Split from Freedom in Houston

[The Johnny]

Just keep in mind that anything we say, everything we do, means more than what is apparent.

Saying a racial slur even if it's just "for the purpose of offending someone" and "not really meaning it", in fact, actually means that you are effectively participating in reinforcing racial discrimination, even if you think it does not. Maybe you don't consider yourself a "racist", but what is the difference between reinforcing racial discrimination and actually being a racist? Merely a difference in degrees.

Morally speaking:  No difference.
Pragmatically speaking:  No difference.

An evil person is one who does evil things.  Likewise, a racist person is one who does racist things.

QED.

I will make a connection with something that might resonate with something you commented a couple weeks ago:

Margaret Thatcher: she had certain "greatness" (evil greatness), in which she stuck by her guns, and did what she professed.

We do not have that anymore, we only have crypto-fascists, crypto-racists, crypto-homophobes and all one can think of under the sun. So what do we get? A bunch of assholes that keep on acting like assholes, but won't admit to being assholes.

Obama: I AM MORALLY AND CATEGORICALLY OPPOSED TO TORTURE AND LACK OF A PROPER TRIAL (keeps Guantanamo functioning)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just keep in mind that anything we say, everything we do, means more than what is apparent.

Saying a racial slur even if it's just "for the purpose of offending someone" and "not really meaning it", in fact, actually means that you are effectively participating in reinforcing racial discrimination, even if you think it does not. Maybe you don't consider yourself a "racist", but what is the difference between reinforcing racial discrimination and actually being a racist? Merely a difference in degrees.

Morally speaking:  No difference.
Pragmatically speaking:  No difference.

An evil person is one who does evil things.  Likewise, a racist person is one who does racist things.

QED.

I will make a connection with something that might resonate with something you commented a couple weeks ago:

Margaret Thatcher: she had certain "greatness" (evil greatness), in which she stuck by her guns, and did what she professed.

We do not have that anymore, we only have crypto-fascists, crypto-racists, crypto-homophobes and all one can think of under the sun. So what do we get? A bunch of assholes that keep on acting like assholes, but won't admit to being assholes.

Obama: I AM MORALLY AND CATEGORICALLY OPPOSED TO TORTURE AND LACK OF A PROPER TRIAL (keeps Guantanamo functioning)

Even in her day, Thatcher was an oddity.  She was a monster.  She knew why everyone hated her, and she didn't care.  When I say "greatness", I don't mean it in a positive way.  I mean it more like "the great Chicago fire".

Only rarely do people admit to being assholes.  This doesn't make them more palatable, it only makes them proud assholes.

[The Johnny]

No Johnny, it's all about what you really feel deep down inside and stuff!  The idea of a rich inner life which determines the meaning of our actions is totally not a means to rationalize ones actions, and those who claim otherwise are just psychobabble addled Freudians.

I can see why you like the italics for sarcasm now.

I remember that one time when I argued entire paragraphs in italics simulating the opposition's position to its logical conclusion. Needless to say, i did not inform everyone appropiately and it caused several dozen pages of outrage and dog-piling 

I've considered making an alt for those purposes and making it clear what the intentions are and making the account accesible to everyone, but that's just playing with fire.

[The Johnny]

Just keep in mind that anything we say, everything we do, means more than what is apparent.

Saying a racial slur even if it's just "for the purpose of offending someone" and "not really meaning it", in fact, actually means that you are effectively participating in reinforcing racial discrimination, even if you think it does not. Maybe you don't consider yourself a "racist", but what is the difference between reinforcing racial discrimination and actually being a racist? Merely a difference in degrees.

Morally speaking:  No difference.
Pragmatically speaking:  No difference.

An evil person is one who does evil things.  Likewise, a racist person is one who does racist things.

QED.

I will make a connection with something that might resonate with something you commented a couple weeks ago:

Margaret Thatcher: she had certain "greatness" (evil greatness), in which she stuck by her guns, and did what she professed.

We do not have that anymore, we only have crypto-fascists, crypto-racists, crypto-homophobes and all one can think of under the sun. So what do we get? A bunch of assholes that keep on acting like assholes, but won't admit to being assholes.

Obama: I AM MORALLY AND CATEGORICALLY OPPOSED TO TORTURE AND LACK OF A PROPER TRIAL (keeps Guantanamo functioning)

Even in her day, Thatcher was an oddity.  She was a monster.  She knew why everyone hated her, and she didn't care.  When I say "greatness", I don't mean it in a positive way.  I mean it more like "the great Chicago fire".

Only rarely do people admit to being assholes.  This doesn't make them more palatable, it only makes them proud assholes.

Yeah, i got you in that it wasn't refered as a positive trait, because it was simply great evil.

