Having watched them in action before, I know that the next step 'Spacebunny' and 'Vox Day' will undertake is to delete (if they haven't already begun to do so) the posts, and thus the argument I made, against the way they and their 'Ilk' misuse the word 'stupid.' So, in this post I'm going to preserve (and perhaps comment upon) what was said against that eventuality.
First, of course, there is 'Vox Day's' post/thread Atheists hate individual rights; a fairly standard 'Vox Day' effort. I had intended to point out that his first sentence ("It is much easier to understand Christianity once one comes to an acceptance of the existence of evil.") is not literally true -- for, evil exists in much the same way that darkness exists: it doesn't. Darkness is the absence of light; evil is the absence of, or denial of, good (which is it depends upon the sense in which one uses the term 'evil').
But, I decided to read the comments before making any post of my own, and so, since I posted a response to something 'Spacebunny' had said, the post I'd initially intended to make was never made.
After some back-and-forth, 'LaileB' posted:
Vox Day: Persuasive to whom? A deaf, dumb and blind kid? Myers has now stated that both libertarians and the North Koreans are extreme and pathological right-wingers. That's simply insane. And the Left is always claiming that their leftist rivals are right-wingers. Look at Stalin and Hitler, Stalin and Trotsky, Mao and Kruschev, and so forth.
LaileB: Rabid militarism is a right wing ideology...always has been. the main difference between left and right is akin to the difference between revolution and authority and its entirely possible to go from the one to the other depending on your situation...leftist revolutionary clamoring for the defense of individual rights often become strict autoritarians when they aquire the power of a state to back them up, clamping down on the very rights they used to claim to cherish. Likewise, military dictators will just as often suddently become the avowed champions of individual rights after they ve been throw out of power. The regular predictibility with which this occurs is almost laughble.
'LF' responded:
LaileB: Rabid militarism is a right wing ideology...always has beenI hope Gentle Reader understands me well enough to know that I not only agree with 'LF' in his assessment, but also consider it to be just about the only appropriate response (the other major response being to totally ignore 'LaileB') to the disingenouos content of that first sentence of 'LaileB's' comment. I mean, it's not as though one can reason with someone willing to so glibbly spout leftist talking-point nonsense.
LF: Read Liberal Fascism. You are either misinformed, or a liar.
Also, as 'Phileagle' pointed out in response to 'LF's' post, the topic hadn't been 'militarism' ("rabid" or not) contrasted to a philosophy of 'individual rights,' but rather 'totalitatialism' contrasted to a philosophy of 'individual rights.'
Anyway, 'Spacebunny' replied to 'LF:'
LF: Read Liberal Fascism. You are either misinformed, or a liar.As I said in a comment in the other thread, I loathe sloppy reasoning; and sloppy language (as this comment is) is both evidence of, and a cause of further, sloppy reasoning. I see it as being our duty, as rational beings, to help one another overcome the sloppy reasoning into which we all fall at one time or another.
Spacebunny: You left out abject stupidity - it applies in this case based on previous comment threads.
I replied to 'Spacebunny:'
Spacebunny: You left out abject stupidity - it applies in this case based on previous comment threads.And, the 'Ilk' being who and what they are, we're off to the races.
Ilíon: Someone who is indeed stupid (abjectly or no) cannot help himself.
Someone who is not stupid errs in expressing anger or mockery of someone who is.
Now, as Gentle Reader can easily see, this is a very mild and temperate criticism, very non-accusatory, very non-condemnatory, very neutral; no snark or sarcasm (as is popular amongst the 'Ilk'); a simple statement of fact. Is it not at once clear, Gentle Reader, that there is nothing at all there to give insult nor to justify taking insult?
Certainly, I could have been even more clear had I thought to append "on account of his stupidity" to the second sentence. But seriously now, given the context, and given what I did write, does not one expect that a non-stupid person shall understand that I am not asserting some sort of "get out of jail free" card for persons who truly are stupid?
Someone going by 'JACIII' responded:
Ilíon: Someone who is indeed stupid (abjectly or no) cannot help himself.And, at about the same time, 'Spacebunny' posted the very thoughtful, and well thought-out, response:
Someone who is not stupid errs in expressing anger or mockery of someone who is.
JACIII: You disregard the willfully obtuse.
Ilíon: Someone who is indeed stupid (abjectly or no) cannot help himself.I can tell you, Gentle Reader (but don't tell her), for a moment there, I wondered whether I was in error about the nature of stupidity and our moral obligations with respect to stupid persons. But, I quickly recovered: for after all, I have reasoned carefully about the matter; I have thought it through and know that I am correct.
Someone who is not stupid errs in expressing anger or mockery of someone who is.
Spacebunny: BS
To 'JACIII,' I replied:
JACIII: You disregard the willfully obtuse.'LF' had already mentioned the possibility that 'LaileB' was lying; "willfully obtuse" falls within the gamut of "liar." As I mentioned above, I have thought through these issues.
Ilíon: Not at all. The willfully obtuse are not stupid, they are intellectually dishonest (which is a specialized form of being a liar).
To Spacebunny,' I replied:
Spacebunny: BSHow terrible of me to venture the possiblity that she's not so rational as I had previously thought/hoped! *sigh* As I keep telling Gentle Reader, I am not one of those wishy-washy "nice" people (who tend to be very not-nice when they are thwarted) -- I speak to others as is appropriate to their behavior.
Ilíon: I was wrong: you're not so rational, after all.
Do you also mock cripples?
Now, knowing what the 'Ilk' are like (and what 'Spacebunny' is like), I ought to have asked, "Do you also mock cripples [*because* they are cripples]?"
But, Gentle Reader, what is the context here? Does the context not include my initial two statements to which she replied, "Bullshit," to wit: "Someone who is indeed stupid (abjectly or no) cannot help himself," and "Someone who is not stupid errs in expressing anger or mockery of someone who is." Is it not the case that the context and topic is responsibility-given-choice?
Is not one to be excused for assuming that a non-stupid person has paid attention to the context and content of what she is calling "Bullshit?"
