Oh, no, that’s OK. Don’t trouble yourself on our account, really, we’ll be fine…
Your point is unclear to me.
When a violent rape is reported on the news, is it more or less outrageous to you when they add that the violent rapist has done it multiple times before? I would say more because one wonders why they’re out on the street, allowed to do it again.
You can’t know what everyone on the planet is comfortable discussing. You’re purporting to speak for them.
If people are so uncomfortable discussing that subject, why do they keep bringing it up in jokes and asides?
It’s just his opinion. His opinion is that some things would have gone better if a policy had not been enacted. It can’t be proved or disproved because something else already happened. There’s no parallel planet to test out his theory.
So far, I’m not finding your objections in general to be very convincing, unless I’m misreading something, which is certainly possible as has already been pointed out in this thread.
Bring it, Great Imperial Douche-Bah!
Do you think that the lesser status of African Americans in the US prior to the civil rights movement was morally right or just?
I have to say my absolutely favorite thing about SA is his, apparently sincere, belief that the civil rights movement would have gone better if left in the hands of the people fighting against civil rights. I mean, we have some pretty stupid conservatives here, but SA might be the only one who I’ve seen express this belief. That’s some pretty high level stupid there.
Your false dichotomies are beyond ridiculous.
I do not think that the lesser status of African Americans is morally right or just at any time. From what I’ve read of his writing, neither does Starving Artist. If you’ve seen a post of his that claims otherwise, please present it.
That doesn’t mean that the forced integration policies were the best way to handle the problem or that it didn’t come with its own set of problems. Could it have been handled better? There’s no way to know. There’s no test case to compare.
I’m not interested in getting into a debate on something that’s an opinion of someone that can’t be proved or disproved.
But is this really the point that has you so upset?
What dichotomies are you talking about? I’ve presented none, so please explain your statement.
I’ve already quoted posts from him before on this subject in this thread. Please review them if you remain ignorant of them. His position that civil rights should have been granted in a slower and incremental manner. If a lesser status is immoral - and you already agree that it is, is it moral to allow it to persist any longer than it did?
What “forced integration” policies are you talking about? Please explain your statement.
No - the question is whether it’s acceptable to allow immoral policies to continue.
You keep interceding, so it would seem that you’re interested in asserting a position. Are you saying that people should simply accept your assertion unconditionally? Beyond that, you already stated that the lesser status of African Americans was not morally right or just at any time. If that’s the case, it’s simply not possible that it would be morally right or just to allow such to persist. Right?
There are so many assertions that SA has made that are immoral, disgusting, grotesque or silly. You keep wanting to argue otherwise. So, please do so. Help me to understand how SA’s positions can be defended.
Thank you for returning to clarify, and please accept my apology for suspecting and impugning your motives. I’ll try in the future to remember this event, when I’m tempted to withhold the benefit of the doubt.
Do I detect a faint note of sarcasm?
Well, if you do, it’s not because I put it there.
yo, Heff what’s up with you? How exactly did I get your knickers in a twist? I could go back to your rebuttal and point out they places where you don’t seem to have read what I wrote, or to be responding to my entire statements. But here’s the thing - I don’t think I’m saying anything all that new or different than anyone else on the topic of Starving Artist. I grant you that I did try to explain, again, why people might be offended by his posts. My bad. To be clear, for all the good it does, I am NOT going to try and debunk every word he wrote. 'kay?
(And, Boy, you really busted me on that whole “don’t speak for the world”. Yeah, you got me. I’ll watch my snark in the Pit in the future. No. No, I won’t. I like snark.)
So I guess it’s bust the new(ish) kid. Or something. Either that or you and SA are buds.
I like the user name though.
As I noted, I’m not interested in getting into a debate on the underlying statements.
I’m also not going to try to prove a negative.
If that policy position is enough for you to call someone immoral, disgusting and grotesque, that’s your call. It doesn’t rise to that level for me.
When you pointed out that there was a lot in a post that was wrong, I took it differently than just snark. I was interested about what the wrong was. It wasn’t about you personally. I’ve read the whole thread and didn’t come away with what you’re interpreting. Sorry if that came across as a personal attack.
I’ve been on the bottom of a lot of pile-ons. I’ve had a lot of lies told about me. Lots of people jump on the bandwagon once it’s going. Sometimes (or even once) it would have been nice for people to actually point out their grievance in a straightforward way. My questioning you was my way of trying to get some clarity around what the grievances were toward Starving Artist. I didn’t mean to put you on the spot. I just thought that since you were pointing out the wrong, you could clarify it.
Thanks.
So again, you’re interested in making assertions and demanding cites, but not in supporting or even clarifying what you write.
Okay, now, I have to be honest here. You keep using phrases like this, or like “false dichotomies” previously, in a way that makes it seem like you don’t really know what they mean.
And you keep saying you don’t want to debate, and then keep accusing me of committing these rhetorical offenses, but failing to specify how I am doing so. It’s pretty poor form.