What i like about people being so cynical about one's viewpoints is that it opens up the possibility of accountability, instead of pussy-footing around an argument and back-pedalling. In rhetorical-combat terms, it gives a chance to "storm the castle" instead of having petty guerillas all over the place.

Blatantly expressing "I am a racist because X" leaves the said person very open to a diversity of arguments, in opposition to what happened in the Trayvon-Martin case, in which nobody supporting the murderer was a "racist" but seeking to "unveil the inconsistencies in the trial" or whatever bullshit they said to justify facilitating the murderer not getting convicted.

[The Johnny]

Which brings back the attention on Mr. Von:

This will end up degrading into a debate concerning homosexuality if we continue.

The conversation can only "degrade" into "a debate concerning homosexuality", because I suspect, that even do:

...I'm very far from anti-homosexual..

he probably would show in the ensuing debate, how he in actuality is a homo-phobe.

Obviously this is speculation based on interpretation, but oh, prove me wrong.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Blatantly expressing "I am a racist because X" leaves the said person very open to a diversity of arguments, in opposition to what happened in the Trayvon-Martin case, in which nobody supporting the murderer was a "racist" but seeking to "unveil the inconsistencies in the trial" or whatever bullshit they said to justify facilitating the murderer not getting convicted.

Well, no argument there (and then there was the asshole cop using Martin's picture for target shooting, which is apparently completely appropriate), except that the trial doesn't even begin until June 10th.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Which brings back the attention on Mr. Von:

This will end up degrading into a debate concerning homosexuality if we continue.

The conversation can only "degrade" into "a debate concerning homosexuality", because I suspect, that even do:

...I'm very far from anti-homosexual..

he probably would show in the ensuing debate, how he in actuality is a homo-phobe.

Obviously this is speculation based on interpretation, but oh, prove me wrong.

Don't get your hopes up.  The animal in question brags that he has no principles.

[von]

Which brings back the attention on Mr. Von:

This will end up degrading into a debate concerning homosexuality if we continue.

The conversation can only "degrade" into "a debate concerning homosexuality", because I suspect, that even do:

...I'm very far from anti-homosexual..

he probably would show in the ensuing debate, how he in actuality is a homo-phobe.

Obviously this is speculation based on interpretation, but oh, prove me wrong.

Ok, if you wish to take your argument in that direction, ill go there for your own amusement.

Anyway, the crux of your argument relies on the premise that homosexuality is both an innate property of an individual, and is unmodifyable.
In short, your point is leaning on something you haven't cited the validity of -- and when you do, I can then find a way to debase that study, and produce a counter argument based on a study that invalidates your own argument.
Likewise, you can counter my counter argument, and we can go back in forth spouting lies, damned lies and statistics until one of us simply concedes for the sake of social capital.

Now then, the conversation "degraded" In that my hypothetical scenario had nothing to do with homos per se: the illustrative was used to show that when you apply the idea of "jail the enemy to reform him" to a group you happen to like, it seems illogical, abhorrant and simply "evil", because its something you just happen to stand behind.

[The Johnny]

Ok, if you wish to take your argument in that direction, ill go there for your own amusement.

Anyway, the crux of your argument relies on the premise that homosexuality is both an innate property of an individual, and is unmodifyable.
In short, your point is leaning on something you haven't cited the validity of -- and when you do, I can then find a way to debase that study, and produce a counter argument based on a study that invalidates your own argument.
Likewise, you can counter my counter argument, and we can go back in forth spouting lies, damned lies and statistics until one of us simply concedes for the sake of social capital.

Now then, the conversation "degraded" In that my hypothetical scenario had nothing to do with homos per se: the illustrative was used to show that when you apply the idea of "jail the enemy to reform him" to a group you happen to like, it seems illogical, abhorrant and simply "evil", because its something you just happen to stand behind.

I concede that getting into a debate about homosexuality might be somewhat of an effort, and I don't really want to create a "Drugs Thread 2.0". Also, debating something you might not even have a true position on is kind of cheap and convenient, because it's much more easier to criticize and find weak spots than to make a positive solid argument.

Now, true addiction rather than recreational use leads to death (addiction being defined as, using a substance or thing to the point that it is provoking negative effects on one's own life, work, relationships), I'm talking about alcoholics that go on black-outs and do impulsive things like getting into brawls with strangers, ride a car or motorcycle at very dangerous speeds, or say, heroin addicts that their arms get gangrene from injecting so much.

The parallel between getting true addicts into jail and a homosexual being forced to "anti-gay camp" does not hold, because, the only dangerous parts of being homosexual is other human beings who hate them.

Also, you are missing the main point of why this all was mentioned in the first place, as an advice of caution to Gogira, which I might have stated too much as a parable:

In this parable, you are the addict which does not want to change, and she plays the part of the codependent putting herself in harm's way because "he can change, there's a decent human being under that monkey skin", while you might play along just to keep getting attention.