'JACIII' responded:
Ilíon: Not at all. The willfully obtuse are not stupid, they are intellectually dishonest (which is a specialized form of being a liar).This is par for the course: refusal even to think about what has been said, combined with a response that means "Well, sure; but I'm still going to assert that you're wrong." I suppose he does "see the condition [which I] refer to occasionally" ... after all, *everyone* looks in the mirror. Occasionally.
JACIII: Hardly. The willfully obtuse merely guard their stupidity. That's why we have seperate words for liar and stupid, though I see the condition you refer to occasionally.
'JACIII' responded (to my question to 'Spacebunny'):
Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?Again, Gentle Reader, what is the context of this comment, and what is the content of the argument I made? The argument is two points:
JACIII: Why do they exist if not for our amusement?
1) Certain liabilities are not chosen;
2) It is an error (how much more neutral could I have been?) to mock, or to express anger toward, a person on account of the liabilities over which he has no control.
I replied to 'JACIII:'
JACIII: Why do they exist if not for our amusement?and:
Ilíon: The cripple I knew most intimately existed so that I should exist.
JACIII: Hardly. The willfully obtuse merely guard their stupidity. That's why we have seperate words for liar and stupid, though I see the condition you refer to occasionally.Pray, Gentle Reader, forgive the logically disjointed nature of this ... I'm duplicating the posts in chronological order. I'm also leaving out a few posts which seem to me to be wholly irrelevant; for instance, someone posting as 'Mr. B.A.D.' replied to that last post with this cute-but-pointless observation: "Momma always said stupid is as stupid does."
Ilíon: Are you even paying attention to the words you're typing?
Clue: willfully -- the willfully obtuse choose to behave as though they were stupid. But they are not stupid: the stupid are stupid, and they do not choose to be stupid. To behave as though one were stupid is quite a different thing from actually being stupid.
'JACIII' replied:
JACIII: Why do they exist if not for our amusement?
Ilíon: The cripple I knew most intimately existed so that I should exist.
JACIII: Secondary amusement provided, as you are vaguely amusing.
'JACIII' also said:
JACIII: English. Plain English - willful does not mean "pretending to be"I never responded to this (never saw it, in fact). And, of course, in plain English, JACIII really ought to find an English tutor; I fear he is too far gone for a dictionary.
We are both OT - I know what you mean to communicate, and you might some day figure out what I am communicating.
Then, 'Taylor,' having apparently not paid much attention, combines parts of two of my posts, and asks:
Ilíon: ... the stupid are stupid, and they do not choose to be stupid.Notice, Gentle Reader, Taylor copies the word 'choose' ... and still misses the point.
Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?
Taylor: Why would you compare a cripple, who is quite aware of his condition, with this idiot who quite obviously considers himself intelligent enough to debate with people of normal intelligence or better? I would absolutely mock a cripple who was racing a 100-yard dash against able-bodied men. He'd be a freaking laughing stock. An idiot with a big mouth who thinks himself even more clever than those he debates here should be mocked as well.
Also, she's misusing the word 'idiot' in just the same way that 'Spacebunny' initially misused 'stupidity.' Really! When supposed adults insist upon talking like kindergarteners, should we be surprised that they think like kindergarteners? [Initially, I wasn't going to say such a direct and "insulting" thing, but after rereading Taylor's post, I realized that she'd want me to say that.]
'MarkkuKoponen' said:
MarkkuKoponen: There's stupidity that comes from low intelligence, and there is stupidity that comes from having fed folly, instead of wisdom to your mind all your life. The latter can occasionally be very funny.
To the 'Ilk,' in general, I said:
Ilíon: To assert that someone is stupid is to assert that he does not -- and cannot -- understand the thing about which he (allegedly) is stupid. If one asserts that another is stupid, then one has simultaneously asserted that one has no moral right to be angry with him or to mock him with respect to that thing, for one has asserted that he did not choose and cannot change his situaton.
Frankly, I cannot see where we ever have enough information to really know that any person, even a retarded person, is indeed stupid. It may simply be that he needs to work harder than most other persons to understand the thing about which we suspect he's stupid. In which case, he's not stupid, but rather retarded -- and he, and likely we, are simply too impatient to work through it.
Replying to 'MarkkuKoponen,' I said:
MarkkuKoponen: There's stupidity that comes from low intelligence, and there is stupidity that comes from having fed folly, instead of wisdom to your mind all your life. The latter can occasionally be very funny.Again, Gentle Reader, keep in mind the context here: we are talking about the question of whether it is factually correct to accuse persons who choose to make foolish, illogical and irrational arguments of being 'stupid;' and, secondarily, whether it is then morally permissible to mock or express anger toward these persons (if we *have* called them 'stupid') on that basis.
Ilíon: That's not stupidity; that's intellectual dishonesty.
Stupidity is not a choice.
Getting back to 'Spacebunny,' she said:
Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?
Spacebunny: Yes, when it's merited.
To 'JACIII,' I said:
Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?Again, Gentle Reader, I'm duplicating these posts in chronological order.
JACIII: Why do they exist if not for our amusement?
Ilíon: The cripple I knew most intimately existed so that I should exist.
JACIII: Secondary amusement provided, as you are vaguely amusing.
Ilíon: And you're obviously a fool -- that's a moral judgment, but the way, not an accusation that you're stupid.
Spacebunny: Yes, when it's merited.Recall, Gentle Reader, the context in which these statements and questions are made; to wit: the argument I initially made, and which she has cleverly "refuted" by the quite devastating expedient of simply informing me that it is "Bullshit."
Ilíon: Merited?
What *are* you people?
Back to 'MarkkuKoponen,' who said:
Ilíon: That's not stupidity; that's intellectual dishonesty.But, what is it that 'MarkkuKoponen' is denying is intellectual dishonesty? To quote his prior post: "... and there is stupidity that comes from having fed folly, instead of wisdom to your mind all your life." This "feeding" is a choice; and it is not merely ignorance (lack of knowledge), but is an active choice to fill one's mind with anti-knowledge. Such a choice is 'foolishness' (which is a species of intellectual dishonesty); it is a very different thing from 'stupidity.'
MarkkuKoponen: Intellectual dishonesty is when you know your rationale doesn't hold water. It is different than a state where you would have had, genetically, the capacity to not be stupid, but you lost it by reading the wrong books, being with the wrong people, watching the wrong TV shows etc.
