Et tu, Dan?

It may be that we've now lost Dan Trabue. Hard to say with him. He may only have bailed on that specific discussion. The thing is, it always comes up again, both here and elsewhere, including his own blog. But just as recent posts have suggested, he has bailed in the typical manner. I guess that's just the way it is with those on the left.

Some may say it's good riddance. That may be true for them at their blogs and I have no problem with how others choose to maintain their own. Me, I like the back and forth, even if it seems futile, non-productive and when it gets boring even for me to continue (because that passes and I get back into it).

But I won't apologize for my style of engagement. Charges that I'm stubborn, hateful, mean-spirited and the like are rank bullshit. I'm a great guy. I'm a regular fuzzy puppy. Soft and cuddly (especially since I haven't worked out in months). But I am intolerant. Oh, I tolerate people who are different, that is, those who don't articulate well, those that misspell words, those who need a few explanations in order to get it.

But I don't, not "won't", "DON'T" tolerate stupid, silly or wacky opinions. I don't tolerate opposing opinions. Sure, all have the right to express them. But I don't have to respect those opinions, and I don't show respect by pretending there's validity in every opinion presented. I expect those opposing opinions to be defended until they can no longer be. I find it far more respectful of others to show them the error of their ways. And I'm respectful in hearing out those opinions when they are presented respectfully. But if it's weak, it's weak. If it's crap, it's crap. It's best you find out as quickly as possible without any tap dancing. I'll explain why I think so. I hope my opponents will do as much for me. Don't bore me with accusations about my character just because you can't make your case. I don't think that's too much to ask.

In Other Words...

This wonderful essay from American Thinker, that racist, poorly written but incredibly spot on collection of articles of intelligent opinions against which liberals who visit here have never been able to argue, is timely considering recent posts of mine such as "Poor Baby". There has been a lot of whining over "respecting" the opinions of others, allowing that other opinions "have merit" and generally boo-hooing when I dare to call what I think is a crappy opinion...well...crap. As I continue to maintain, everyone is free to believe what they choose, but I'm not in any way obliged to respect those beliefs.

As the article submits, respecting the person is the important thing, but to respect a poor idea, opinion or position does no one any good. That I continue to welcome opinions of all sorts shows the obvious point that I respect those people (except for maybe Feodor---he seems to demand far less and who am I to refuse a visitor?). But to just automatically tolerate those opinions as equal to mine? Not a chance. One must make one's case. Some call me stubborn for this. Standing firm for what I believe to be true is not stubborness. It's integrity. It's being principled. And as poor an example of either that I may be, I do the best I can.

Consider: I believe, nay, I know that poop is stinky. Let's say someone, say, Feodor, shows up with a smattering of poop behind each ear. He loves the smell so much he wears it like perfume. Though it may match perfectly his personality, I will not tolerate him wearing that scent in my presence. What the hell! It stinks! No matter how he tries to explain it otherwise, it plainly stinks! I haven't even gotten to whether or not I like him even showing up, but his opinion of delightful odors is crappy and so obvious is it that I cannot be persuaded otherwise. I'm not being stubborn. I'm stating the plainly permeating truth.

Most opinions aren't quite so obvious, but without an argument that persuades the result is the same. That my opponents are offended by my, uh, opinion of their opinion is really too bad. I care too greatly to be put off by the slings and arrows of those with so sensitive a nature. Frankly, I don't understand the sensitivity. It's pretty obvious that my opponents don't agree with me, but you don't see me crying about being offended. Imagine if some Druid left comments here. There's no way I'm going to respect their beliefs about oak trees and mistletoe. Am I being unChristian to allow them to continue believing such nonsense? I don't think so. Tolerating such leads to chaos. From the obvious to the subtle, I will continue to reject opinions contrary to mine if I find them to be foolish, mistaken or out and out crappy (interchangable adjectives all) and do so in the same way I always have: by offering evidence to support my opinion or refute the other. Whichever side can no longer return volley will usually be the side with the lame opinion. Whichever side picks up their ball and goes home will usually be the side with the lame opinion. Whichever side pleads for civility, just because the other says the opinion is crappy will usually be the side with the lame opinion.

The tolerance demanded is intolerable.

Herd Thins Again As Les Bolts

In my last post, I published a comment wherein I appealed to Les to return to the debates as he is one who offers fairly good opposition. I said this while dealing with the famously goofy and notoriously prideful and arrogant Feodor, who fails so routinely in showing why he should be either prideful or arrogant.

But in the post entitled "Poor Baby", he once again bid me farewell. At first I thought nothing of it as he has done as much more than once in the past, only to continue lurking and dropping a comment here and there.

However, for some reason I decided to look him up on Facebook, where he is on my friends list. At least he was. It seems as if he's "de-friended" himself and I suspect it happened after a recent response to a recent comment of his. Kind of ironic him leaving since he's the reason I'm on FB in the first place.

I guess my little blog is beneath him now. Too boring, he says. We're not much more than people who think we're on a talk show. That's an interesting perspective. I kinda thought Marshall Art's was a place where people can discuss and debate topics and issues for which they had some passion. I also would have thought Les was sharp enough to see that. It's looking like the title of that post, "Poor Baby" is pretty darned appropriate for those who no longer care to engage.

Oh well. I'll continue to keep the welcome mat out, as all those who've vacated are still more than welcome to put in their two cents, engage in the fun and then leave like they've a real reason to take offense or to condescend. I fully understand those with whom I'm dealing.

Pioneer or Propagandist?