[von]

Ok, if you wish to take your argument in that direction, ill go there for your own amusement.

Anyway, the crux of your argument relies on the premise that homosexuality is both an innate property of an individual, and is unmodifyable.
In short, your point is leaning on something you haven't cited the validity of -- and when you do, I can then find a way to debase that study, and produce a counter argument based on a study that invalidates your own argument.
Likewise, you can counter my counter argument, and we can go back in forth spouting lies, damned lies and statistics until one of us simply concedes for the sake of social capital.

Now then, the conversation "degraded" In that my hypothetical scenario had nothing to do with homos per se: the illustrative was used to show that when you apply the idea of "jail the enemy to reform him" to a group you happen to like, it seems illogical, abhorrant and simply "evil", because its something you just happen to stand behind.

I concede that getting into a debate about homosexuality might be somewhat of an effort, and I don't really want to create a "Drugs Thread 2.0". Also, debating something you might not even have a true position on is kind of cheap and convenient, because it's much more easier to criticize and find weak spots than to make a positive solid argument.

Now, true addiction rather than recreational use leads to death (addiction being defined as, using a substance or thing to the point that it is provoking negative effects on one's own life, work, relationships), I'm talking about alcoholics that go on black-outs and do impulsive things like getting into brawls with strangers, ride a car or motorcycle at very dangerous speeds, or say, heroin addicts that their arms get gangrene from injecting so much.

The parallel between getting true addicts into jail and a homosexual being forced to "anti-gay camp" does not hold, because, the only dangerous parts of being homosexual is other human beings who hate them.

Also, you are missing the main point of why this all was mentioned in the first place, as an advice of caution to Gogira, which I might have stated too much as a parable:

In this parable, you are the addict which does not want to change, and she plays the part of the codependent putting herself in harm's way because "he can change, there's a decent human being under that monkey skin", while you might play along just to keep getting attention.

Far more well formed and taken in a direction i did not anticipate; i commend you and see the point you were trying to make far better now considering your parable.

As for gogira wishing to "pull the human out" or whatever, yes, you saved her and my own time well enough -- i wished to cooperate with her only in gathering research concerning anonymous communications...if that whole thing was a ruse to lure the "human" out, it would have indeed ended in me shitting all over things. Neither a service to her or me...

[The Johnny]

Ok, if you wish to take your argument in that direction, ill go there for your own amusement.

Anyway, the crux of your argument relies on the premise that homosexuality is both an innate property of an individual, and is unmodifyable.
In short, your point is leaning on something you haven't cited the validity of -- and when you do, I can then find a way to debase that study, and produce a counter argument based on a study that invalidates your own argument.
Likewise, you can counter my counter argument, and we can go back in forth spouting lies, damned lies and statistics until one of us simply concedes for the sake of social capital.

Now then, the conversation "degraded" In that my hypothetical scenario had nothing to do with homos per se: the illustrative was used to show that when you apply the idea of "jail the enemy to reform him" to a group you happen to like, it seems illogical, abhorrant and simply "evil", because its something you just happen to stand behind.

I concede that getting into a debate about homosexuality might be somewhat of an effort, and I don't really want to create a "Drugs Thread 2.0". Also, debating something you might not even have a true position on is kind of cheap and convenient, because it's much more easier to criticize and find weak spots than to make a positive solid argument.

Now, true addiction rather than recreational use leads to death (addiction being defined as, using a substance or thing to the point that it is provoking negative effects on one's own life, work, relationships), I'm talking about alcoholics that go on black-outs and do impulsive things like getting into brawls with strangers, ride a car or motorcycle at very dangerous speeds, or say, heroin addicts that their arms get gangrene from injecting so much.

The parallel between getting true addicts into jail and a homosexual being forced to "anti-gay camp" does not hold, because, the only dangerous parts of being homosexual is other human beings who hate them.

Also, you are missing the main point of why this all was mentioned in the first place, as an advice of caution to Gogira, which I might have stated too much as a parable:

In this parable, you are the addict which does not want to change, and she plays the part of the codependent putting herself in harm's way because "he can change, there's a decent human being under that monkey skin", while you might play along just to keep getting attention.

Far more well formed and taken in a direction i did not anticipate; i commend you and see the point you were trying to make far better now considering your parable.

As for gogira wishing to "pull the human out" or whatever, yes, you saved her and my own time well enough -- i wished to cooperate with her only in gathering research concerning anonymous communications...if that whole thing was a ruse to lure the "human" out, it would have indeed ended in me shitting all over things. Neither a service to her or me...

Now see, if you always were so mannered things would had gone much differently.

Not that it matters now, since you have shown that you have an impulse for seeking negative attention and get your kicks from riling people up.