Replying to an old post, 'Spacebunny' said:
Ilíon: I was wrong: you're not so rational, after all.You just know I am wounded to the core by that, do you not? ['Spacebunny' has edited this post; I don't have the original content. I recall it being a bit less friendly than it now is.] But, Gentle Reader, notice that last charming bit -- it's a disingenuous little game that 'Spacebunny' and 'Vox Day' play ... they are *so* concerned that threads stay on-topic ... after, of course, they themselves, and their 'Ilk,' have driven it all over the map (and hvee made their best and prolonged attempt to provoke their target into behaving as insultingly and basely as they do).
Spacebunny: Well, considering I've never had any particular regard for your, ahem, abilities or opinions. I shall simply have to cry myself to sleep tonight.
Now, do try to get back on topic.
'Vox Day' (apparently fearing that 'Spacebunny' is in over her head) writes:
Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?
VD: No, that is my job. Even won an award for it, as a matter of fact.
'Spacebunny' said:
Ilíon: What *are* you people?Whatever I said in response to this has been deleted. I don't recall what I said. I know that I referred to 'Spacebunny' as 'Dearest:' I mean, she *did* refer to me as 'dear;' it seemed only polite to return the endearment. I think I made the observaton, possibly by way of a rhetorical question, that the 'Ilk' are behaving much the same way that "Evangelical Atheists" tend to behave.
Spacebunny: We are the rational set not crippled by our emotions dear.
'MarkkuKoponen' said (to VD):
MarkkuKoponen: So, what was the best shot at little crippled boy?This is a pointless post, I include it as it further demonstrates the nature of the 'Ilk,' especially in light of that "stay on topic" command: these people are hypocrites, they're intellectually dishonest.
'Taylor' asks/demands:
Taylor: So, did Ilion immediately delete his own comment stating that many of us here are like Evangelical Atheists, or was it deleted for him?and 'MarkkuKoponen' answers her:
Hey, Ilion, please resubmit that gem if you deleted it yourself. I mean, you must really think it to have posted it. And if you don't think it, then why post it?
MarkkuKoponen: His name is not a link, so he has not registered, and therefore can't delete comments.I include this because it's all that remains (so to speak) of my deleted post to 'Spacebunny.'
'MarkkuKoponen,' always scrupulously on topic, informs us:
MarkkuKoponen: Ilion obviously played the good ol' Poke the Bunny Shockwave game.I haven't the faintest idea what he means; though I'm sure it was deeply thought out and on topic.
Coming late to the game, 'Arielle' said:
Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?Also coming late to the party, 'TheAardvark' said:
Spacebunny: Yes, when it's merited.
Ilíon: Merited?
What *are* you people?
Arielle: Certain conditions should not be held as a "get out of jail free" card. Being crippled does not elevate a person to sainthood, nor confer some special right to escape the mockery that anyone else would receive for doing or saying foolish things.
Ilíon: Merited?
What *are* you people?
TheAardvark: I was an aide to handicapped students at our college, and yes, some of them were eminently mockable, especially the ones who milked their condition for pity, favors, like that. Often, they were mocked by their fellow wheelies.
To 'Arielle,' I replied:
Arielle: Certain conditions should not be held as a "get out of jail free" card. Being crippled does not elevate a person to sainthood, nor confer some special right to escape the mockery that anyone else would receive for doing or saying foolish things.[I later said essentially the same to 'TheAardvark.'] And 'Arielle' replied:
Ilíon: Are you really so incapable of reading-in-context?
It is wrong (immoral) to mock a stupid person *because* he's stupid; it is wrong (immoral) to mock a cripple *because* he's crippled.
Arielle: You're correct on that. However, your original point is not a valid one, because "stupid" can also mean "foolish person" and that is obviously the meaning Spacebunny had in mind.I suppose one ought not expect much better from persons who speak (and think) like kindergarteners.
Staying strictly on topic, 'Spacebunny' said:
Ilíon: It is wrong (immoral) to mock a stupid person *because* he's stupid; it is wrong (immoral) to mock a cripple *because* he's crippled.Can you believe this woman? Hell, she's *worse* than the typical "Evangelical Atheist;" they only "argue" that we Christians are are clearly "stupid" (grossly misusing the term) as proven by the fact that we are Christian.
Spacebunny: And what moral system would you be basing this idiocy on because it certainly isn't JudeoChristian.
Coming een later to the party, 'Shrubbery' graciously informed us that:
Arielle: Certain conditions should not be held as a "get out of jail free" card. Being crippled does not elevate a person to sainthood, nor confer some special right to escape the mockery that anyone else would receive for doing or saying foolish things.Maybe the leaves are blocking his sight, since he clearly has no idea what I've argued.
Ilíon: Are you really so incapable of reading-in-context?
It is wrong (immoral) to mock a stupid person *because* he's stupid; it is wrong (immoral) to mock a cripple *because* he's crippled.
Shrubbery: What a load of bull shite. I'm a "cripple", a pejorative to the more sensative, and I find nothing immoral about mocking gimps. It's actually quite fun. On a serious note, mockery in and of itself is not an immoral practice, something it seems you have to assume in order to make the point you're vainly trying to make. Overt hostility may be immoral but that is largely contextual. And, as a couple folks have already asked, from what source do you divine your moral authority to claim mockery is immoral?
Commenting in general, 'Matt' said:
Matt: These so-called "stupid" people are mocked because they're lazy, and often insulting. They don't immediately question themselves after their beliefs are questioned. These are the folks who are told time and time again, read the damn facts but still refuse to admit to themselves that they were wrong, instead choosing to act like jackasses. They aren't ignorant of the facts, incapable of understanding. They just don't want to admit, understand or accept.Well, yes; these so-called "stupid" people are just that: so-called, in contrast to being actually stupid.
Not having the information is one thing, but dismissing it without a reason is another. They're just lazy. No one here is mocking developmentally challenged people, because developmentally challenged people don't come to this blog, or write articles discussing theology!
Don't think of stupidity as permanent, and you won't have a problem.
