?

Log in

No account? Create an account
the girl with violets in her lap [userpic]

October 13th, 2006 (07:34 am)
bitchy

current mood: snarky

I am currently sleepless, stuck in an unfortunate no-man's land where it's too late for me to go back to bed but too early for me to finish up any of the work that I have to do today (it involves making phone calls to a time zone that's an hour behind me, so, no.) Therefore I am killing time online, which means that I wandered over to Townhall.com, a site that is sure to fill a morning with endless hilarity if you can forget that people actually listen to these asshats. And I usually skip over Mike Adams' columns, because while I have a hardy stomach for most conservative wingnuts' incoherent rantings, the horrific racism and sexism of his columns is usually a bit too much for me. I don't know why I decided to read today's column. But I DO know why I am posting a point-by-point refutation of it: BECAUSE I AM BORED!

Is there any better - nay, any other - reason to blog?

Anyway. Here is his column. It is presented in the form of a quiz the likes of which he might give one of his college classes*, so I thought I would just go ahead and give my answers. At the end you all can grade me.

Good morning class! Before I get to today’s lecture, I am going to pass out the next set of questions designed to help you critically evaluate the assertion that “you can’t legislate morality.” Please answer all of the following questions by next week:

James Madison once said that “We have staked the future of all of our political institutions … upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.” Was this the same James Madison who wrote the First Amendment?


Why, golly gee willikers, Mike, I'm guessing it is! Or, you know, I'm guessing it would be! If it were not a made-up quote! Which it totally is! Before you go off to teach your next class, you might want to do some brushing-up on these little things called, oh, I don't know if you've ever heard of them, but they're called facts. Some people consider them to be important.

Take a few minutes to re-read the First Amendment. Did Madison include the word “separation” in that Amendment? How about the word “church”? How about the word “state”?

Wowee! Another good point, Mike! Only there is this other thing that some people consider to be important, and it's called reading comprehension. It's when you can read a sentence and understand it even when the sentence is not helpfully tagged with Cliff's Notes-style keywords. It's hard, Mike, I know. I understand.

In the Torcaso case, the Supreme Court declared that Secular Humanism was a religion. In Edwards, the Court established one religion (Secular Humanism) above all others. If Jefferson were alive today - and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – how do you think he would have voted in those two cases?

Oo oo oo! Can we also make him an ALIEN?! How would Jefferson vote if he were a Supreme Court Justice who was also an ALIEN from PLUTO?! That's an even BETTER question, Mike Adams! As for the rest - what the fuck are you on about? I guess by saying "Edwards" you are attempting to give people the impression that you are referencing some court case that they absolutely should be familiar with because everybody else is, thereby imbuing them with a sense of trust in the millions of *other* people who surely know about "Edwards" and making it seem unnecessary that they look it up for themselves. But in point of fact the only case I can figure that you might be referencing is "Edwards et al. v. Aguillard et al.", which determined that creationism does not need to be taught alongside evolution in public schools, on the argument that - follow me closely here - creationism is religion, unbacked by any scientific evidence whereas evolution is science, backed by lots of scientific evidence. The "secular humanism" line got thrown around by some Republican senator looking to get reelected. No one established secular humanism over anything, Mike Adams, except inside a couple batshit loony right-wingers' heads.

If the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” are we free to ignore original intent altogether?

OOH! I know this one! NO!

Is a stop sign of any use if I am free to interpret it as a “go” sign?

No. However, it is of use if you are free to interpret it as equally applicable to bikes, motorcycles, mopeds, all variety of cars, and any other kind of speedy transportation device that may be invented at some point in the future. It is also a good idea to note that when a pedestrian encounters an octagonal "stop" sign, that pedestrian is not bound to stop, EVEN THOUGH THE SIGN SAYS STOP, because that pedestrian is interpreting the sign. Imagine that!

Would it be fair to say that the religion of Secular Humanism has the public school lectern as its pulpit?

Bzuh?

Would it be fair to say that public schoolteachers are the missionaries of the religion of Secular Humanism?

