Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » a little fyi on the leading two american anti ssm pundits (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: a little fyi on the leading two american anti ssm pundits
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jasper, Pete's position is wrong, not bigoted. He also assumes that his fellow travellers share his rather nuanced beliefs regarding marriage. The anti-ssm crowd might not be as malice-driven as the social justice twitterati would argue, but they also aren't as high-minded and thoughtful as Pete would like them to be, either.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Gallup polls 12 years ago showed that most Americans supported either SSM or ssus.
Right up to the point that they hit the ballot box. When they got there suddenly it became very clear that "support SSU" was actually "Want to deflect the conversation and drag it out till it goes away"

You may have earnestly supported the separate-but-equal solution, but by and large the support for it was not earnest support- it was a distracting tactic to promise marriage equality advocates a compromise position if they'd just start over one more time, over and over again, until they no longer had the energy to keep trying and went away.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" That opposition to SSM can be anything but bigotry just doesn't compute for most people"

Which is the brainwashing I predicted here 12 years ago. The 14th Amendment argument was based on the premise that the only reason to oppose SSM was "invidious" I.e. bigoted. That's an example.of what Goebbels called the big lie.

Hopefully, Maggie, David, I, and others have made enough of an argument online that historians someday might get an accurate picture of what happened here and what the marriage argument was about.

DW, the KKK was not the leading group for preventing integration. Also, anti-integration folks were not shamed and shunned and fired from their jobs right as integration took place.Membership in the kkK became a shameful thing because the KKK murdered children; was a terrorist organization.

Americans changed their views on race because of stuff like Selma Bridge. They saw the anti integration forces acting like thugs and bullies. But the modern leftwashers have you believing that respect for gay civil rights needs to be instilled by fear.

If you want to follow the pattern of the civil rights movement then you need to read more about that movement and the history.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" Right up to the point that they hit the ballot box. When they got there suddenly it became very clear that "support SSU" was actually "Want to deflect the conversation and drag it out till it goes away"

Think harder. Please identify one time that voters had a chance to vote on ssus separate from SSM, and voted against ssus in isolation?

Your side, the extreme SSM or nothing side, colluded with the homophobes to keep Americans from ever being able to vote separately on ssus. So you cannot in any degree of honesty claim that Americans ever has that issue "at the ballot box". Pure leftwashing, Pyr.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jasper Wobley last posted to make a hit and run attack on Red skull http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/14083/6.html#000229
And created his Id in Oct 2013 using it only for one of those "Obama lied" threads.

Looks like a sock puppet created for then sole purpose of personal attack.

Any guesses as to whose sock puppet this is?

Pete: please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ April 28, 2014, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Jasper, Pete's position is wrong, not bigoted. He also assumes that his fellow travellers share his rather nuanced beliefs regarding marriage. The anti-ssm crowd might not be as malice-driven as the social justice twitterati would argue, but they also aren't as high-minded and thoughtful as Pete would like them to be, either.

That's probably true, sad to say.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you don't think it's just a desire to be lazy and fit this social issue into the closest template people can find? Obviously there are a lot of differences. My point was as much a criticism as an explanation.

The attempts to illustrate how it is NOT the same is amazingly difficult. The arguments need to be far more persuasive than they would be if the civil rights template had not been applied. In a lot of ways this battle in the war was the most important to win for the SSM supporters. It "seems" that this battle was decisive. It didn't win the war but it gave SSM support a highly defensible position.

As soon as this narrative was embraced the opposition became the side who needed to act as momentum would do the majority of the work for SSM supporters. Nobody has presented an argument to make those on the side of SSM support take pause. Most of us don't even believe there IS an arugument that could. At least not one founded in reality or requiring divine intervention/communication.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian
Member
Member # 588

 - posted      Profile for Brian   Email Brian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Congrats, Pete. You once again caused me to de-lurk.

As a long-time lurker, I only post on things when I find myself literally talking to my computer, because someone said something so foreign to my experience (and no one else stepped up to refute it) that I need to express myself or explode.

In this case, you have referred to other posters as sock puppets several times, and the only justification you have presented is an extraordinarily low post density.

You instead should be pleased that you keep making people so passionate that we are forced to post something.
(See my first sentence)


ETA:
Also, in your quote David himself laments that the anti-SSM side is NOT dominated by you or him, but rather by bigots - to his dismay.