Now, simply saying "That's untrue, and demonstrably so, moron" without explaining yourself or pointing the way to where you got your information is obnoxious, but if that's what wets your fancy for whatever reasons, then good luck.
Jumping back into the game (and recall, he'd expressed concern about staying on topic, even before 'Spacebunny'), 'JACIII' answered a most pressing question:
Ilíon: Do you also mock cripples?
Spacebunny: Yes, when it's merited.
Ilíon: Merited?
What *are* you people?
JACIII: The Ilk, of course.
To an earlier post from 'TheAardvark,' I replied:
Ilíon: Merited?
What *are* you people?
TheAardvark: I was an aide to handicapped students at our college, and yes, some of them were eminently mockable, especially the ones who milked their condition for pity, favors, like that. Often, they were mocked by their fellow wheelies.
Ilíon: As I said to Arielle --
Are you really so incapable of reading-in-context?
It is wrong (immoral) to mock a stupid person *because* he's stupid; it is wrong (immoral) to mock a cripple *because* he's crippled.
^ that is the point.
Realizing that 'JACIII' has been lacking some critical information (recall, he needs an English tutor), I thoughtfully informed him that:
JACIII: The Ilk, of course.
Ilíon: That's a "who."
What you people are are fools.
Now, one of the interesting things about fools (and bullies), is that they can dish it out, but can't take it:
Ilíon: What you people are are fools.Well, they do give every indication of caring, do they not? Also, 'TheGivingTree' appears to be another of the 'Ilk' who is working with a kindergartener's playground vocabulary. Goodness! Why doesn't he just totally break my heart my calling me a "doo-doo head?"
TheGivingTree: If an idiot calls someone a fool in the forest, does the Ilk care?
The long-lost 'Taylor' feels the need to make her presence known:
JACIII: The Ilk, of course.
Ilíon: That's a "who."
What you people are are fools.
Taylor: Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. Buh-bye now. Adios. Have a nice life. Ciao. Take care now. Take care. Now.
Eagle-eye 'Spacebunny' pops out of the warren, to declaim:
Spacebunny: Ilion- I notice you have failed to cite the moral authority for your "you're mean" claim of immorality. Please do so before you comment again.What a hypocrite (and bullying coward) this woman is. Recall, Gentle Reader,
Also, there is that kindergartener vocabulary again (the "you're mean" thingie); I mean, even aside from the fact that my argument had nothing to do with whether she's "mean," but rather had to do with her sloppy language and (as became apparent over time) her sloppy thinking.
'Toby_Temple' said:
Toby_Temple: Ridicule, just like respect, is meritedOf course, that was never at issue. I'm more than willing to see this as a simply a sensible statement, rather than just another one of the 'Ilk' acting the fool.
But, as I said, the 'Ilk' are who and what they are; and 'Spacebunny' (and 'Vox Day,' though he must have gotten his fix earlier) apparently needs to take insult, and give insult (it's just too bad that I can't be insulted), for some odd reason I'm sure I'll never understand; so:
One does not expect that this post will long remain on 'Vox Day's' blog, because bullies can dish it out (especially if they have a "posse" to back them up), but they cannot take it.
Spacebunny: Ilion- I notice you have failed to cite the moral authority for your "you're mean" claim of immorality. Please do so before you comment again.
Ilíon: Dearest,
You petty (*) and foolish, morally obtuse woman (as see above), what more is there to say?
(*) By the way, "mean" (as see above) means "petty" -- not that one expects someone walking around with a kindergarten vocabulary to know that.
If the 'Ilk' have already (or do hereafter) say any more on this particular topic, I'll not be bothering to go looking for it, nor update this post. As I said, if find this sort of thing to be quite boring (if sometimes necessary); I've said what I mean to say.
37 comments:
("It is much easier to understand Christianity once one comes to an acceptance of the existence of evil.") is not literally true -- for, evil exists in much the same way that darkness exists: it doesn't. Darkness is the absence of light; evil is the absence of, or denial of, good (which is it depends upon the sense in which one uses the term 'evil').
I know this is off the point at the moment, but I wonder if you'd be interested in coming back to this?
Cathy: "I know this is off the point at the moment ..."
That's quite all right; discussing this is much more interesting than all that up there.
[I'm working on the answer]
Ilíon: "I had intended to point out that his first sentence ("It is much easier to understand Christianity once one comes to an acceptance of the existence of evil.") is not literally true -- for, evil exists in much the same way that darkness exists: it doesn't. Darkness is the absence of light; evil is the absence of, or denial of, good (which is it depends upon the sense in which one uses the term 'evil')."
By the term 'good,' we mean two very different things (made clear by context):
1) that which is desirable (but having no direct moral content);
2) that which is moral.
The usage is frequently referred to as "natural good;" the second "moral good."
Consequently, by 'evil' we mean two very different things (made clear by context):
1) that which is undesirable (but having no direct moral content);
2) that which is immoral, which is to say, wicked.
The usage is frequently referred to as "natural evil;" the second "moral evil."
The word 'wicked' always means 'immoral,' it always indicates a moral judgment; but the word 'evil' may or may may not indicate a moral judgment. Consequently, it both amuses and annoys me how people toss around the word 'Evil' (especially when one can, so to speak, hear the capital 'E').
For instance, with respect to a "natural good:"
It is a good condition to be intelligent -- but the possession of intelligence is morally neutral; to be intelligent, even to be the most intelligent person in the world, says nothing about one's moral state. Likewise, it is an evil condition to lack intelligence (to use a word from above, to be 'stupid') -- but the lack of intelligence is morally neutral; to be stupid, if one is indeed stupid, says nothing about one's moral state, it is not to be a wicked person.
Ilíon: "... evil is the absence of, or denial of, good (which is it depends upon the sense in which one uses the term 'evil')."
If one is using the term 'evil' in the sense of "natural evil," then 'evil' is the absence of "natural good."
If one is using the term 'evil' in the sense of "moral evil," then 'evil' is the denial of, or repudiation of, "moral good."
[continued]
If one is using the term 'evil' in the sense of "natural evil," then 'evil' is the absence of "natural good."