[von]

Ok, if you wish to take your argument in that direction, ill go there for your own amusement.

Anyway, the crux of your argument relies on the premise that homosexuality is both an innate property of an individual, and is unmodifyable.
In short, your point is leaning on something you haven't cited the validity of -- and when you do, I can then find a way to debase that study, and produce a counter argument based on a study that invalidates your own argument.
Likewise, you can counter my counter argument, and we can go back in forth spouting lies, damned lies and statistics until one of us simply concedes for the sake of social capital.

Now then, the conversation "degraded" In that my hypothetical scenario had nothing to do with homos per se: the illustrative was used to show that when you apply the idea of "jail the enemy to reform him" to a group you happen to like, it seems illogical, abhorrant and simply "evil", because its something you just happen to stand behind.

I concede that getting into a debate about homosexuality might be somewhat of an effort, and I don't really want to create a "Drugs Thread 2.0". Also, debating something you might not even have a true position on is kind of cheap and convenient, because it's much more easier to criticize and find weak spots than to make a positive solid argument.

Now, true addiction rather than recreational use leads to death (addiction being defined as, using a substance or thing to the point that it is provoking negative effects on one's own life, work, relationships), I'm talking about alcoholics that go on black-outs and do impulsive things like getting into brawls with strangers, ride a car or motorcycle at very dangerous speeds, or say, heroin addicts that their arms get gangrene from injecting so much.

The parallel between getting true addicts into jail and a homosexual being forced to "anti-gay camp" does not hold, because, the only dangerous parts of being homosexual is other human beings who hate them.

Also, you are missing the main point of why this all was mentioned in the first place, as an advice of caution to Gogira, which I might have stated too much as a parable:

In this parable, you are the addict which does not want to change, and she plays the part of the codependent putting herself in harm's way because "he can change, there's a decent human being under that monkey skin", while you might play along just to keep getting attention.

Far more well formed and taken in a direction i did not anticipate; i commend you and see the point you were trying to make far better now considering your parable.

As for gogira wishing to "pull the human out" or whatever, yes, you saved her and my own time well enough -- i wished to cooperate with her only in gathering research concerning anonymous communications...if that whole thing was a ruse to lure the "human" out, it would have indeed ended in me shitting all over things. Neither a service to her or me...

Now see, if you always were so mannered things would had gone much differently.

Not that it matters now, since you have shown that you have an impulse for seeking negative attention and get your kicks from riling people up.

Well, you bested me in rhetoric...I can only give due respect there. Even richard the lionheart could give saladin his honour due.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform.

OPTIMISM REIGNS SUPREME!   

Confusion reigns with so much more supremacy, though.

What does reforming my racism have to do with discussing anonymous communications styles?

It makes your otherwise hopelessly dull presence marginally more interesting.

It's kind of like having our own village idiot.

If our village idiot is part of an endless chain of forgettable, interchangeable village idiots, stamped from the Great Idiot Replicator in the sky.

We should dig up the checklist.

Because he's sort of doing a Holist/Dead Kennedy misogynist thing.  And, like them, he thinks he's being clever.  We could just loop this shit.

Yep, pretty much. Same boring predictable shit every time.

[von]

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform.

OPTIMISM REIGNS SUPREME!   

Confusion reigns with so much more supremacy, though.

What does reforming my racism have to do with discussing anonymous communications styles?

It makes your otherwise hopelessly dull presence marginally more interesting.

It's kind of like having our own village idiot.

If our village idiot is part of an endless chain of forgettable, interchangeable village idiots, stamped from the Great Idiot Replicator in the sky.

We should dig up the checklist.

Because he's sort of doing a Holist/Dead Kennedy misogynist thing.  And, like them, he thinks he's being clever.  We could just loop this shit.

Yep, pretty much. Same boring predictable shit every time.

What was holist's pattern? If I could know this, perhaps I could do something outside of it in order to stimulate excitement rather than being predictable...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform.

OPTIMISM REIGNS SUPREME!   

Confusion reigns with so much more supremacy, though.

What does reforming my racism have to do with discussing anonymous communications styles?

It makes your otherwise hopelessly dull presence marginally more interesting.

It's kind of like having our own village idiot.

If our village idiot is part of an endless chain of forgettable, interchangeable village idiots, stamped from the Great Idiot Replicator in the sky.

We should dig up the checklist.

Because he's sort of doing a Holist/Dead Kennedy misogynist thing.  And, like them, he thinks he's being clever.  We could just loop this shit.

Yep, pretty much. Same boring predictable shit every time.

What was holist's pattern? If I could know this, perhaps I could do something outside of it in order to stimulate excitement rather than being predictable...

That would be bad science on our part.

No, you'll have to ride the fail train the hard way, just like all the others over the years.