Monday, August 01, 2005

Only a Fool Tests the Depth of the Water With Both Feet

Originally posted by The Realist

As a reply to my Leviticus post, my American friend wrote an idiotic response. His reply and my riposte are below.

Anonymous said...
Well, your freedom to shout your ignorrance from the mountain top is a culmination of all past suffering and evolution. Maybe your parants should condemn all your childhood efforts and use them to destroy you today. Funny, why did you pick Leviticus to torture your ignorrance. Why not the Koran. Hard asses here say the best and brighest of England died in the war. I do not agree even if your case supports that theory.

Will he actually post this? If so he has hope.
dw USA

Oh dw, I don't know where to start with this. Out of courtesy, I won’t list and deconstruct your abhorrent spelling faux pas as I know that this runs contrary to the spirit of blogging. However, as the Goebbels of the grammar-nazi world, I am entirely unable to overlook their existence.

Partly to avoid boring the other three people who actually read this blog and partly as I’m rushed for time, I’ll list and counter your inaccuracies.

1. My hard fought freedom to shout my ‘iggnoorannnccee’ from the rooftops has a number of roots: ‘All past suffering’ is not one of them. Evolution explains my ability to write, think and to type with my opposable thumbs, however it does not explain my freedom to do so.

2. As a right wing christian (I know you from http://www.rrwr.blogspot.com/) you should surely be aware that there is no such thing as evolution, that the world is 8,000 years old and that all other religions and belief structures should be exterminated in the name of the holy baby Jew child, Jesus Christ.

3. My parents should, indeed, condemn my childhood efforts. Particularly in the following areas: drawing, haircuts and defecation in underwear. The point being that I have moved on from my early ways. I don’t compel my barber to provide a ‘pudding bowl’ haircut when he’s suggesting something ‘a little bit more modern’. To draw a parallel, society has moved on and evolved, so why should we apply past, flawed theories (i.e. Leviticus) to modern day issues?

4. I would have chosen the Koran or any of the major world religions – I hate them all. Some holy-freak was on TV quoting Leviticus as a basis for disallowing gay marriages, so I decided to read it. I just couldn’t believe the shower of holy shit that it was and felt compelled to inform the world. Well, the three readers of this site.

5. Re your WWII comment, the vast majority of those who died were the poorly educated working class soldiers. The brightest (usually the richest/best educated) largely survived as they were given officer roles. Once again, your ignorance astounds me.

6. We never delete comments from the board. What would be the point when we can so easily decimate them?

31 comments:

ph said...

Three readers - don't dispair - I think you need to do some marketing

ph said...

Levitcus .......

It appears that you shot the message rather than the messanger, when in fact you should have shot the messenger and not the message

ph said...

How does your hatred of all world religions qualify you as a Liberal
What it your take on non-religious belief systems, which are often far more extreme.

Alex Swanson said...

While I don't want to get involved in this particular argument, I have noticed over the years that people who say "I'm against all religion, not any particular one" do nevertheless tend to concentrate on criticising Christianity, even when the particular criticism involved might well be better aimed at Islam.

Just an observation.

Rachie said...

Which criticisms of Christianity in particular do you think would be better aimed at Islam?

Just curious...

Citizen Sane said...

I didn't write this piece, but I want to address a couple of points:

How does your hatred of all world religions qualify you as a Liberal?

Why wouldn't it? Liberalism requires (and ensures) that people of all faiths are free to pursue their beliefs in the manner of their choosing. The only caveat is that this must not infringe on the rights of others. However, it doesn't force anyone else to respect or care about those beliefs. The right to criticise or ridicule anything should be upheld as strongly as the right to believe in it.

As for the point by Alex Swanson about Christianity bearing the brunt of criticism, I generally agree with this point. But this is only really down to the fact that it's what we understand best. I had Christian prayer at school assembly, learned Christian belief systems in RE lessons, etc, and chose to reject it. It's not the case (personally speaking) that I want to exclusively criticise Christians, more the case that it's the only religion I've ever had real exposure to. But I do think all religions are equally ridiculous, outdated and self-contradictory.

ph said...

I agree that there is no need to care for, or respect anyone's religious beliefs, but I think hatred of those beliefs is taking it to far. What about people's cultural beliefs, can we reject those with equal vigour, and if so where does that leave Multiculturalism - the sacred text of Modern Liberalism ?

ph said...

Rachie - Active nntolerance of other religions would be one

Anonymous said...

I think ph makes a rather apt point about multiculturalism, though I wouldn't agree that it is the preserve of all liberals, especially true liberals (ie not the misleading 'liberal' democrats or any such fakes).

Nevertheless, it is funny how so many public institutions in this country are against forms of particularly Christian expression (never Islam of course! Allah forbid!) within public life, yet show their true colours when someone dares to suggest that multi culturalism (once again, a misleading term) is the pile of horse wank that it is. July 7th has shown us that. I am not anti-immigration by any means, but am certainly agressively integrationist.