For instance, to be alive -- to possess life, to exist -- is a "natural good;" the possession of all other "natural goods" depend upon the possession of this one. For, if one does not posssess life, or existence, one cannot possibly possess any other "natural good" which mat exist.
But, what when one dies? Does one now "posses death" or "possess non-existence" whereas one previously possessed life or existence? No, one hasn't traded an existing (and previously possessed) "natural good" for its opposing "natural evil." Rather, it is simply that one has lost the "natural good" which previosly one did possess.
All "natural evils" are like this: they are not things or states which exist literally, but rather are states of privation of some "natural good."
[continued]
If one is using the term 'evil' in the sense of "moral evil," then 'evil' is the denial of, or repudiation of, "moral good."
I would suppose that this is not where you wondered what I meant? But rather that this seems to you self-evident?
Wow, Ilíon, what a royal mess. I wouldn't have bothered trying to correct Spacebunny on a relatively minor point like that myself, because I know what I'd be getting myself into, and that following up on it in any serious way would involve a huge time investment that they'd end up deleting anyway.
But your point was correct, and that was an appallingly poor show, even by Ilk standards.
The lowest point was definitely when several of them (including Vox himself), in order to avoid admitting any error, resorted to sheer pointless, defiant vulgarity rather than reason, and made posts along the lines of "Oh yeah, well I DO mock crippled people, and I think it's a blast, so neener-neener-neener in your face!" It was hard to read it without the phrase "social autism" springing to mind.
Also, speaking of willful obtuseness and intellectual dishonesty, it was pretty obvious from the get-go that you were stating that it was wrong to make fun of or get angry at someone for something they had no control over, but nearly every single respondent (not counting those who declared that mocking cripples was the bees' knees) insisted on responding to you as if you'd said that it was never okay to make fun of anybody with any disability for anything at all, including things they can help.
Finally, almost as soon as your argument started, and I could see that Spacebunny had misconstrued your point, I thought to myself "This is going to end with her demanding 'evidence to substantiate' her misconstrued version of his argument, and then using it as pretext for a ban." I called that one.
Probably the reason why husband and wife ought to have separate blogs.
As facetious as that sounds, it's true: Just seems like there's a helluva lot less personal accountability with words when someone rides the coattails and gets a free pass in the process.
Running with the wolves, like I said.
Hi, Ilion. I'm always fascinated by thinking about thinking, but it's always been in the context of being aware of one's psychological or emotional beliefs, perceptions and reactions. Can we start off by saying that if I'm just too far in the weeds, you recommend a good Introduction to Philosophy, (and by "good" I mean valid regarding information, and presented in a manner accessible to the unread), and we could come back later if you want to?
Regarding "natural good' and "natural evil", I'm following ok -- 'Natural evil" being what might be called "bad" or "ill", meaning undesirable.
But I did not realize until I read "...evil exists in much the same way that darkness exists: it doesn't. Darkness is the absence of light; evil is the absence of, or denial of, good ...", that I have always thought of moral evil as something more active than the absence of moral good. I mean, Evil-with-a-capital-E as being destructive of, rather than devoid of, Good. But this comes from a since-I-was-a-kid religious perspective, and I don't know whether I'm mixing apples and oranges.
The Deuce: "Wow, Ilíon, what a royal mess. I wouldn't have bothered trying to correct Spacebunny on a relatively minor point like that myself, because I know what I'd be getting myself into, and that following up on it in any serious way would involve a huge time investment that they'd end up deleting anyway."
Well, that's a good point. On the other hand, if one isn't free to correct a point -- moreover, to correct it as gently/neutrally as I did in the initial post -- then there's really not point in trying to participate on their blog.
The Deuce: "But your point was correct, and that was an appallingly poor show, even by Ilk standards."
I didn't initially see your post over there (where you stated that you agreed with the point I was making), but I saw it late as I was going through the thread to construct this OP. I'm sure you're familiar with how difficult it can be to follow all the posts in the typical thread.
Thanks for the word. And thank you for this post you've made over here.
The Deuce: "The lowest point was definitely when several of them (including Vox himself), ... It was hard to read it without the phrase "social autism" springing to mind."
Yes. As I mentioned in a deleted post, the 'Ilk' frequently behave much as "Evangelical Atheists" do.
The Deuce: "Finally, almost as soon as your argument started, and I could see that Spacebunny had misconstrued your point, I thought to myself "This is going to end with her demanding 'evidence to substantiate' her misconstrued version of his argument, and then using it as pretext for a ban." I called that one."
Yes, once she dug in her heels, I knew that's how it would go.
But, on the bright side, I have a photograph of 'Spacebunny' (and the 'Ilk'), and to a lesser extent, 'Vox Day' in action.
Oddly enough, a photograph of 'Vox Day' in action looks much the same.
AWA: "Just seems like there's a helluva lot less personal accountability with words when someone rides the coattails and gets a free pass in the process."
Ya, I can see where -- depending on the personality of the two spouses -- a dual blog could be a bad idea. Unless one appears to whole-heartedly back up everything one's spouse does, one may well hear about it over dinner. And breakfast.
AWA: "Running with the wolves, like I said."
Wolves! I just wanted to pet a kitty-cat.
Cathy: "Can we start off by saying that if I'm just too far in the weeds ..."
No shame in that.
And it's not as though I'm a heavy-hitter, either. I've just been thinking about these sorts of things for a long time, and thinking about what other people have said.
Cathy: "... you recommend a good Introduction to Philosophy, (and by "good" I mean valid regarding information, and presented in a manner accessible to the unread), and we could come back later if you want to?"
I have no idea a good introductory book to suggest. But, as much C.S.Lewis as you can get your hands on. I mean, the "serious" stuff, rather than the novels (and by that I mean only that the novels are too indirect with respect to the question you've asked).
Cathy: "... (and by "good" I mean valid regarding information, and presented in a manner accessible to the unread) ..."
That's one of my peeves with philosophers and theologians as general classes; most of them are just useless. Who gives a damn that they can impress one another building elaborate houses of cards if they have nothing to say to the rest of us?
Cathy: "... that I have always thought of moral evil as something more active than the absence of moral good."
