Search This Blog

Sunday, June 7, 2015

The pressure seems too much

It seems that the pressure of freeing one's mind of the evils and lies of leftism may be too much for some to bear. Of late, Bob Prokop seems to be trying to get free of the falsehoods to which he has devoted so much of his life and effort. And, of course, given human nature, and the nature of belief-systems, and the nature of leftism in supplying its adherents with hefty doses of self-righteousness, one does expect relapses.

It appears that for B.Prokop, the proverbial straw prompting him to try to de-leftify himself has been the epiphany that even though Catholicism, Inc. has faithfully acted the good little bitch to Progressivism (i.e. American Leftism) for well over a century, in their present seeming cultural triumph, this batch of leftists have as little use for, or respect of, The One True Bureaucracy, or of Roman Catholic persons who happen to be Christians (in contrast to the Kennedys and Pelosis and Bidens and such-what), as any other batch of leftists has ever had.

First, let's examine an example of intellectual dishonesty involving someone who is not B.Prokop, so that one may more easily recognize for what it is the example that does involve him --

Over at Victor Reppert's blog, in the Marriage legal and moral thread, B.Prokop had posted this:
"making a judgement of the moral character of the wedding participants ... is the issue that I have been saying matters most"

I think this is what frightens me the most about this whole debate. People like Doug seem perfectly ready (and even eager) to employ the full weight of state power to compel others to not only act in certain ways, but also to think in proscribed fashions. The above quote is crystal clear. The pro same sex marriage side wishes to make disagreeing with them a thought crime, punishable by the loss of one's job, business, livelihood, whatever it takes.

And you think this is improbable? That "it can't happen here"? Well. Over on Ilion's website, he links to a news story about a Canadian jeweler who cheerfully and professionally did everything his lesbian customers wanted. Yet they still threatened action against his business solely because he did not approve of what his customers were doing. So Doug is right. This has nothing to do with cakes, etc. Read the quote at the top of this posting again. It's all about thought crime.
In response, concerning lesbians' subsequent progressive-mob attack on the the Christian jeweler, I wrote:
I suspect that the sexual pervert fascists did this on purpose: that they intentionally ordered custom-made "engagement" rings from this jeweler, intending all along to raise the progressive mob against him to demand a refund ... after he had gone to the expense of buying the materials and doing the labor to make the rings.
And, as sure as night follows day, some lying leftist "social justice warrior" needed to pipe up
What's next - jet fuel can't melt steel beams? There was a second gunman on the grassy knoll?
Which is rather amusing, when you think about it: the fool's examples of "crazy conspiracy theories" to which he wants to liken what I said are the sort that leftists love to love, and to spread.

Now, anyone who has *read* just a couple of the public news items about the particular case -- to say nothing of all the other cases in which sexual perversion fascists and other "social justice warrior" fascists conspire to ruin the livelihoods, and lives, of persons who will not agree to pretend that two dudes butt-fucking equals a marriage -- understands that there is no "crazy conspiracy theory" involved in what I wrote. And, moreover, those who have read a couple of public news items about the Canadian sexual perverts attempting to ruin the livelihhod of the Christian jeweler understand that my use of "I suspect" was just me using understatement, as I do from time to time.


So, if Gentle Reader has grasped the essential dishonesty of the fool, 'John Doe', trying to liken what I'd written to some "crazy conspiracy theory", let us move on to B.Prokop attempting a similar move (in his case, in two parts).

Victor Reppert has another recent post, called An ethicist's nightmare
There are ethical problems with some research. Let's take, for example, selective breeding of human beings. The issues surrounding racism are made a lot easier by the fact that there is really no such thing as a superior race. But, if we started breeding superior human beings, then there would be a superior race in reality. Then what would our duties of the superior race be to the inferior race? That would be an ethicist's nightmare.

But a certain famous scientist keeps playing around with the idea.
I made two comments to Mr Reppert's OP --
comment #1 " The issues surrounding racism are made a lot easier by the fact that there is really no such thing as a superior race."