And again, you said that disparate treatment of African Americans was immoral. Now you’re saying that it would not have been immoral to allow it to persist. I’m getting the impression that you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
Fair enough. If it were just us, we might be able to discuss this, but I came to the conclusion that I wouldn’t be able to discuss it with the person who wrote it. wrong wasn’t meant entirely as snark though. I found that particular post hard to wade through on several levels.
First up, if it helps scratch the curiosity itch I caused, I have a fundamental problem with the notion that any political group is solely responsible for all the ills (or all the good) that have happened in this country in the last 60 odd years. Political groups evolve. Membership changes. Beliefs shift. Take (benevolent deities help me for mentioning it) the relative positions on national healthcare from Nixon to today.
Then I got really stuck on the wall of words about all the things that are worse than rape and the liberals don’t care and they caused it.
I’ve read it several times. I think I can parse parts of it better now. I just don’t agree, as I said, that any one political party is responsible for all the eveeeel.
I didn’t follow the whole rant bit about what was worse than rape. Pretty sure there was a bit in the middle about repeat offenders, then a “won’t someone think of the children” thing on social promotion. Still not clear on how rape by a repeat offender is worse than any other kind. And a flat “no” on social promotion is worse than rape. Laughable and icky.
Then more Liberals, blah, blah, blah, liberals don’t care about people blah, liberals ruined everything, liberals, blah, blah, eat worms.
I condensed a bit.
So, given that you admittedly had pretty severe problems with reading comprehension in regard to my post you decided to call me out on it anyway?
It shows.
I’ve never said that liberals are responsible for all the nation’s ills. I’ve only said they’re responsible for the ones I’ve said they’re responsible for…which are major but not quite all encompassing.
I’ll grant you your confusion over the habitual criminal rape vs. rape again in the paragraph that followed. I had in mind Cosby-esque types of rape when I mentioned it the second time as contrasted with the type of rape often perpetrated by gang members and hardened criminals, and I can see in retrospect that I failed to make that distinction clear.
Regarding the rest of your post, there’s much to explain and much to criticize but I’m in a mellow mood tonight and don’t feel like investing the time energy to do so now. I’ll try to post a rebuttal tomorrow but for now I’ll just say that it’s clear you are large part of the problem.
You know, you’re right. That is stupid. In fact it may be one of the most stupid things anyone ever said.
That’s why I never said it.
And you can’t prove I did.
It’s pretty characteristic of my opponents on this board that since they can’t point to any genuinely stupid things I’ve said they’ll just self-invent stupid things and then claim I said them. Hector does the same and I’m about to give him the same challenge.
Will the empty sacks you two will end up holding be made of paper, burlap, plastic, or what?
This is awesome!
Having established the impossibility of standing anal rape of a juvenile through the scientific method of the cardboard tube, Starving Artist now moves on to more advanced research, and provides us with the beginnings of a more complete taxonomy of sexual assault.
From now on, the official term for amiable, sweater-wearing, drug-administering, entertainment-related rape, carried out on multiple victims over an extended time period, will be “Cosby-esque rape.”
Cosby-esque rape is not to be confused with real rape, which is only carried out by actual criminals.
No, social promotion (an ironic euphemism if I ever heard one) utterly destroys lives. The only thing it accomplishes is the exact opposite of what it’s ostensibly intended to do, which is salvage the student’s self-esteem. How much self-esteem do you think an adult who can’t speak properly or read road signs or fill out a job application or hold down a job paying enough to support himself or his family is going to have? It destroys lives. Rape victims can still date worthwhile people, get married, have careers, buy homes, raise kids who aren’t embarrassed that their parents are illiterate, etc., etc., etc.
That despicable practice destroys lives. Fifty years from now recent victims of that idiotic practice will still be suffering its consequences, as they have every day in the meantime. Even though I know it exists and have seen its effects first hand, it’s so stupid and illogical and obviously counter-productive that I somehow still can’t bring myself to believe that it actually happened.
And for educators of all people to embrace this nuttiness just defies all logic. If any group of people exists who ought to have insight into the value of an education and the consequences of not having one, it’s teachers and the administrators of schools.
And then there’s the obvious fact that graduating a kid from school wholly unable to function in society is going to be more harmful to his self-esteem by several orders of magnitude over that of failing him if he doesn’t learn the material.
And you accuse me of dishonesty and mendacity. :roll eyes:
It should be obvious even to a moron that to be raped while unconscious is going to be a less unpleasant experience than to be raped by some vicious and likely sadistic career criminal.
And no, I never claimed to prove standing anal rape of a juvenile was impossible. I claimed it wasn’t possible for the 60-year-old, 6’2" Jerry Sandusky to achieve it while in the position described by Mike McQueary.
Once again my opponents seem to think they can only gain the upper hand by distorting or lying about what I’ve really said. I’m starting to get that “WINNING” feeling again.