But that is too reasonable for some people. The hard (and not so hard) left, which has for so long in this country, complained about the destruction of 'democracy', 'Thatcher' and 'the establishment' etc etc, shows its complete contempt for the concept when someone disgarees with them. Usually hiding behind their catch-all versions of 'racism', 'sexism', 'elitism' and all the other words they don't really understand.

What they really mean is 'it's so undemocratic that everyone isn't forced to agree with us'.

Citizen Sane said...

Agreed - the point about multiculturalism is a good one. But, once again, the rule of thumb is utilitarianism. People should be free to pursue whatever lifestyle they choose as long as it does not encroach the rights of another. This gets us into some grey areas, but who can name an ethical or value system that doesn't?

ph - for me, it's not really about "hatred of those beliefs", more irritation that humanity continues to cling to superstition and folklore; that people are prepared to fight and kill over "holy land" or some vague text from a thousand years ago or longer, whether that be the Koran, the Bible, take your pick.

I agree with anonymous - I don't think multiculturalism is exclusively the preserve of liberalism or any part of the political spectrum really. Perhaps "modern liberalism", but that's not really what I ascribe to. I'm more a "classical liberal" kind of guy: low taxes, small government, meritocracy, personal liberty, personal responsibility, acceptance of other opinions (but with the right to disagree bitterly and criticise - all in the name of enlightenment).

On that note, ph: would you like to write a guest blog? You can choose the topic, and you will not be edited or censored in any way (although I reserve the right to correct spelling and typos). How about "What's wrong with the liberal elite" (suggested by The Realist)?

Anonymous said...

OK that suficiently hurt. I think I deserve some/most of the negative feedback and you are hell good at it. I apologize for my spelling and am sure that we misunderstand eachother and as this is your site I am humbled.

I attribute all I love as rooted in Christianity and Our English Brothers culture and historical struggles. Even today you English quietly excell in so many areas as we regress socially yet report false negative media stories about Islam usurping your nation.

IMPORTANT! I am not a Christian (nor other) and you are not a liberal.

And you say you do not delete posts as you can intellectually destroy them? OK allow for my poor spelling and I will post and see if you can teach me something.
dw

ph said...

Would it be possible for the various anonymouses to use some sort of identity otherwise I get confused as to who is who.

I would be honoured to contribute a blog, but am away for the next few days - (Norfolk). I am not sure that I have sufficient "book larnin'" for it to be any good though.

LC said...

You definitely have more than 3 readers ... at least i'm not one of those 3 ... so you must at least be on 4 now! And by the way I think this blog is great! :o)

Citizen Sane said...

ph - Great. Just write something when you get the chance. Send it over to me by e-mail (you can get my e-mail address on my Blogger profile screen).

Ic - Thanks! Glad somebody's enjoying it!

Anonymous said...

Oh Reasist! You slandered Pres. Reagan at the Blogspot. Seems I remember him sending in our Marines and helping save the Falkland Islands so you could maintain a monopoly on the nutmeg market. Funny, I think the Argentenes like him more than you do. Oh well!

Citizen Sane said...

Wrong.

The US did not commit any troops whatsoever during the Falklands Conflict: they were officially neutral during the whole saga. So it seems you're the only person to remember Reagan sending marines in. The closest he got to committing US personnel was deploying Alexander Haig as an emissary.

Still, thanks for your input, even if it was incorrect in every way imaginable.

Anonymous said...

F*** God**** Sonofa*** ok you are correct and I am now expert upon the Falkland Islands Thanx a whole hellofalot. Why can't you shut the fuck up and let sombody put you in your place. Have to say I admire those British Commandos, but I think they were US Marines in disguise.

I'll be back (have to recouperate my face) and you'll be sorry. dw

Citizen Sane said...

Bring it on!

ph said...

Anon,

The British soldiers on the Falklands were Paratroopers not commandos. Also I seem to remember that the American attitude to the Falklands campaign was far from supportive of the UK government's position on re-taking the Falklands. I suppose that was because the given a choice between a facist right wing dictator or a democractic government their moral compass gets confused, as it did in the 1940's when they could find no reason for declaring war on the government of Mr A. Hitler.

Anonymous said...

You guys are cruel, can you come over to my turf, on second thought realist already did. It was a sneaky hit and run gurrella attack and he fled but I followed him here and got wounded but discovered this virtual verbal terrorist training site and I planted a bomb and fled but realist took it back to my turf where it exploded and wounded ne again and then my face hurt but I heal quickly and... ?

Come to think of it. I'll just go home now! This is a dangerous place. dw

Citizen Sane said...

dw - that is one convoluted metaphor. Anyway, you'll be back. You love it here.

Anonymous said...