Oh, silly! There are any number of "superior race(s)" ... it all depends upon the metrics one is using to define or delineate "superior".
Admittedly, my comment could have been clearer had I quoted Reppert's next sentence. In the sentence I quoted, he says that there is presently no such thing as a "superior race". In the next (and unquoted) sentence, he says that in the future, there could be such a thing as a "superior race", were eugenicists (and 'Science!' worshipers in general) to have their way. My response is to point out that, no, there is no difference at all between now and this imagined future with respect to the existence of a "superior race".
comment #2 "Then what would our duties of the superior race be to the inferior race? That would be an ethicist's nightmare."

It would [NOT] be "an ethicist's nightmare" nightmare because "ethics" is about coming up with rationales to "explain" how it is that immoral behavior is really moral, after all.

Races don't have moral duties to races. Individuals have moral duties to individuals, and those don't change just because one's race is superior according to this metric, rather than that.
Ah-ha! B.Prokop -- who is still a leftist at heart, and who is really fighting to hold onto his leftism -- apparently imagined he had found -- or could manufacture -- a "Gotcha" moment
What are your metrics, Ilion, that would indicate the existence of a "superior" race in the Real World today? I don't know of any.

Superior cultures, yes. But races? Can't see it.
Now, even if Gentle Reader doesn't yet fully understand that I do not play that game, B.Prokop surely knows it by now.

I replied --
Do you (singular and plural) practice at this? Is there some special class one takes to learn to un-read what another has written so clearly?

Do you remember the last time you beat your wife, B.Prokop?
See? In two different ways, I had told B.Prokop that he was barking up the wrong tree (and that I wasn't going to play that game).

And, so, of course, being a not yet recovered leftist, B.Prokop had to play another popular leftist game: "I'm a Special Snowflake and It's All Always All About Me!" --
It would have been sometime before she died, literally in my arms, with our daughters weeping at the foot of her bed, from pancreatic cancer some 6 years ago. Care to apologize for that remark, Ilion?
That ain't never gonns happen, and he knows it; for I apologize only if I have done something wrong. And someone else's decision to invent an insult where there is none is not *me* doing something wrong.

Shoot! Someone else even tried, round-about, to explain it to him --
Your wife may have been a poor topic for Ilíon's question, but I think the point he was trying to make was that your question about what metrics he would use to determine which race is superior is leading, and it misses his point. I wouldn't take it personally.
And, of course, everyone knows that the question, "When did you quit beating your wife?", or variations on it, has nothing to do with making "your wife" the "topic for [the] question".

But, of course, B.Prokop is still a fool (and is resisting freeing himself of his long-cherished foolishness), and so he *cannot* admit his error, or even just let it drop quickly down the memory-hole --
I did [take it personally], and he needs to apologize - abjectly, and now.
Ain't never gonna happen ... and everyone knows it ain't.

9 comments:

B. Prokop said...

Dang! I tried to be nice to you, Ilion, but look what it got me. Now I'm gonna have to just go back to calling you out on your support for Hell's Own Governing Constitution - something you never did repudiate.

By the way, it was (and remains) an honest question. No "gotcha" intended. If, as you say, there are metrics by which one race can be deemed "superior" to another, what are they? I genuinely wish to know.

Dan Gillson said...

Bob, the point was that the metrics governing racial superiority are arbitrary. Is a taller race better? Smarter better? Better looking better? What difference does it make? Individuals only have obligations to other individuals. Races don't have obligations to other races based on arbitrary metrics.

Ilíon said...

You *know* that I don't give a damn about whether you have tried to be "nice" to me. You *ought* to know that I despise the dishonesty of the whole game of "niceness" ... and that I *always* expect the mask to come off, sooner or later.

You *know* that what I demand of you, and of everyone, is intellectual honesty, irrespective of how "nice" one chooses to be today.

And you *know* that I will never repudiate being for the liberty of the individual.

Lastly, I have already said, in my first post in the thread at DI, what those metrics are: they are whatever one chooses to choose as defining what one means by "superior".