Hm. Blee?

Would it be fair to say that our children are the potential converts of the religion of Secular Humanism?

Okay. What the shit?

Would it be fair to say that the missionary budget of the religion of Secular Humanism is the U.S. tax code?

Okay, this doesn't make any sense EVEN FROM YOUR NUTBAG POINT OF VIEW, MIKE ADAMS.

Why do we pay only ten percent of our income to our churches, but over a fourth of our income to a government that advances Secular Humanism over all other religions?

AIEEEEEEE THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT PLOT TO ADVANCE "SECULAR" FUCKING "HUMANISM" MIKE BATSHITCRAZY

Many people believe that Christianity is a bad religion responsible for many atrocities over the last few centuries. Why was the 20th Century the bloodiest in world history?

Off the top of my head: advances in killing technology? I mean, I think if Genghis Khan had had access to modern-day weaponry and bombs, he probably could have knocked off a whole hell of a lot more people than he did back in the 1200s.

What part did atheism play in the increased bloodshed during the last century?

Uh... none? As far as I am aware? Perhaps you should explain your theories instead of posing them as rhetorical questions, Mike Adams.

What part did communism play in the increased bloodshed during the last century?

Roughly the same role that capitalism did, as it takes two sides to fight a war, I would assume... or are we assuming that The Side That Mike Adams Likes is automatically equivalent to The Side That Never Shed a Drop of Blood? Because that is silly.

In the Casey decision (1992), the Supreme Court stated that “…At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, and of the mystery of human life.” Is the Court implying that morality is individually chosen, rather than objective, while simultaneously defending its right to deprive an entire nation of voting on the issue of abortion?

::sigh:: Goodness gracious, but you are tiresome. Mike, if people get to choose their morals individually, that means that the government does not get to tell them what to do. People have the right to make individual choices regarding abortion for themselves, but they don't get to make them for other people. That is why the Supreme Court ruled as it did. You lose at semantics.

Is the right to vote an individual choice?

::heavier sigh:: Mike. A right is a right. A choice is a choice. Please consult Merriam-Webster's. It will help you.

Later in Casey, the Court said, “(The Mother’s) suffering is too intimate and personal for the state to insist … upon its own version of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.” How would Madison have responded to such a statement?

OOOH! CAN WE MAKE HIM AN ALIEN TOO? FROM NEPTUNE THIS TIME?!

Imagine a case involving a deadbeat father, in which the Court writes the following: “(The Father’s) suffering is too intimate and personal for the state to insist … upon its own version of the man’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and culture. The destiny of the man must be shaped to a large extent on his own conception of his spiritual imperatives and his place in society.” Would Justice Ginsberg author such an opinion?

No, I do not suspect that she would. This is because - well, she didn't author the original statement, but anyway, moving on - this is because the first statement says one thing and the second statement says another thing, and as a consequence of this, the first thing and the second thing are not the same. You oughta get this one, Mike, Ayn Rand covered it - remember how A is A and B is B? And A is not B and B is not A? There. You get it now?

Given that homosexuals live about half as long as heterosexuals, is it fair to say that nature rewards with good health those who practice traditional morality?

...AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH by the way, you also lose at statistics AHAHAHAHAHAHA and "heterosexual" means "abiding by traditional morals all the time and without fail"? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Is the notion that consent makes something moral an appeal to an absolute moral standard?

Depending on how you define it, yes. Did you have a point?

The 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi-Equal Rights and Liberation sought to lower the age of consent for both homosexual and heterosexual sex. Is there any connection between that effort and their effort to gain access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America?

Oh, dear, Mike, it's those noisome "fact" thingummies tripping you up again. Here's an education on what that was actually all about:

One of the demands [of the march] was "passage and implementation of graduated age-of-consent." In Kentucky and Indiana, [the age of consent is] sixteen; elsewhere it's higher but never lower. Under these laws, if two adolescents under the age of consent were to engage in sex, they could be prosecuted, whether the sexual activity was consenting or not. In addition, a seventeen-year-old can be prosecuted for having sex with a sixteen-year-old, etc.