This article discusses one Frank Kameny, one of the first to push for special rights for homosexuals. He apparently was a gov't worker who was fired for "simply being a homosexual". I don't know how I could find the original documents describing the circumstances surrounding his termination, or if such even exist today. I will say that if he was indeed fired for "simply being a homosexual", then indeed his firing was unjust. Somehow, I can't help but feel that there must be more to it, though considering the times, perhaps not. But I also can't help but feel that all pro-homo elements would prefer that the story be no more than is advertised as it helps them maintain their phoney victimhood status.

Now, let me elaborate for just a minute on my last statement. The homo-as-victim ploy is a favored one by the activist. Indeed, Kameny states,

“Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot. He should repent of his sinful homophobia. He should atone for that sin, And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4000 years.”

I guess God should also atone for all suffering endured by thieves over that same time period. What a mean guy that God Almighty is!

Franky also insists bigotry is a sin. Funny how atheists have no trouble defining behaviors as "sinful", but aside from that, I'm kinda bigoted against thieves. Is that sinful? But though thieves can resist the urge to steal, so of course can homos resist the urge to have sex with members of the same sex. So bigotry against bad behaviors and the people who engage in them is not sinful in the least, but actually beneficial to society. Indeed, it enhances the character of our culture to have citizens holding each other accountable through our laws and customs. Keeps us all on our best behavior.

Frank and his friends want us to allow one particular bad behavior continue and worse, insist that we all ackowledge it as "good". Imagine that. Taking from the REAL civil rights movement the expression, "Black is Beautiful" and changing it to, "Gay is Good", he is one of the first to take this perversion and insist on this moral absolute. But again, it's like saying "Kleptomania is good". What nonsense. Imagine someone saying "Straight is good". The best we can say is that straight is normal, that straight is how we were born to be. But one cannot qualify it morally as "good".

Later in the article, we get to the point where it speaks of Barry Obama's lauding of this guy as a true civil rights pioneer. Please. All those who think Barry really supports traditional marriage must find a way to resolve such a statement and other words of encouragement to the homo community. Personally, I doubt Barry would even care to think about homo issues. I'm sure he finds it all a big pain in the neck. I would wager that in reality he doesn't care about them at all, but that wouldn't help in the polls for it to be known. (I'd also wager that this is true for damned near every hetero person alive. But reading hearts and minds is so hard.)

Anyway, I find it very difficult to give kudos to someone who can be described as one of the first to push for all this homo stuff that has caused so much trouble in our society. Some will see that as hateful. Heck, they think it's hateful to use the abbreviation "homo", but I've come to accept that from those who really don't care about homosexuals enough to do what's right by them.

Still XMas for the Bucks

Playing headupass basketball, the Bucks squander a 17 pt lead but survive thanks to incredibly poor free throw shooting by normally reliable Bulls free throw shooters. Half the misses, nay, a third of the missed FTs would have meant a win for the Bulls. These two teams are having similar years, fans never knowing which Bulls or Bucks team will show up. But for now bragging rights, such as they are with Cleveland miles ahead in the division, go north as the Cheeseland Bucks are now 2-1 in the season series against the beloved and better Chicago Bulls.

I hear the Hawks are doing quite well.

Damned Denying Experts!

This is really good. And what they say is true. It's up to the Gore-ites to prove what they say and that hasn't been done. Theories and alleged evidence isn't enough. Something more compelling is needed before we spend tons of dough to prevent what isn't really happening. Gee, I hope these 141 experts have enough peer reviewed papers to satisfy the psuedo-sophisticated science geeks that used to visit here. Maybe they can explain why these 141 experts don't understand science.

Shades of Vonnegut!

If there's any truth to this article, then there's no limit to the stupidity of liberal thought regarding issues of race, equality or education. I don't know which is worse, eliminating a science department because one race excels where another doesn't, or dividing students into racial categories when judging the effectiveness of a program. Who freakin' cares which racial group is doing best? Why not just judge how many STUDENTS are benefitting and how many are failing. How can we expect our kids to develop a color-blind mentality if adults (I use the term loosely when speaking of liberal educators) refuse to ignore skin color? If a kid's failing, what difference does his color have to do with it? Answer: None whatsoever. All that matters is who's raising the kid and how good the teachers are at dealing with kids who are born to idiots.

Poor Baby

I had decided to visit some of the lefty blogs listed below in recent days. Since Dan visits here often, willing to stand firmly for what he believes, as wrong as that is, I hit a post or two over there. Only Alan, charmless as ever, had given me any crap. That's OK. I can take it and actually relish even that back and forth. I'll spar with anyone, literally or rhetorically.

Then I went to Geoffrey's place, "What's Left in the Church". Apparently poor Geoffie doesn't want to play anymore. He made a comment in one of his posts regarding whether or not anyone even reads his stuff anymore. Indeed, as I went through about half a dozen, there were no comments on any of them. Of course there are now, because I made some, and since then, he's made mostly childish responses, as has his "sis" and ER. Sad. Geoffies has never really been much in the debate department. He'll make noise about conservatism, pointing to specific people, like Newt Gingrich for example, while never explaining why he trashes them. I've always found this odd considering Geoffie seems to be well read. You'd think he'd be able to make some sort of supporting argument. But he's devolved into a bitchy little trash talker and doesn't support any of his charges at all. Actually he never really did, but he'd at least fake it momentarily before pretending it's all so tiring to spend time explaining himself. What a fraud.

That kinda takes the wind outta my sails as far as visiting the other blogs. I'll give them a try later and I hope I find a better quality of lib when I do. Geoffie-boy's giving them a bad name right now.

In the meantime, I continue to welcome all comers to THIS happy blog, where even the likes of a Feodor can come and engage in debate (if he thinks he can without the usual tiresome arrogance and condescension). Geoffie is also welcome if he feels all jerked out back at his circle. I maintain that I can be persuaded should anyone be persuasive. In religion and politics, it does matter what one thinks and believes.