[ April 25, 2014, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You disappoint me, I only once referred to one other poster as a sock puppet. I used the phrase sock puppet before but not to refer to another poster: I was saying he had created a straw manof me.

Before when you due lurked you had agrip on the discussion.

My evidence against "jasper" was not his low post density. It was then fact that each of his posts is a personal attack against a regular.

Here you are wrong

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" That opposition to SSM can be anything but bigotry just doesn't compute for most people"

Which is the brainwashing I predicted here 12 years ago. The 14th Amendment argument was based on the premise that the only reason to oppose SSM was "invidious" I.e. bigoted. That's an example.of what Goebbels called the big lie.

I don't think this is an example of the Big Lie. I think it's a conclusion that others have reached that you disagree with. I know you're personally invested on this, but consider that if others don't accept your basic premise - that there is a harm caused by SSM that could be avoided with SSU - but instead accept that refusal to allow SSM causes a unavoidable harm, how could they reasonably conclude otherwise?

As much as I am opposed to the corruption of process that the SSM movement has endorsed to achieve its goals, I can't see any real benefit to preventing the State from recognizing them as marriages. And I see a whole lot of personal and institutional harms in not doing so, particularly for a country founded on blind justice and equality. I guess what I'm saying is that the nuanced argument is lost, and it's time to consider that most see this an injustice. I said it before, it's time to move to the next step and consider rationally where the different kinds of marriage need different rules.
quote:
Hopefully, Maggie, David, I, and others have made enough of an argument online that historians someday might get an accurate picture of what happened here and what the marriage argument was about.
If you're talking about a future where SSM is as readily accepted as other marriages, do you really think this is going to be a flattering footnote?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
So you don't think it's just a desire to be lazy and fit this social issue into the closest template people can find? Obviously there are a lot of differences. My point was as much a criticism as an explanation.

The attempts to illustrate how it is NOT the same is amazingly difficult. The arguments need to be far more persuasive than they would be if the civil rights template had not been applied. In a lot of ways this battle in the war was the most important to win for the SSM supporters. It "seems" that this battle was decisive. It didn't win the war but it gave SSM support a highly defensible position.

As soon as this narrative was embraced the opposition became the side who needed to act as momentum would do the majority of the work for SSM supporters. Nobody has presented an argument to make those on the side of SSM support take pause. Most of us don't even believe there IS an arugument that could. At least not one founded in reality or requiring divine intervention/communication.

I agree with you that laziness has a lot to do with the success of this style of phony civil rights movement. Great timing. Tens of millions of video gaming face booking couch potatoes can imagine that they did something heroic as marching on Selma bridge, and all they have to do is join in defaming someone whose views have labeled them an outsider. Be a hero and join a lynch mob. And when the emptiness comes back again, scurry off into a safe phony identity and call someone else a bigot. Eh, Jasper?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brian:
...someone said something so foreign to my experience...

I feel like this all the time on forums.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And when the emptiness comes back again, scurry off into a safe phony identity and call someone else a bigot. Eh, Jasper?
I was just wondering about this very point this morning. What will fill this void next?

What other cause could use these tools to leverage the mob? I happen to agree with the goals of the mob on this issue but I can't dispute your characterization of the mob I'm a part of.

Do those in favor of socialized medicine use this framework to push for "Equal health care for all no matter their financial situation?" Equality is such a feel good, unambiguous positive that any cause which can don that mantel is already half way to victory.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brian:
...someone said something so foreign to my experience...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel like this all the time on forums.

Isn't that what keeps you coming back? [Smile]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" Right up to the point that they hit the ballot box. When they got there suddenly it became very clear that "support SSU" was actually "Want to deflect the conversation and drag it out till it goes away"

Think harder. Please identify one time that voters had a chance to vote on ssus separate from SSM, and voted against ssus in isolation?

Think yourself on what that means.

Sorry, we can't swing SSM, how about SSUs?

Well,we talked about it and decided we can't really pull off SSUs right now, but we can totally look into setting up a domestic partnership framework.

Shoot- we were talking about domestic partnerships and decided that instead of making a state policy about it we'll just hand it over to individual companies and business to handle.

Oh did we just ban domestic partnership recognition because some people were offended by it? Sorry about that.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice dodge, Pyr.