But, you seem to need to play "Gotcha" (and insinuate racism *gasp* on my part) and so *reading* what I wrote just gets in the way.

B. Prokop said...

"But, you seem to need to play "Gotcha""

Nope. Knowing you'll never believe it, I was simply and honestly curious as to which metrics you considered capable of determining one race's "superiority" to another. You yourself stated that such metrics existed, but did not identify them. I wanted to hear what you thought them to be.

Never for a nanosecond was I thinking about "gotcha". It is curious, however, that you took it that way...

And you still need to apologize for being an asshole. I guess you'll never have an idea about how much that comment hurt, and if you did you probably still wouldn't care. I'll just put that on the shelf along with your support for Hell's Own Governing Constitution (not my phrase, by the way - I stole it from Charles Williams).

Ilíon said...

Paraphrasing, VR wrote: There is really no such thing as a superior race ... at the present time; but there might be in the future.

I replied: "There are any number of "superior race(s)" [right now] ... it all depends upon the metrics one is using to define or delineate "superior"."

While my meaning could have been clearer had I quoted Reppert's next sentence about a hypothetical future "superior race", what I did write is not unclear. That you "misunderstood" what I wrote, and want me to list some metrics to define what "superior race" means, left me only two options:
1) that you're too stupid to grasp a clearly expressed thought, written in your native tongue;
2) that you're playing "Gotcha!"

And you know that I *never* choose option 1), not even about the "Mad Dingo" or the "Prancing Fool".

That you continue to "misunderstand" what I wrote -- even after Dan Gillson has restated it using more words, both there and here -- confirns to me that you were playing "Gotcha!" (and are now trying to shift the onus onto me).

======
Furthermore, that you have chosen to invent an insult out of my variation on "When did you stop beating your wife?" is fully as irrational, and as intellectually dishonest, as were I to invent an insult were you to refer to someone as an intellectual and/or moral cripple.

You don't get to play language police based on your personal pain anymore than I do.

B. Prokop said...

Count me as too stupid to grasp your "clearly expressed thought". I still fail to see what you were driving at, if not to say that there were ways to determine which race is supposedly superior.

Ilíon said...

"... I still fail to see what you were driving at, if not to say that there were ways to determine which race is supposedly superior."

Once again, what I wrote is, "There are any number of "superior race(s)"" and "it all depends upon the metrics one is using to define or delineate "superior"."

I also don't play, "Prove it again, Sam". It's your job to *read* what I wrote; it's not my job to keep looking for new ways to say it until you finally deign to *read* what was clearly expressed all along.

"Count me as too stupid to grasp your "clearly expressed thought" ..."

If that's what you want to go with, then I have no business talking with you. About anything.

Intellectually dishonest people cannot be reasoned with ... because they willfully choose to evade and deny the dictates of reason.

But stupid people -- if there are any (*) -- cannot be reasoned with ... because they are literally incapable of seeing/grasping the logical movement from 'A' to 'B'

(*) I'm not convinced that there are *any* human beings, even amongst the mentally retarded, who are too stupid ever to understand some proposition and the logic behind it. Rather, there are:
a) people who are mentally slower, and perhaps noticably so, than the ones trying to teach them something;
b) people who become impatient with the mental slowness of those in group a), and so give up trying to teaach them;
a1) people who become discouraged by their own slowness and the impatiennce of their (supposed) teachers, and so give up trying to learn the thing.

B. Prokop said...

Amazing. Utterly amazing. All you do is to repeat yet again that you believe there are metrics by which one race can be deemed superior to another, and then somehow accuse me of "intellectual dishonesty" for what you wrote?!?!

Huh?

You say, "It's your job to *read* what I wrote." Well, I did, and asked you (several times now) just what these supposed metrics are. Yet for some unfathomable reason, you find the question out of bounds - a "gotcha".

?????

Greg said...

B.

Would you deny that sprinters of W. African ancestry tend to do better in Olympic and World Championship track meets than sprinters of European, Middle-Eastern, Oriental, or Native American Indian origin? Could one not say that W. Africans are superior sprinters?