Graduated age-of-consent laws would simply take into consideration the age differences of the individuals involved. In other words, they might allow a sixteen-year-old to have sex with a fourteen-year-old with impunity or reduced penalties. An eighteen-year-old might legally be able to engage in sex with a sixteen-year-old, a nineteen-year-old with a seventeen-year-old, and so forth. Sex with anyone under a certain age, such as thirteen, would continue to be prohibited, as it is now.


This is a subject worth debating, but Mike, see, you got confused again. There was no attempt to lower the age of consent. There was an attempt to untangle some of the legal and ethical tangles that result when one single guideline is imposed on an issue (capacity for sexual consent) that is fluid rather than hard-and-fast. Anyway, no, I think it can safely be said that there is no connection between that and gays' "attempt to gain access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America". If by that phrase you mean "gays' wanting to be allowed to participate in a family activity that there is no earthly reason for them not to be allowed to participate in, given that gays /= pedophiles and gay is also not catching."

Is it fair to say that the gay agenda seeks to impose its morality on every child in America?

Ooh ooh, here's another one I know! No! ::dances::

Why do homosexuals place so much emphasis on recruitment? Is it because they cannot reproduce?

I think it's because they're we're trying to start an army to take down the U.S. military with fabulous uniforms and Carmen Miranda-style headdresses, actually. Or I would if I thought we were trying to recruit. Which I don't. Because we're not.

The truth of the matter is that all laws impose morals on others. Given that obvious truth, should we legislate the morality that kills people around the age of forty or the one that preserves them until seventy-five or eighty?

Ooh, you slipped an answer into that question! Also, what?

Would it be morally permissible to allow a woman to kill a workplace competitor in order to help her more rapidly advance in her career?

No. Again with the 'do you have a point?'

If abortion is appropriate because an unborn child is unwanted, handicapped, or poor, then why do we not round up and kill all unwanted, handicapped, and poor children? Would this be sufficiently immoral to justify a law legislating a more humane (read: moral) way of dealing with such children?

Mike, you are not too stupid to grasp the premise that pro-choicers do not believe that a fetus is the same as a child. I know you are not too stupid to grasp this premise. ...are you?

Have you ever met a person who supported abortion as a means of alleviating the “over-population problem”? Have you ever met a person who offered to sacrifice her own life in order to curb the “over-population problem”?

a.) No. b.) No.

Recently, I saw a bumper sticker that said “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!” Have you ever seen a bumper sticker that says “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one!”?

Oh, dear, Mike. Let's go back to the Ayn Rand, okay? A is A. B is B. A is not B. B is not A. Also, how would one go about owning a slavery?

Silly, silly Mike Adams. Please come to remedial classes after school. I know I can help you if you'll just let me.


*Mike Adams is a professor at some podunk fifth-rate hick college in the middle of like Georgia or something. He spends his time sexually harassing female colleagues, making smug references to how dumb the Vagina Monologues are, trumping up ever-more-bogus accusations of "reverse racism", and making semidaily references to how if they don't promote him to full professor it will be evidence of a political crusade against him. He's a sweetie.

Comments

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 12:49 pm (UTC)
Spock

Hee. You are the awesome. (Blee!) Perhaps I am confused, but I believed Jefferson *was* a secular humanist, so presumably he WOULD have voted to install it as the religion of the nation - if he were the sort of asshat who liked to impose his views on everyone without regard to their wishes, anyway. Funny, how that type always seems to assume everyone else is just like him. (Or was that the point, and this bit about Secular Humanism taking over the world is a riff on Jefferson? I'm confused beyond belief.)

You forgot to add that if "homosexuals" live half as long, lesbians are God's chosen people again!

Can I join in the crusade against him? One column, and I already very much want to.

Thanks for the plug, too. ;)

I saw a car the other day that had two bumper stickers : one reading "It's a child, not a choice" and one "Choose life." I very much wished I had a pen to leave them a note that said "you fail at logic." (Also, how I would feel if my mother had aborted me? NOTHING, what with that whole not-here thing.)

and *hugs* on the not sleeping thing. I'm sorry.

