For your entertainment and amusement I offer this from Geoffrey's blog. It is also educational as it should display the liberal notion of tolerance and the free exchange of ideas. Note that he links to several of my posts, and without discussing why he finds any of it troubling, he merely lashes out against your humble host. Now I know that for all of his education and reading that he likely doesn't possess the ability to wage a civil discussion regarding the merits of my position, but I did invite him to do so nonetheless. I believe that's the way it's supposed to be done, even if staying home and gossiping like a little girl provides more satisfaction for some.
This is why I appreciate those who disagree and still show up to try to persuade or present their side. People like Marty, ER, Les, Vinny (when ER, Les and Vinny have a mind to), particularly Dan Trabue, who, God bless him anyway, holds firmly to such poor interpretations of Scripture, and even that prize winning troll Feodor. That's what blogging is all about: presenting ideas and opinions, seeking to persuade or be persuaded, to argue, get pissed occasionally, to take a few cheap shots for personal enjoyment and laughs, but not, as Geoffrey thinks he doesn't, to take ourselves too seriously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Regarding Geoffrey's statement, "Arguing that it's all in good fun and we all need to lighten up is not only lame, it's a dodge, an attempt to deflect attention from morally vacuous nonsense."
Funny, I seem to remember that's his defense every time I point out how stupid and illogical are his assertions.
"I was only just a foolin' as I'm thought, of course, you'd see."
Typo alert. That's "I thought", not "I'm thought".
Too funny. Against my better judgment I went to Geoffrey's post, which was mercifully brief.
What a shocker: The pro-legalized-abortionist (3,000+ per day in the U.S. alone!) whines about a handful of people being waterboarded. Very consistent. Not. But at least he quit pretending that he and I worship different Gods (with me being the one worshiping the one who revealed himself in the Bible).
Once again, given the following choices, I'll pick "A" every time.
A. Waterboarded.
B. Crushed and dismembered without anesthetic.
P.S. to those who would argue that waterboarding was done by the gov't and abortion is done by individuals, the point is that the gov't wouldn't allow individuals to waterboard other humans outside the womb against their will. And since it is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings they shouldn't be destroyed.
Marshall, consider it a compliment. I'd be more worried if Geoffrey et al agreed with you.
So Neil, who is pro-life, reserves his compassion for fetuses, feti, whatever, rather than adult human beings. Or children - don't forget that the testicles of a twelve year old child were crushed in front of his father in order to make him talk.
Mark's opinions aren't worth the effort of reading them.
Marshall, I am honored. Seriously. Apparently, your feelings are hurt, or else you wouldn't have taken the time to (a) link; and (b) make sure that the rest of your Amen corner got in their free shots. Please continue.
LOL! "Mark's opinions aren't worth the effort of reading them."
Whenever Geoffrey attempts to insult me it means I must have scored points. When he can't refute my common sense points, he resorts to either ad hominen attacks, or, as I previously mentioned, he tries to pretend he was just kidding about whatever idiotic argument he uses.
I consider his condescending elitist insults towards me to be high praise.
"So Neil, who is pro-life, reserves his compassion for fetuses, feti, whatever, rather than adult human beings."
Wow, one sentence and already a double logical fallacy -- a straw man / ad hom.
I won't bore you with all my charitable giving and service to adults, but let's just say that CareNet Pregnancy center helps the unborn and their mothers in many significant ways. I participate in that as a teacher, counselor, donor and board member.
And yes, I have compassion for human fetuses (you get the noun right but always forget that pesky adjective, which just happens to be a scientific fact). I think it is a bad thing for them to be crushed and dismembered -- you know, helping the weakest of these and all that. Just sayin'.
Indeed, Mark. Geoffrey's response does more to support the meaning of my post than debunk it. No argument to rebut my points, only meaningless tripe. Is he so horrified at the prospect of being shown up by someone with less education, who's read far fewer books, that he can't muster even the slightest semblance of an argument? I have truly no such fear myself, not because I consider myself a tough challenge, but because I'm truly open to the other side. I'm here to learn as much as to teach. To be persuaded as much as to persuade. I guess Geoffrey's just to much afraid of being shown that he's wrong in any respect, which shows he takes himself way too seriously at least.
But look at his response to Neil. He totally misses the point of Neil's comment (not surprising---it's par for the course). He totally doesn't get the irony of worrying about harsh interrogation techniques while at the same time, supporting legalized torture in the deaths of innocents through abortion. He condemns Neil for lack of compassion for the poor terrorist being interrogated, when Neil's compassion is not only for the unborn human beings on whom Geoffrey bestows no value, but for the lives considered to be at risk by those who might consider harsh techniques necessary to procure life saving intel from uncooperative evil-doers. And he says I'm beneath contempt!
He offers this:
"...don't forget that the testicles of a twelve year old child were crushed in front of his father in order to make him talk."
Some kind of link to something that substantiates this claim would be helpful. Considering the "outrage" over Abu Graib, if there was anything to this story at all, we'd hear of it on every station, particularly MSNBC, until we blew chow. But then, Geoffrey clings to anything that in any way denigrates the Bush admin or anything connected to it. Very hateful.
Finally, Geoffrey has a lot of nerve talking about "Amen corners". Aside from his own corner at his own blog, he only visits liberal Amen corners these days. What's more, he doesn't see the sarcasm of this post's title. There's no blog entry that could ever hope to hurt my feelings. I don't take myself that seriously. I linked to his site to share my sense of amusement at his inanity in once again crapping on someone without ever addressing that someone's message in the least. In other words, it's plain to see that Geoffrey hates conservatives and conservatism. He just doesn't know why.
Well, Art, I wouldn't be so sure that I haven't read as many books as Geoffrey. If I still owned all the books I've read, there wouldn't be room in my house for all of them if they were stacked to the ceiling and covered every square inch of the house.
I am currently reading "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin (I've read all the rest of his books) and also reading "What's Wrong with Christianity?", by Denesh D'Souza.
And as for education...I've met many, many educated idiots. Geoffrey is one.
Post a Comment