacks.
It has jackshit about your political philosophy. It has to do with the fact you can’t argue for shit.
You can’t back up your arguments, you weasel when asked to do so, and pull the whole, “I don’t have time right now”, or you’ll say, “I know because I was there!” Or “Everyone knows – it’s common knowledge!” Or you’ll tell us to check any newspaper/book/magazine blah blah blah.
Or you blame everything on liberals, and hippies. Grow some balls and take responsibility for your own actions.
She never had a motor in the back of her Honda, from what I heard.
It’s not very Christian, to say the least.
Well, I guess he could just say “me too!”
Hello Kettle?!, This is Pot–
No, it would be nice if he could actually construct a decent argument, instead of ignoring factual citations in favor of pre-conceived notions based on personal feelings.
I’ve learned a number of things here from more conservative posters, and do not value a bunch of people saying “me too”.
That was actually a swipe at Guinastasia.
OK, I agree. I was just replying to the poster that I quoted–hence the kettle, pot reference.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Ahem, now that I’ve said that, it would be nice if when I posted cites that couldn’t be argued with they weren’t ignored.
And it would be nice if when I made a series of many valid points, posters didn’t ignore the meat of the post and then split hairs or misstate what I’d said back to me on the least significant one.
It would nice if posters here responded to what I say with the honesty and integrity their condemnation of me suggests.
Lots of things would be nice.
I don’t expect change.
Since you are committed to resisting change to your last breath, one can hardly blame you.
What actions? I’m taking responsibility for them right here. And I’ve duked it out in every thread I’ve been Pitted in.
And as for honesty, intellectual or otherwise, you are one of the more dishonest posters to this board. You love to run around screeching “Cite!” every time you find a thread that I’m involved in even though you know fully well that no such cite exists or can exist. And that is a tactic that is not only dishonest, it’s cowardly. You can’t refute my point, and you don’t think you can argue against it effectively, and it’s just another version of the “me, too” mentality you are famous for by allowing you to jump on the “SA refuses to post cites” bandwagon that so many of your likewise dishonest boardmates love to revel in. I’ve said time and time again around here that I have no trouble posting probative cites (Merriam Webster has a dictionary online if you need to look that up).
Likewise, if somebody posts a cite that is valid and credible, I have no problem with that either. What I have a problem with is when somebody posts some so-called cite that either doesn’t prove what he says it does, or comes from a biased and questionable source, or is something that I don’t believe a credible analysis is possible for. Take teen pregnancy figures, for instance. Given HIPPA and privacy laws and the teenage propensity for embarrassment and/or shame over getting pregnant (and/or getting abortions), I strongly suspect a great many girls get pregnant and no one ever knows about it or the information is confidential and protected. Yet someone around here will post some claim from somewhere that says teen pregnancy is down (what was that school in Chicago again where one in every eight girls is pregnant?) and everyone jumps on it like manna from heaven in order to claim that my claim has been unqestionably refuted.
Another example would be when I talk about the rise in STDs since the pre-counter-culture revolution. Some dolt will shockingly inform me that STDs have been around all through history, as though that had anything to do with what I said (after all, isn’t it obvious by my use of the word “rise” that I’m aware of pre-existing STDs in this country). Then someone else will post a cite that New York city had a high rate of STDs in 1909, which again has nothing to do with the national rise in STD rates since the mid-to-late sixties.
Then everyone will slap each other on the back and claim that I’ve been proven wrong, with reverberations of those silly cites and claims that I’ve been proven wrong time and again reverberating for months in threads like this.
It’s bullshit.
Now, as for arguing, you may find this hard to believe but I don’t actually come here to argue or debate. Debating in particular I regard as a waste of time. Like I said recently to someone in another thread, log on to Youtube sometime and watch the Firing Line debate between William F. Buckley and Noam Chomsky – two very intelligent and more accomplished debaters than this place is ever likely to see – and tell me what you think was settled.