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 12:56 pm (UTC)

I very much wished I had a pen to leave them a note that said "you fail at logic."

Hahahahaha. You make me laugh.

The whole "secular humanism = religion" logic so debases the concept of a religion that I would think that religious people would be the last to espouse it. Then again, no religiosity of Mike Adams', other than pro forma lip service, is in evidence in this column .... well, except for the whole judgmental anti-gay thing. Sadly, that's become a "feature" of many religions. If only we could rewrite their boot code....

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:00 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:22 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:03 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:06 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:08 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:25 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:09 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:15 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:21 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:26 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:21 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:31 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:39 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:44 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:47 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:51 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:52 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:54 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:53 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:17 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:22 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:26 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:32 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:32 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:35 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 12:59 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:11 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:13 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:24 pm (UTC)

Posted by: halfacricket (halfacricket)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 05:41 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 05:47 pm (UTC)

Posted by: halfacricket (halfacricket)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 06:37 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 06:45 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:18 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 12:54 pm (UTC)

Cripes. What exactly is Mike Adams a professor of, physical science? And does his entire senior seminar consist of making students watch inadvertantly inappropriate filmstrips from the 1950s?

Maybe someone should ask Mike Adams: If moral standards are everlasting and absolute, then is it ok to revive the moral standard which made it ok, in, say, the 17th century, for mobs to storm academe and string up heretical professors (i.e. professors whose views they disapproved of)? Because, man, I got an itchin' right now.

Fuckwad.

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 12:59 pm (UTC)

He's a criminology professor. I know I feel better about the criminal justice system in this country knowing that.

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:13 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:18 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:20 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:21 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:23 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:37 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:40 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:10 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Brennan M. O'Keefe (harmfulguy)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:23 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:27 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:29 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:33 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:34 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:37 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:39 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Brennan M. O'Keefe (harmfulguy)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:17 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:19 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:29 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:19 pm (UTC)

Have you ever seen a bumper sticker that says “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one!”?

Have you ever read the debate surrounding the Missouri Compromise leading up to the Civil War? Because if they'd had bumper stickers back then, there would have been. The pro-slavery side was saying it was their choice and their property and they should be allowed to keep it, the anti-slavery side was saying it was Evil and Wrong, and they almost came to tearing up the Constitution over it. Actually, they kinda did, and we had a war with our own country. The people saying "Don't like slavery? Don't own one!" lost, which I guess is not such a good precedent for those of us saying "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" and "Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry one!"

Or I would if I thought they were trying to recruit. Which I don't. Because they're not.

Yeah...I might flirt with a straight girl on occasion if I know she'll be okay with it, and I'd be quite flattered if she turned gay for me, but no. I don't see where people get this whole "recruitment" idea from.

Also, where the fuck is he getting that "half the life expectancy" thing from?

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:23 pm (UTC)

I'm sure it's got something to do with AIDS and gay men (in The Gospel According To Assclowns Like Mike Adams, "homosexuals" means "gay men" and "lesbians" are "imaginary"), and I'm also, though I haven't looked this up in the last ten minutes, pretty damn sure that it is an old statistic - AIDS drugs have improved enough that AIDS just doesn't halve one's lifespan anymore - and that it's probably based on a lousy study done on an unscientifically small and non-diverse sample population. The numbers certainly don't square with anything I have encountered from any reasonable source.

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:31 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:36 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:37 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:39 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:40 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:41 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:42 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:54 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:55 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:38 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:55 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:57 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:59 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:00 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:04 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:06 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:08 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:09 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:30 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:33 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:36 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:34 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:35 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:37 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:38 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:40 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:42 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:41 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:42 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:50 pm (UTC)
morons

Many people believe that Christianity is a bad religion responsible for many atrocities over the last few centuries. Why was the 20th Century the bloodiest in world history?