Well, no, that's not quite what I meant. That's why I said: "evil is the absence of, or denial of, good (which is it depends upon the sense in which one uses the term 'evil')." My statement was meant to compact both uses, and the distinction, into one sentence.
We use the terms 'good' and 'evil' in two slightly different, and yet related, ways, probably going back to early Greek philosophers 2500 years ago -- something along the lines of: companionship is desirable; lack of companionship is undesirable; to possess wisdom is desirable and seems to be more than simpy desirable, for the goodness of possessing wisdom seems imperative, seems to be something we *ought* to seek; to spurn wisdom is undesirable and worse, for if one *ought* to seek wisdom, then to spurn wisdom is worse than simply lacking it. So, the good of possessing companionship seems to be different from the good of possessing wisdom.
What I said in the initial statement is easier to see with respect to natural evils that with respect to moral evils. It holds in both cases, it just may take more concentration to grasp it with respect to moral evils.
Natural evil is the absence of natural good; moral evil is the turning away from, the repudiation of, the denial of, moral good. Natural good (and natural evil) can be seen as "that just happens;" moral good (and moral evil) results from agents freely acting. So, in that regard, yes, moral evil is indeed "something more active than the absence of moral good," for it's a choice.
And yes, one is certainly correct to see "Evil-with-a-capital-E as being destructive of, rather than devoid of, Good." It's similar to a (very virulent) biological parasite.
But, moral evils don't exist in their own right. Moral evils "exist" and have meaning only in reference to, only as the repudiation of, moral goods. If there were no moral goods at all, there could be no moral evils; but if no agents were morally evil, agents could still be morally good. They just might not appreciate it.
But, moral evils don't exist in their own right.
I 'm pretty sure I have a thought trying to form. :) But in the meantime, thanks, and have a good night.
Well, I may be expressing myself poorly.
Or, I may be mistaken (but, of course, I don't think I am, else I'd not have said what I said).
I think it's harder to make the case that moral evil doesn't really exist than that natural evil doesn't.
As you pointed out, natural evil is an absence of natural good, and it's at least awkward to say that an absence - a lack of presence or existence of something - itself exists or is present.
But moral evil is a rebellion against good. And rebellion, it seems to me, is a real existing thing.
Well, first off, i realized I'm not clear on the definitions of the critical terms.
For example, in the context of murder as a "moral evil" , is the "evil"
the intent to murder,
the act of murdering,
the effect (death of the victim) ?
Second, I was trying to think of an example where there can be good, absence-of-good, and evil; my question being Isn't evil different than absence of good.
Say there are cash boxes for voluntary donations to a demonstrably worthy cause of a reliable agency, and that all Persons are comparably circumstanced.
. Person A places a donation into a box -- intent/act/effect are good
. Person B steals a cash box -- intent/act/effect are evil
. Person C does nothing --
Is this 'evil' since it is absent of good? Is there a "moral neutral" category? (Unless Person C chose not to steal a box, in which case, is doing nothing "good"?)
Or, is the Person B scenario simply more evil, because there are evils , both the not-helping absence of good, and the not-respecting-other-people's-property absence of good?
If you decide you don't want to play anymore, I will totally understand!
(I have to assume it's a good thing (for society in general) that my library is fresh out of C.S. Lewis. *sigh* Back to Amazon.)
Rats.
"Or, is the Person B scenario simply more evil, because there are evils ..." is supposed to be:
"Or, is the Person B scenario simply more evil, because there are multiple evils ..."
I've srarted a new thread specifically for this discussion: here. I'll be copying the content of the posts we've made so-far into the OP of the new thread.
Have you all seen this thread (which is about this radio shock-jock segment)?
Regardless of whether the radio clip is real or scripted, consider how differently a certain Godly man had chosen to get rid of his pregnant-by-someone-else fiancé about 2000 years ago: quietly, with the least pain and humiliation to her that he could manage.
But, let’s assume that the radio clip is unscripted, that the man really did break up with his “girlfriend” in just this humiliating way via the services of a pair of misogynistic shock-jocks.
And then, let’s step back, and look at the situation from a broader angle –
Here is a so-called (*) man who has chosen for five years to use this woman as his unpaid whore, that is, as a mere slut; had he used her as a whore, he’d have shown more respect toward her.
And here is a woman (**) who has chosen and allowed herself to be used as a mere slut (and who seriously imagines this is the first she has allowed herself to be so used), probably in the vain hope that “putting out” would somehow result in marriage to a good man.
What we have here is wicked self-deception on both their parts.
And what we have in Vox Day’s Ilk is the wicked gloating over the sin and consequent pain of others, of sin and pain which I do not doubt that most of them have inflicted on themselves and others. I suspect that in gloating about “the bitch’s” humiliation at the hands of these three “righteous” men, they seek to cover over the ugly realities of the culture of “sexual liberation.”
(*) Since I am a man, I speak primarily from the viewpoint of the masculine virtues and duties. A man who uses women in this manner is no man.
(**) I think part of her humiliation is wounded pride: like most women who play this game, she probably imagines she’s “so good in bed” (even as she’s probably mostly indifferent to sex herself) that any male she chooses to “reward” will be eternally smitten.
Well, like I said, Sowell's a much more straight-forward read if I want to get into socioeconomics. As opposed to having the add-on discussions about tricks and game interspersed throughout.
Although Thomas might pick up more of the Ilk/Spike TV demographic if he did. If he's into surrounding himself with doomsday complaints and sportsbar insults.
Haven't been back to the sandbox since.
Well, first I read --no, skimmed -- much of the thread, with two thoughts running throughout: 1. Clearly, I have been incredibly sheltered from the kind of venom most of those commenters stew themselves in. Not only did I notice a desire to go boil myself, I almost felt like I should go throw up in an effort to feel clean again from the inside out. 2. I resisted the urge to leap to "Ashley's" defense, because it was possible there was some actual evidence of her faithlessness in the audio bit that was still waiting for me.
So, I listened to the recording.
i actually did not know that people like these DJ's existed. I don't know how I got this far so uninformed, but I am very grateful I did.