You claimed that the "ballot box" results show that people would not accept ssus. Do you admit now that says weren't an independent option, and that your previous claim was crap?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" f you're talking about a future where SSM is as readily accepted as other marriages, do you really think this is going to be a flattering footnote"

I don't care if it's flattering or if the future agrees with me. I just want them told the truth about what we stood for. Someday the big Lie will be exposed for what bit was and folks will have q choice as to what to believe rather than bowing to political correctness. They can only erase the truth for so long.

[ April 25, 2014, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wasn't it Louisiana's antissm law that was overturned precisely because the judge noted that the voters had been deprived of the option to vote separately on SSM and ssus?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" a future where SSM is as readily accepted as other marriages"

That equality will mean less because marriage itself is in a state of rapid devaluation. But that's not because of gay families, as much as "Jasper" might imagine that I said it was. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" What will fill this void next? "

My bet is on the slut pride.movement. any sort of respect for modesty or resistance to casual.sex will be treated like the "Taliban" and accused of being "part of the rape culture". A judge that says don't show your cleavage in court and distract the jury will be accused of saying that a woman who shows her skin "deserves to be raped.". The groundwork is already laid for that next pogrom.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr, want to give DW a taste of things to come? Surely you have the preview of the next big phase of the cultural.war. you gave it away with all your usages of "coercion" lately .... the next thing is to argue that any social, economic benefit of raising kids in a monogamous relationship needs to be stomped out, right? Because encouraging people to be responsible with having children is "coercion." Is that the next pitch?

[ April 25, 2014, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure about slut pride, Pete; I've already seen hints of backlash against the "sex positivity" movement from asexuals and other groups who have a more complicated relationship with sexual expression.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So what's your bet on the next big lefty crusade, if not slut pride?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dear Jasper,

OM informs me that your ISP checks out, and does not appear to duplicate another member's IP. That is obviously not definitive proof of anything but I will treat you as a real member in the future unless you tell us otherwise. If you are indeed real then I apologize for calling you a sock puppet.

Welcome to Ornery. You are wrong about my views on SSM. And if you behave yourself here, and engage in the discussion rather than just making hit and run attacks, the blue fairy will turn you into a real boy. [Smile]

[ April 25, 2014, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know. I would go for healthcare or education but those are more political goals than culture war crusades.

You may be right Pete. The only other battles I see on the horizon are more influential religion vs. less influential religion and secularists vs. all religions.

The fight for SSM would dovetail right into an attack on many religions as providing refuge for, if not fostering, the defeated foe...

I don't see this fight as having anywhere close to a prayer. [Smile] But shaming of the "extreme" views of multiple religions in an attempt to push reform is possible. The need for instant gratification and feedback doesn't lead to patient gradual shifts in position over time that is typical of religious institutions.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suspect it'll be inward to deal with issues regarding intersectionality than outward towards shiny buzzwords for the masses. General criticism about race and gender will keep going, of course, but I think we're running short of identity groups for great white (straight, wealthy, male) saviors to adopt.

Economics might be avenue, I suppose, but the economic left is dead and buried. We don't have the right language for it anymore. On that, the 'right' has won even more convincingly than the 'left' has on cultural issues.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Economics, education, etc are too hard to fake being intelligent on to be the next big debate. SSM allowed millions of people to make believe they were intelligent. It was the era of "intellectualism for Dummies." They aren't going to want to let that go. Belle Knox is the new Matthew Shepherd.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brian:
...someone said something so foreign to my experience...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel like this all the time on forums.

Isn't that what keeps you coming back? [Smile]
Essentially yes. It's either a morbid desire for punishment/outrage, or that it gives me the illusion of learning and understanding other's points of view.

Yet I am still sometimes surprised to find someone else's upbringing and viewpoints to be so completely alien to my own experiences. And then of course I meta-tastically observe that it's mildly surprising that I'm still surprised.

Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think perceived intelligence was the motive; I think it was the desire to be on the next big tolerance bandwagon. Especially after Mass., Canada and W. Europe started heading in that direction. You don't have to be an intellectual to be pro-SSM; you have to be in an intellectual to be anti-SSM without being ignorant or bigoted.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By perceived intelligence I mean the glee of intellectually lazy people.to feel they were winning a debate about ethics and morals. It's like when all the mediocre women popped out of the woodwork to shriek and gloat about Martha Stewart. Most of them neither knew nor cared what Stewart was being challenged with; they just hated her for being "smug" meaning a more successful and attractive older woman. It was the revenge of the beta females. The left needs another issue that lets people be prurient, self-indulgent and self-righteous at the same time. It's like the witch trials or the Clinton impeachment, except from the left instead of from the right. My money is on the slut pride movement.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
"Once again, someone disagreeing with you does not make them ignorant of the subject matter or brainwashed.