What I try to do is present an alternative point of view. Or to challenge statements that I think are wrong. In a sense I feel obliged to contest the things I challenge for fear that if no one disputes them they will be blindly accepted as the truth by fence-sitters and the uninformed. I also feel obliged to answer whenever someone responds to something I’ve said. But none of that means I come here to engage in the mental gymnastics of debating people. I would be perfectly happy to state my piece and let it go at that. I only argue with people who argue back at me, and when I do so I’m gonna play by my rules, not theirs (yours).
And now here we have yet another well-worn and dishonest Doper tactic (and poster). Rather than meet an argument head on, people like elucidator sometimes try the sideways tactic of marginalizing or dismissing a poster or his points by trying to make them look silly, hidebound or not worthy of listening to for some other reason. I’m always cheered when people like elucidator stoop to these tactics though, because it means that when it comes to a substantive challenge to the points I’ve made, they got nothin’.
Obviously this is a stupid thread because it’s beating one’s head against a brick wall. SA won’t change or stop, and people won’t change in the way they interact with him.
Having said that, I reserve the right to engage in pointless wasting of electrons as much as anyone, thus this post.
Sorry, but this is crap, and if you (and any number of other conservatives who have posted in this thread) think slamming SA is just a generic slam on conservatives, or that he’s only being pitted because he’s conservative, frankly you are doing yourself a disservice by putting yourself at his level.
I had an exchange with SA which (paraphrasing) went basically like this: He inferred something based on his personal experience. I pointed to a book containing actual studies of the phenomenon in question which showed he was wrong, or at least his personal experience was atypical. He said words to the effect of: “who am I going to believe, my own eyes or some book?”. If he’d said that he had a counterstudy, or pointed out holes in the study, that would be fine. But he didn’t. As I said at the time, he is a person for whom the Enlightenment never happened. He doesn’t accept research, he just accepts that however he feels or whatever his experience has been is How It Is and he simply isn’t able to accept that the world has moved on (and for the better) to the point where we have tools and techniques for study of things that are simply better than the confining walls of one’s own experience.
He is a certified ignoramus, and he’s not ashamed of that, or denying of that: he just thinks that there is nothing better. He is to be pitied and he is not someone worthy of these boards or serious engagement.
I might disagree with for example Bricker, or with **Oakminster **or **Sam Stone **but I would never say about them what I have just said about SA.
A person for whom the Enlightenment never happened? Hah! Here we go again with faux liberal superiority.
Still, your damn right I never experienced the Enlightenment. Neither has the country. Unless you call a couple of generations of people who don’t know the difference between ‘there,’ ‘their’ and ‘they’re,’ or ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ and who think every word that ends in “s” takes an apostrophe…where college students say shit like “Me and her were at the mall last weekend” or “Have you went and put down your deposit yet?”
Or where criminals in their twenties and thirties with a dozen or more convictions under their belt are roaming the streets shooting and stabbing and raping people.
Or where millions of people have had their lives destroyed by drugs and/or the criminal activity associated with it. (I’d wager that at least 90% of this board’s population either knows someone whose home has been broken into by someone looking to get money for drugs, and who knows how many people have been killed in drug-related crimes. And that doesn’t even touch on the anguish and misery the family members and loved ones of drug addicts have to go through.)
Or where kids are growing up in broken or single-family homes in an environment virtually guaranteed to make sure they are doomed to live lives of crime and deprivation.
So American society is defined these day by the breakdown of the family unit, rampant STD rates, crimes committed by people who ought to be in jail, widespread drug use and addiction, high school graduates who couldn’t have passed the fifth grade in the fifties; etc., etc., etc.
This is serious shit. Peoples’ lives are lost, made miserable, or permanently ruined by all this, and on a scale that dwarfs whatever ill-doing you want to lay at the feet of conservatives.
And yet, incredibly, people like you think this is a more enlightened time?
William F. Buckley once said “Liberals mean well but do ill, and then excuse their ill-doing by their well-meaning,” but it’s obvious he never discovered this place. Not only are the ill consequences of liberalism not excused around here, they aren’t even acknowledged.
And yet you have the gall to call me unenlightened. With enlightenment like you’ve wrought, who needs enemies?