As to the great expose' -- "Ashley" admitted, between what I heard to be moments of speechless shock, which various other listeners determined to be hesitation while she crafted new lies, that "a few months ago" she had "made some mistakes" with a man who had been a friend since before she began dating "Chris". And that on discovering that Chris did indeed intend to move their life together forward, she apparently engaged in some inappropriate kissing-goodbye with the long-time friend/briefly lover.
I am NOT going to excuse or defend Ashley's sexual infidelity to her understood-to-be-exclusive boyfriend. Nor am I going to condone the nature of her relations with her boyfriend. Nevertheless, I'm really bothered by assumptions reflected even in this thread.
Consider the experience of a woman in love with a man who, for years, acts like he returns the feelings in all ways but one: asking the woman to marry him. There is real pain in having your life, your future, put on hold for years at a time. Constantly wondering whether things will ever change, wondering what you're doing wrong, wondering why you aren't enough, wondering whether you should start over somehow, try to find a partner who will build the marriage, the family, the life you want, with you.
To have a male friend who finds you desirable, whose attentions comfort and reassure you, who makes you believe, even briefly, that you deserve better, may create too great a temptation, especially for someone who is already sexually active. (continued)
I think part of her humiliation is wounded pride: like most women who play this game, she probably imagines she’s “so good in bed” (even as she’s probably mostly indifferent to sex herself) that any male she chooses to “reward” will be eternally smitten.
We don't know anything about this woman's past relationships or sexual activity; we don't know anything about her libido, or her "pride" in her sexual prowess, legitimate or otherwise.
I've been trying to figure out why it bothers me so much that anyone would leap to such ugly conclusions about this unknown woman. I guess it's partly because it's weirdly threatening -- hang on, I know this may not make much sense -- but it is frightening to think that in the absence of actual information, I, or a friend, or, God forbid, one of my nieces, could face such denunciation. And not by strangers as distant as we are from Ashley. I certainly know it's possible; when I was young and single, and so shy -- especially in big groups -- I was told several times, "Before I got to know you, I thought you were a real bitch." This, for seeming aloof at parties. So what kinds of things were decided -- and disseminated -- about me, after a "break-up" was reported? I am so glad I didn't know then how much free-flowing animosity there is out there.
But there's another part to this that distresses me, and maybe it's presumptuous of me to say this, but I hate to think of the damage people do to themselves by choosing to interpret the unknown so negatively. I grew up around a lot of this habit of uncharitable assumptions as to motive and character, and I believe it feeds on itself. And I really don't want that for someone I think a lot of.
"Nevertheless, I'm really bothered by assumptions reflected even in this thread."
Perhaps you're misunderstanding, or expecting that which isn't going to happen.
I, and the others who have commented here are men. And, specifically, we're Christian men. And I, and I suspect the other two, are not much given to sentimentality. My compassion with her pain can never overrule my dispassionate appraisal of how it is that she came to be suffering that pain -- her pain is the natural, all-but unavoidable result of her choices.
"I am NOT going to excuse or defend Ashley's sexual infidelity ..."
And yet, you've angry with me.
"Consider the experience of a woman in love with a man who, for years, acts like he returns the feelings in all ways but one: asking the woman to marry him. There is real pain in having your life, your future, put on hold for years at a time. Constantly wondering whether things will ever change, wondering what you're doing wrong, wondering why you aren't enough, wondering whether you should start over somehow, try to find a partner who will build the marriage, the family, the life you want, with you."
Exactly. And seed of that the pain grew out of the soil of allowing herself to be used as his slut -- he doesn't respect her even as much as he would a whore. Whores, at least, (and if they don't get murdered) get paid.
He claims in the audio that he has loved her from the instant he met her, five years ago. Yet, for most of those five years, he has used her as a sexual convenience, as a masturbation machine. And she has allowed it -- imaging that easy virtue would (someday! somehow!) result in a good marriage.
She believed the lie of "sexual liberation." And now (one aspect of) the cost of believing the lie has come due.
"We don't know anything about this woman's past relationships or sexual activity; we don't know anything about her libido, or her "pride" in her sexual prowess, legitimate or otherwise."
True. But we can make educated guesses.
MOST women think men are "always on" -- if a woman throws herself at you, she actually imagines that you have no choice but to succumb. And, most women (especially when they're young) believe themselves to be are in a perpetual competition with other women ... men are just the chits by which such women are keeping score.
"I've been trying to figure out why it bothers me so much that anyone would leap to such ugly conclusions about this unknown woman. I guess it's partly because it's weirdly threatening -- hang on, I know this may not make much sense -- but it is frightening to think that in the absence of actual information, I, or a friend, or, God forbid, one of my nieces, could face such denunciation. And not by strangers as distant as we are from Ashley. ..."
Have you not noticed that we are being even harsher on the so-called men in that audio?
Do you want me to talk about *my* nieces? And nephews. I won't ... but if I did ...
Ilion, believe it or not, I was going back through posts I haven't looked at for a while, trying to find an earlier reference -- I was sorry to see your comment about "All My Tears" confirm that it was your mom you spoke of as "The cripple I knew most intimately."
Ah.
Well, I did say that "The cripple I knew most intimately existed so that I should exist." -- I wanted to rebuke the "Why do they exist if not for our amusement?" comment without making it "about me."
First, I want to make sure you understand that the ONLY thing I want to express about your mom is that I'm sorry it was she who was crippled. (BTW, I had no idea you were already responding to the "Ashley" comments when I came back to make my comment about your mom!)
As for "Ashley" --
I wasn't angry with you, but I am distressed about the generalizations you make. I want only to -- I don't know how to explain this, it sounds stupid and melodramatic -- clear away what I think is your conviction about how truly awful women are. (Maybe people in general, but certainly women in this instance.) Because it 's a burden of pain you don't have to bear. (This is not going well...)
MOST women think men are "always on" -- if a woman throws herself at you, she actually imagines that you have no choice but to succumb. And, most women (especially when they're young) believe themselves to be are in a perpetual competition with other women ... men are just the chits by which such women are keeping score.
I honestly don't believe this is true for MOST women. But I can't actually offer anything as proof; and I have to acknowledge it's been a long, long time since I was in the constant company of unattached women, and it sounds as though you have your own disillusioning experiences to support your belief.