How the hell long will this post stay up. I can't hack so I am flying there to personally erase it. What's your address? By the way, I hate tea. dw

Anonymous said...

Well the post is still here and I missed that flight out there thanx to Katrina so Im sending some Welsh thug friens of mine. They don't like tea eather.
Hey! you guys take care.

Anonymous said...

'Take care" ment I wish you all well (unless you leave that post up in perpetuity).

Citizen Sane said...

We don't take posts down or delete comments (unless they're spam), but don't worry this will soon be buried in the archives!

Hope Katrina didn't affect you too bad. Do you live in that area then?

Anonymous said...

No was joking am in California but in spite of my rhetoric Katrina is respomsible for me actually hoping that Liberals are ok. Except for you CS I hate Liberals. by the way, I don't mind the post, just like joking about it.

Citizen Sane said...

DW, I'm honoured. But when something like Katrina comes along, with the terrible devastation left in its wake, not to mention the criminally (in the most literal sense) slow reaction of the authorities afterwards, political labels like "liberal" and "conservative" really are meaningless. Bush fucked up in a big way - no argument. Not because he's a Conservative, but because he's a complacent and incompetent buffoon totally unsuited to the highest office in the world. I've read the same criticism of him from many commentators on the right and the left - the whole thing has showed just what a poor leader he really is.

Anonymous said...

CS am not up on the details of crisis management but do know that laws are a priority and the feds cannot go in unless or until the local or state govermnents declare an emergency. mAc posts that year Bush helped declared New Orleans a disaster area prior to a hurricane so as to act immediately and he was accused of politics to gain favor. The New Orleans local and state governments are incompetent and Louisanna has a long standing reputation of corruption. Massive welfare and ethnic housing projects there hence the unusual crime and strange reactions in the aftermath. Crackheads suffering forced withdrawal and ignorant unorganized people. Consider, who knew better who could and could not get out, the Local Government? I think Bush fucked up because he is our leader and we expect him to sove problems no matter the obsticles.

CS I would never admit it as I long ago learned that enemies will take your honesty and twist it into a club to beat you to death with it. Even so, I understand and see with a different eye what is ment when some accuse conservatives (or Bush) of not caring. To define it would be bearing the soul of conservative idealogy and to me it's soul cannot be defended against those that are Liberal. I would only discuss it in private with those I trust.

I don't know where you are reading, I am easily finding posts that clearly explain our laws and FMA as well as show that Louisianna
is responsible for the failed levee, the people that stayed and the slow response. I read the hurricae warning. It gave detailed description of what damage particular buildings would sustain and it painted a very bleak picture of survival. I cannot believe anyone would stay. It did not however predict flooding but the locals must have questioned their own levee as funds were appropiated to upgrade it years ago. dw

Anonymous said...

By the way, Bush is a Liberal. dw

Citizen Sane said...

All fair points. I appreciate your honesty there too. But I still think Bush is a terrible leader. Too hesitant, very uninspiring. Very inarticulate.

As for Bush being a liberal. . . well, he seems to run up budget deficits like a 70s liberal, but without the public spending. Instead it seems to be going on military spending (which is understandable) and tax cuts for the wealthiest (which isn't).

Anonymous said...

Yea Bush is a piece of work alright. I believe him a good man but in politics I do not know. He took the war to the enemy? It embarasses me at times watching him.

If your interested. We hate socialism however some aspects are necessary. The tax cuts were fair and across the board. Those that paid most (the wealthy) received the most back. A poor man will never give you a job. The wealty will invest not to mention much of the tax refund were immediately spent temporarily boosting the economy. I am a capitolist and I understand the down side such as it breeds financial enequity. I understand the initial benifits of socialism (and I use initial as no socialism has built a prospering economy) as well as where it leads and how tomorrows socialist generations will suffer. (it's acedemic) Similar to our backwards ethnics living here, some having lived whole lives without a job and single moms with numerous children by numerous fathers. It is pathetic but they have the leadership they demand and we appease them to avoid riot. As far as corruption, nothing exceeds socialism in my opinion. I have friends from the former eastern block. They have some good stories and I believe European Socialism will fall by the same wayside and actually fear Europe in a real economic crisis. Our economy is good, Europe is at risk from what I read. I am afraid to admit it but think 'isms' might fog us over, Ther must be a happy medeum of social idealogies as the world has changed. But histoy is replete of the benifits of empires( even though Liberals focus upon the sufferings of their creation and those not assimilated) although we are not one.

Hey CS, I've ranted and enjoyed it and owe you to read anything you write no matter how long.

If youever want to see and hear some down home traditional Americans discuss issues 'Rednecks Revenge' is my site of preference, yet will offend but like you posts all and welcomes all if they can stand the heat. (I tell ya Realist, yourself and Ph put some heat on my ass but I came back.) dw