Gee, no shit, Nimrod?
Tell me, did you even hear the whoooosh as that joke sailed over your head?
What do I have to do? Howzabout:
“To nose or not to nose, that is the nose”
That’s Stienbeck.
You’da got that, right?
Well, yeah. Much like the guys from your end equate cynicism and heartlessness with hard-headed pragmatism.
So, OK. Show me where RTA said something to deserve the kind of treatment he got. Read over the thread several times, sure don’t see it. I don’t like bullys. I regard it as a duty to confront such behaviour. If that’s the kind of thing that defines “knee-jerk liberal” then hooray for us.
Well, I thought about that. On the one hand you might be making a crude excuse for a joke. On the other hand, you might be dumber than a boxful of hampsters. It was a close call, but on considering the evidence, I went with the hampsters.
Now put away Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations and shut up, 'kay?
All people from my end? Which I’m taking to mean conservatism, even though I’m not really much of a conservative. In any event, if you make statements that claim that all conservatives are heartless and cynical, you’ll soon draw embarrassed apologies from intelligent liberals like jshore and kimstu. Why? Because your ilk make them look bad if they allow that sort of crap to stand.
If you want to declare that all conservatives have evil intentions, please find a message board that encourages the spreading of ignorance, and regale them with your knowledge of Clasics Illustrated for the Novice Pedant. If you want to debate the issues with facts, as Manhattan has done, find an adult to hold your hand first, so things aren’t so scary for you.
I’d do it, but anything I could say has already been explained in the OP, with far more erudition than I am capable of. If you still don’t see where RTA interjected meaningless and content-free arguments into the thread, I’m afraid I can’t help you much.
Oh, please!
How valiantly you slash down straw men of your own devise!
Nobly, you stand against the proposition that all conservatives are heartless cynics. Bravely done, lad.
Well, the only other way to read your post was to think that you consider yourself to be as incapable of rational thought as moron right-wingers. As dumb as you are, I didn’t think you’d admit to it yourself. I guess then that we are in agreement that you indeed do measure a person’s intelligence by their political convictions, rather than any rational standard. Always good to know such things.
What is a “hampster”? Is it a cross between a hamster and a hamper? Is it a basket for dirty clothes covered in brown fur? Or is it a small rodent that lives in the laundry?
YOu know, if there is ever, god forbid, a pit thread about me I sure hope that elucidator is there. I don’t care if her is attacking or defending me: either way, whatever petty thing I might have done will simply fade into the background.
Manda JO: Thanks. I think. Oh, well.
Ought to end with a pithy, cogent quote.
“Bite me”
-Elucidator
There.
I read it that way myself. One can be in denial for only so long.
Strong words. Let’s take a look at what RTA said:
…true, according to Snopes. Which is what was being discussed…
That’s a question. Literally speaking, it therefore cannot be a lie. Less anal retentively, it implies a certain logical argument. Strictly speaking, the logic is faulty, since damage to the caribou population has not been established.
Loosely speaking, if there are more caribou near heavy toxin-pumping machinery, the potential for damage seems to be greater.
Conclusion: I see some flakey logic and weak empiricism (after all, the key issue is habitat and species degredation, which if anything relates to the share of the caribou population in the area) but I see no lies. That is, I see no attempts at deception. So far.
Ok, so RTA responds with a (1) a funny (2) some sarcasm about big oil and (3) a tangent. This isn’t lieing. This is distraction. It’s obfuscation. A lie would be making a false claim about snopes.
Mischaracterizing the impact of drilling on caribou populations: Give me a break. I don’t know whether heavy machinery limits caribou reproduction. Neither does RTA. I suspect neither does manhattan. RTA’s point is that it’s not likely to help. It’s pretty clear that he was expressing his opinion --a not implausible opinion I might add, since some species are very sensitive to habitat disruption (eg Pink Flamigos).
I’ve seen no false claims. I’ve seen no attempts at deception. I’ve only seen opinions, attempts at humor (hey, worked for me), and the meeting of logical argument with evasive tactics. And the latter is par for the course, I’m afraid.
I think Manhattan owes someone an apology. (A response such as, “I’m sorry for this, but I still think you’re a that”, would suffice IMHO).
The lies were in the implications, flowbark, and RTA was called on those same implications. When he failed to back up said implications (yes, I know I used the word “implications” three - or rather, four, now - times), it began to become clear that he was using those implications (five!) to suggest something that was untrue.
And Elucidator’s still a moron (maybe I should make that my sig line from now on).
SPOOFE: Jeez, I read the thread again; maybe I’m missing something. I thought it was pretty clear that RTA was talking out of his ass; I really don’t think he implied that he knew what he was talking about. Later on RTA says,
That’s 1) a concession, 2) an unsupported but plausible claim, 3) hemming and hawing.
In short, 'ol RTA was indulging in rhetoric. Not the most entertaining rhetoric, but heck, we can’t all write like Scylla. [sub]Also, I actually liked elucidator’s sketch about the seals and killer whales. [/sub]
Well, heck, I’m not here to defend the OP… just offer my take on the premise.
And Elu… oh, nevermind.
You’re point is not entirely without merit, flowbark. But you know what? Here’s the thing. I’m fucking sick and tired of being accused of wanting to kill duckies and bunnies every time I point out that American use oil and gas[sup]1[/sup]. I’m tired of being accused of starving schoolchildren because I think taxes are too high.
More generally I am sick and tired of patronizing sarcasm from demonstrated know-nothings idiots like RTA. So here’s the current plan. Every time a know-nothing fuckwit responds to a legitimate point I make with patronizing sarcasm, I’m going to Pit them. Every single fucking time.
And as Cecil is my witness, I am going to beat them (rhetorically, of course) into actually learning something about the stuff they mindlessly repeat, even if it takes me this entire century (which, given how long it took me to get this thread to load, it will).
I would encourage others, on both (all) sides of the political spectrum, to do the same. I’m under no illusions that there are people on the right on this board who went to the same knee-jerk academy as RTA. Beat them into learning what they’re bleating. Consider it your contribution to the war on ignorance.
[sup]1. It suddenly occurs to me that I had duck for dinner last night, so I guess I plead guilty to wanting to kill duckies and bunnies. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with increasing American oil and gas reserves![/sup]
You are kidding yourself in the latter two paragraphs of your post manhattan. Pit threads can humiliate a poster into being more careful about what they post (or stop them debating entirely). But it won’t learn 'em. If this is the current plan, reread this thread to see how well it will go.
Oh, would you!? Gee, that would be swell!
Kind of like I feel about Clinton: all in all, a disappointment, but if Jesse Helms hates his guts, he must be doing something right.
Flowbark: a closely reasoned response, temperate, moderate, well-considered. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Point of fact, I didn’t. Could have used a couple of good quotes, but all in all, a commendable effort.
Manny, “ducks and bunnies”? Give me a break! You want hard-head, realistic and pragmatic. OK, here it is: we need more oil because we are, as a people, greedy, fat and lazy. We will either change because we are sensible and wise, or change will be shoved up our collective Gingrich.
Be that as it may, if I’m on Millionaire, and the question is on the mating habits of caribou, I’m calling you! Give me the right answer, I’ll bludgeon a baby seal in your honor.
I’m sure everyone realizes this by now, but we liberals aren’t all assholes.
Exac-a-dactly, a. And a lot of you seriously know your shit, too. Hell, sometimes you’re even right. Uh, make that correct, I guess. You know what I mean.
But the RTA/Stoid school, well it rubs me exactly like the “anal sex is unnatural” crowd. (insert joke here)
I’m not inserting anything there, pally.