But in attempting to show what I meant about assumptions, I proposed:
"Consider the experience of a woman in love with a man who, for years, acts like he returns the feelings in all ways but one: asking the woman to marry him. (etc.)"
You responded: "Exactly. And seed of that the pain grew out of the soil of allowing herself to be used as his slut," and "And she has allowed it -- imaging that easy virtue would (someday! somehow!) result in a good marriage".
Except I was speaking from my own experience. I know how fortunate I was that I held to my commitment to chastity, both in the temptations of that long and in-other-ways intimate relationship, and in being protected from serious error with other men who made it clear they would be only too happy to "reassure" me, in the midst of the pain and self-doubt and discouragement I often felt. Certainly my pain persisted because of choices I made, but it wasn't from buying in to "sexual liberation".
I honestly don't know whether this is making any sense.
It comes, simply, to this: I really like you, and I admire your intellect and and your values; I want to think you'd give me the benefit of the doubt when it looks as though I may be "wrong" (as opposed to mistaken or uninformed, which I frequently am); and I don't want you to grow up to be a bitter, I don't know, fuddy-duddy.
Cathy: "First, I want to make sure you understand that the ONLY thing I want to express about your mom is that I'm sorry it was she who was crippled. ..."
I'd never imagine otherwise.
Cathy: "It comes, simply, to this: I really like you, and I admire your intellect and and your values; I want to think you'd give me the benefit of the doubt when it looks as though I may be "wrong" (as opposed to mistaken or uninformed, which I frequently am); and I don't want you to grow up to be a bitter, I don't know, fuddy-duddy."
There is a great difference between being bitter and being realistic; there is a great difference between cynicism and seeing the world as it really is, and the people in it as they really are.
I had a mother (and two grandmothers, and aunts), and two sisters, and four nieces -- I *know* that women are not angels.
I am a man, and I had a father (and grandfathers, and uncles), and a brother, and two nephews -- I *know* that men are not angels.
Cathy: "I wasn't angry with you, but I am distressed about the generalizations you make. I want only to -- I don't know how to explain this, it sounds stupid and melodramatic -- clear away what I think is your conviction about how truly awful women are. ..."
But, I am not talking about how awful women, in general, are; nor am I talking about how awful "Ashley," in particular, is. I am talking about how foolish human beings, in general, choose to be; I am talking about the obstinate refusal to see reality. It is not that people are stupid, it is that they willingly choose to behave as though they were either ignorant or stupid -- that is what foolishness amounts to.
Ilion: "MOST women think men are "always on" -- if a woman throws herself at you, she actually imagines that you have no choice but to succumb. And, most women (especially when they're young) believe themselves to be are in a perpetual competition with other women ... men are just the chits by which such women are keeping score."
Cathy: "I honestly don't believe this is true for MOST women. But I can't actually offer anything as proof; and I have to acknowledge it's been a long, long time since I was in the constant company of unattached women, and it sounds as though you have your own disillusioning experiences to support your belief."
Indeed, I do have my own "disillusioning experiences."
But, most women do believe that about men -- for that matter, so do most men, even though the belief contradicts their own experience. People believe this because that's what we're taught in school (starting with the old "men are naturally promiscuous" chestnut), and the false belief is constantly reinforced in popular culture (as witness many of the things said by the misogynistic shock-jocks about male-female relationships).
Cathy: "... Certainly my pain persisted because of choices I made, but it wasn't from buying in to "sexual liberation"."
There are no guarantees when dealing with agents (beings who are free to act), but only probabilities. One can "do all the right things" in one's dealings with the opposite sex ... and still get burned. One might even "do many of the wrong things" and yet, somehow, end up with a good and loving marriage. But, the odds are in the other directions; and the odds are especially strong against "do many of the wrong things" and still ending up with love; for in doing the wrong things, we injure our capacity to give and receive love.
There is a great difference between being bitter and being realistic; there is a great difference between cynicism and seeing the world as it really is, and the people in it as they really are.
And there's the rub, i suppose. I worry about you having become cynical, when actually I have simply been too cloistered to recognize how ugly it has gotten out in the real world.
Pretty ironic, actually, given some of the people I deal with at the center; I guess I've done a good job of convincing myself they're the exceptions, rather than the rule.
To seems to me that cynicism involves a degree of looking down on "all those others who just don't get it" or of imagining oneself to possess superior moral worth -- oddly enough, the more strongly the cynic insists there is no morality anywhere, the more moral worth he tends to imagine himself to possess.
"The real world" has become very ugly -- western societies have become machines for soul-destroying, in ways that have not been the case since ancient days -- can you imagine that radio-clip we've been discussing being used as entertainment, much less being made in the first place, just a generation ago?
Men, as men, are now widely viewed as being disposible. Is it really surprising that some not-yet-men, who have never been taught how to be men, and who in their "education" were intentionally turned away from learning genuine masculinity, should eventually return the "favor" to women of considering them disposible?
It all makes the whole time-travel thing a lot more appealing.
Have you seen (or read) 'The Time Traveler's Wife?' You'd always arrive wherever/whenever in your birthday suit!
Is that a common element in time-travel fiction? The practical implications alone seem overwhelming.
I've just spent much of the last week revisiting Rocky and Bullwinkle, and I'm not aware of Sherman having any such problems with Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine.
It's a common, but not the most common, assumption in time-travel stories -- for it introduces a huge complication to the story's plot. It's not *just* that the time-traveler arrives nude (and, incidentally, without the fillings in his teeth, or the pacemaker in his chest), it's that on that assumption, no objects but the traveler's body may travel.
Well, I've worn glasses since second grade. I guess I'll have to pass after all.
Or time-travel in one of the universes in which one *can* take along more than just one's body.
Hmm... this might come off as rather glib, but I'm actually curious if you do editing work.
"MOST women think men are "always on" -- if a woman throws herself at you, she actually imagines that you have no choice but to succumb. And, most women (especially when they're young) believe themselves to be are in a perpetual competition with other women ... men are just the chits by which such women are keeping score."
Fascinating. I've been looking up philosophies on the relationship between the sexes and I'd love to read more of your take on it. Is there a tag or some posts I can search for on here? Or has this now become a demand for you to make one?
Post a Comment