[Agreed! Noblehunter, disagrees with me and is not ignorant or brainwashed. Same as Andrew Sullivan. Seriati, Jason, and numerous others on this forum.]


I said what I had to say. There are literally hundreds of pages on this forum of people more eloquent then I rebutting the argument.

" Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education"
[Big Grin]

Using lack of eloquence to hide lack of information or reasoning is a court tactic that goes back to 500 BC, Corax v Tisias.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's up to the media more than the left, then. Anything for ratings.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is how Pyr claims to sum up David Blankenhorn's retraction:

"someone who realises that he previous position was completely fallacious and actively harmful."

Here's what Blankenhorn actually said:

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Ah yes, the quote:

" I had hoped that the gay marriage debate would be mostly about marriage’s relationship to parenthood. But it hasn’t been. Or perhaps it’s fairer to say that I and others have made that argument, and that we have largely failed to persuade. In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens. And to my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus. To me, a Southerner by birth whose formative moral experience was the civil rights movement, this fact is profoundly disturbing.

I had also hoped that debating gay marriage might help to lead heterosexual America to a broader and more positive recommitment to marriage as an institution. But it hasn’t happened. With each passing year, we see higher and higher levels of unwed childbearing, nonmarital cohabitation and family fragmentation among heterosexuals. Perhaps some of this can be attributed to the reconceptualization of marriage as a private ordering that is so central to the idea of gay marriage. But either way, if fighting gay marriage was going to help marriage over all, I think we’d have seen some signs of it by now.

So my intention is to try something new. Instead of fighting gay marriage, I’d like to help build new coalitions bringing together gays who want to strengthen marriage with straight people who want to do the same. For example, once we accept gay marriage, might we also agree that marrying before having children is a vital cultural value that all of us should do more to embrace? Can we agree that, for all lovers who want their love to last, marriage is preferable to cohabitation? Can we discuss whether both gays and straight people should think twice before denying children born through artificial reproductive technology the right to know and be known by their biological parents?"

What I see here is someone adapting his theory and strategy to fit the facts. No "fallacy." Believe it or not, Pyr, there is a world.of facts out there and some.of us believe theories should be based on fact, not vice versa.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
That's up to the media more than the left, then. Anything for ratings.

That's a viable theory.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to put words into Pyr's mouth, but I think that was more of a jab at you / wish that they were YOUR motives in bringing this forward than an honest attempt at summarizing Blankenhorn.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you think Pyr is claiming that *I* believe that crap Pyr said about Blankenhorn, and you accuse *me* of trying to put word in his mouth?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you even grasp what I'm using him for in this thread?
________________________________________
Unless it's an example of someone who realises that he previous position was completely fallacious and actively harmful, not much at all.

I read this as a dismissal of your question in what was intended to be a humorous manner.

[paraphrase] Why no Pete, we have no idea what you are using him for at all. Was it to totally reverse your long held position? That must be it! [Roll Eyes] [/paraphrase]

Only with a bit different style. But again, that could have just been me reading something into it that was never intended.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know Pyr has a conscience though it operates on alternative facts and postmodern logic ... I don't know about having a sense of humor, though ... possible I suppose.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know I hate explaining my own jokes. Both because it leeches out the funny and it makes me see I wasn't that amusing to begin with. Hopefully it's not as painful when someone else does it for you Pyr.

If it wasn't a joke I appologize to both of you for further obstructing communication.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Looks like a sock puppet created for then sole purpose of personal attack.

Any guesses as to whose sock puppet this is?

Sorry to disappoint Pete, not a sock puppet, but please carry on with the screeching hyperbole as it seems to be your song of choice lately.

I started lurking when the "Movie" was announced on BoingBoing I think. The first time I tried posting was in response to a conversation Red was having with noel c. I didn't know who or what noel c. was when I joined in and regret that I ever engaged with him.

Since then I have in addition to lurking read some of the archives and feel that I have a general feeling for the regular posters. Please feel free to correct any misapprehensions I may express.

To wit, your "feelings" about SSM are odious, toxic, and dehumanizing. You are wrong.

I believe you have the right to stand up on the hill/soapbox/internet and shout it out for all to hear.

It's interesting that you think your first amendment rights come with with a balaclava.

Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1