First response that came to mind: Not to dredge up ancient history, but did we completely forget about a little something called the First Crusade? Fuck.

Second response that came to mind: If the 20th Century was in fact the bloodiest in the world, which I am not agreeing that it was, do you intend to argue that absolutely no Christians or Christian belief structures were involved in perpetrating the Holocaust? Because I would like to see that.

Third response: Seriously, buddy, what the shit?

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:52 pm (UTC)

I know, right?

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 01:59 pm (UTC)

I don't have a problem believing that the 20th century was the bloodiest. After all, ancient warfare, killing 50,000 people was a bloodbath. At the Battle of the Somme, over a million people were killed over a period of a couple months.

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:01 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:03 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:08 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:04 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:07 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:10 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:13 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:18 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:20 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:21 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:10 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:11 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:11 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:16 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Damian (fanboy_of_zeus)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:18 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:29 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:33 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:34 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:35 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:36 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:44 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:51 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:12 pm (UTC)

(Deleted comment)
Posted by: Gun-totin', Chronic-smokin' Hearse Initiator (ludickid)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:41 pm (UTC)
three see pee one

But, see, when COMMUNISTS tell you how you can and can't behave, that's BAD, because communists are evil. When they do something, it's wrong.

But CHRISTIANS, you see, are GOOD! So when THEY stell you how you can and can't behave, it's cute!

Posted by: Gun-totin', Chronic-smokin' Hearse Initiator (ludickid)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:39 pm (UTC)
blowhard

You have done well, grasshopper. Very well indeed.

I love how he couldn't resist abandoning the bogue rhetoric and inserting an opinion, here:

The truth of the matter is that all laws impose morals on others. Given that obvious truth

I know a lot of people have a problem with postmodernism as a philosophy, but one thing it's taught me is that any time anyone someone calls something an "obvious truth", they are 100% full of bullshit. This is a fine example: of course not all laws impose morals on others. There are plenty of laws that aren't based on any kind of value judgment: contract law, for a fine example, or traffic laws.

But beyond that, the whole conservative argument that it's absurd to say you can't legislate morality because all laws codify someone's moral judgment is deceptive. (Mike Adams isn't the only guy making this argument; David Limbaugh made it earlier this week, and Michelle Malkin before that. It's obviously a GOP talking point these days.) While the basic claim that most laws do legislate a moral standpoint (murder is wrong, stealing is bad, etc.), the claim "you can't legislate morality" refers not to YOUR morality, buy MY morality. That is to say, we can have laws that legislate against murder, because while you might believe that I should be killed, I don't agree, so we pass a law that says you can't just kill me because you want to. But we can't have laws that legislate against, say, homosexuality, because if another man and I believe that we should have sex, if you don't agree, we don't care, because it doesn't have anything to do with you.

There's plenty of good arguments to be made about how far we can legislate morality, or whether consent should be the final arbiter of legal activity. (I personally don't believe that you can't legislate morality, or that consent is always an answer to state interference.) But Mike Adams isn't making those arguments. He's just taking a few generalized ideas about how law should be written, using reductive arguments to turn them into strawmen, and then clumsily setting them ablaze.

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 02:46 pm (UTC)

You have done well, grasshopper. Very well indeed.

Hey, I'm touched.

And, yeah, the thing that pisses me off about Mike Adams in general and this article in particular is that he has this habit of taking subjects and issues that are deserving of nuanced discussion and then just totally butchering them. What irks me most is that it seems really evident that it's not that he's incapable of understanding that these subjects require more nuanced discussion than he gives them, as some of the right-wing wackjobs are. It's that he doesn't give a shit, because he gets off on a.) pissing liberals off; b.) getting shouts of approval from intellectually lazy bigots; and c.) getting fat paychecks. Sigh.

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:25 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:27 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: October 13th, 2006 03:29 pm (UTC)

(Deleted comment)
Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: October 14th, 2006 02:50 am (UTC)

...oh, man.

...oh, man.

I am totally tempted to do yet another line-by-line analysis now.

122 Read Comments