Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Agenda Lies 3: No Slippery Slopes

I really hadn't intended on doing only Agenda Lies posts, but this came up on a local radio show, and I couldn't let it go without comment.

Those who push the "agenda that doesn't exist" have long insisted that concerns about a slippery slope are an overblown concern without merit. Rick Santorum, not so many years ago, got all sorts of heat for daring to suggest a relationship between homosexuality and other sexual sins and misbehaviors, that tolerating one leads to tolerating all. "Complete hysterical nonsense!" they cried, implying that only disordered homophobia could cause anyone to suggest such a thing.

Yet, what Santorum and others like him have so easily seen is coming to pass. We already have witnessed the beginnings of the push to legitimize polygamous marriages. As predicted (as if a special supernatural gift of prophecy was required to do so), the exact same arguments are being used to make the case that loving, committed varying numbers of people should be allowed to have their unions recognized and sanctioned by the state. How dare anyone judge them wrongly? How dare anyone try to force their religion down their throats?

Yeah.

Right.

Now we have the above linked article describing something very familiar, but far more onerous than what has already come to pass. Just as we saw back in the early '70s, where pressure from homosexual activists led to removal of homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders, we now have pressure from child molesters working to do the same for pedophilia. Can bestiality be far behind? It's becoming less and less unreasonable to suppose that it isn't.

You'll note in the linked article that it all sounds so very familiar. The story is true. Only the deviancy has been changed to protect the "rights" of a different set of perverts.

How did we come to this? It's not hard to understand. It's the result of a complete abdication of resolve in upholding traditional standards of morality and virtue. It is not uncommon, even among conservatives, to hear that we need to set aside concern for social matters in our politics. Seems pretty damned clear that we've been doing exactly that for far too long. Did homosexuals cause this? No. Of course not. But the activists pushing the agenda that doesn't exist is a distinctly combustible log on the fire of moral decline in our nation, begun with the "free love" jokers of the 1960s and the Hugh Hefners that encouraged it. The door between a virtuous nation and a totally depraved one was never cast-iron. It was never more than a screen door with no lock. And those jokers and Hefners ripped it off its hinges and cast it aside in some self-gratifying but false notion of personal freedom.

And now children are at risk. Recently, two fellow bloggers spoke on the notion of "slippery slopes" and whether that term is accurate in how it is used. One suggested it is really a cliff off of which we have voluntarily jumped. Doesn't matter. The decline is speedy either way. And another Agenda Lie is exposed.

35 comments:

4simpsons said...

I've used the "cliff" illustration, not to say we jumped off it (though that works well, too!) but because the rational for SSM doesn't slowly lead to incremental rationales for other perversions of marriage, it does so immediately. The arguments are already accepted, it just takes society a little longer to realize it and get accustomed to their frog soup.

Re. pedophilia -- I consider it abhorrent, of course, but they actually have as good a rationale as the LGBTQ folks (which is to say, not very good). They can say that when they were 10 yrs. old they really liked 10 yr. old girls (it was "natural," right?) and they just kept on liking them. They were "born that way," and have just as much scientific evidence behind it (0%) as the LGBTQ groups do.

Feodor said...

I'm fairly certain that any existing underground force for abuse of the notion of the value and sanctity of a human being created by God was not built up by gay activists, not by women's liberation, nor by love-ins of the 60s and 70s.

Those responsible for throwing "combustible log[s] on the fire of moral decline in our nation" were white Christians.

And it began at the beginning.

For profit.

Feodor said...

The cliff that the Simp misnames:

The Three-fifths Compromise.

Marshall Art said...

Aside from no-fault divorce, which I would wager was pushed by those of the leftist, less-than-Christian persuasion, I can't think of many white Christians who sought to legitimize sinful behavior in a manner that resulted in changes in law, psycho-therapy, and what we teach our children. What's more, to asign blame to "white Christians", is to imply that the faith itself, Christianity, was somehow influential in any such activity. And that is the difference here. NOT that mankind is sinful and prone to act in unChristian ways, but that up until recently, the notion of what constituted morality and virtue had remained fixed from at least the time of Christ. What's happening now is a far cry from mere humans misbehaving. Now, thanks to the efforts of the homosexual activists, and the aforementioned jokers and Hefners, immorality and the absence of virtue are becoming the accepted standard to the point of being codified into law.

Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

You are not allowed to call other visitors names. This is my one main rule here at Marshall Art's. I refuse to believe that "the Simp" is meant as a term of endearment. I am the only one to whom you may engage in such behavior and I am the only one who can call visitors names. What's more, between you and Neil, there is no doubt who "the Simp" really is. It would be you as you are indeed a simpleton. This is ironic given your alleged education, but so incredibly true, nonetheless. Note your last comment. In what possible manner does the 3/5 Compromise figure into this discussion? That only 3/5 of my brain is required to match wit with you? (I say "wit" because feo doesn't have enough to warrant matching "wits")

I know you think you are expert on race relations due to your marriage. But you're really a buffoon every time you try to wax intelligent on the subject. It takes more than an interracial marriage to provide understanding of such things, especially considering there is no way for you to convince anyone that your wife's family understands it either. So I have no doubt that you couldn't possibly do better than embarrass yourself to expound on the 3/5 compromise. As I enjoy a good laugh, feel free to try. Know this, however: you will need to show how it relates to this topic.

Feodor said...

From a review of "John Patrick Daly. When Slavery Was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2002," found here, www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=7343:

"Americans were fervently individualistic, and they generally believed that hard work inevitably would result in material reward. Americans did not think too hard about economic theory, but insofar as they did, they were opposed to it. For Evangelicals in both the northern and southern states this led to a two-tiered providentialism. Since material rewards were from God, a prosperous believer could take comfort in the fact that God approved of the manner in which he had acquired his wealth. Secondly, if a nation, or a section of a nation, prospered, then it is likely that God approved of social arrangements as they existed. Daly offers a more nuanced exposition than this, as do many of his sources, but his evidence suggests that many southern Evangelicals would have been comfortable with this simple formulation. In Virginian Thomas R. Dew, Daly finds a prominent spokesman, whose 1832 proslavery Review of the Debate in the Virginia Legislature "signaled the growth of the national obsession with the unity of moral and material progress, and of the ideological tools and activity necessary to propagate it in the South" (p. 47). Success, whether individual or collective, was a mark of God's favor."
-------
"The radical individualism of southern Evangelicals provided a new element of providentialism to the scriptural defense of slavery. Daly examines the "Rights and Duties of Slavery" sermons and tracts, exemplified by James Henley Thornwell's Rights and Duties of Masters. Daly calls this and similar tracts "the most significant development of the final decade of proslavery writing" (p. 112). Thornwell, astonishingly, objected to the northern characterization of southern slavery as involuntary labor. Thornwell's objection was predicated on the assumption that God had ordained certain individuals to be slaves, and that scripture required that they willingly accept their station. They might be compelled to do so despite their individual inclination, but a good Christian slave, in obedience to a higher authority than his corporeal owner, would choose to labor cheerfully. The slaveholder might control the slave's labor (just as a northern factory owner might control the labor of his employee), but the slave was free to obey or to disobey the biblical injunction to offer that labor willingly. The "Rights and Duties of Slavery" literature dissolved, at least in the minds of its authors, the distinction between free and unfree labor."
-----
"Slavery and antislavery apologists raged at one another's inability to perceive self-evident facts and principles, and to follow simple propositions to their obvious conclusions. Historians at times have seen this as evidence that northerners and southerners used the same words to mean different things, or that southerners did not even mean what they said. John Patrick Daly argues that they indeed did mean the same things by words like freedom and Providence, but that they came to different conclusions about the implications of those concepts for the future of the nation."
-----
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Sounds like you. Think of it, Marshall, you're on the side of slavers.

Feodor said...

"The first ship bearing slaves for America landed in 1619, beginning over two centuries of human bondage on the American continent, bondage which would eventually be called our "peculiar institution." This institution always received theological support from various religious leaders, both in the pulpit and in the classroom. For example, through the late 1700s, Reverend William Graham was rector and principle instructor at the Liberty Hall Academy, now Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. Every year, he lectured the senior graduating class on the value of slavery and used the Bible in his defense of it."

Feodor said...

The preceding blows away the ignorant fog you produced by this:

"What's more, to asign blame to "white Christians", is to imply that the faith itself, Christianity, was somehow influential in any such activity. And that is the difference here."

Feodor said...

As for the infamous 3/5 compromise, I bring it up because of these lines from you:

"Rick Santorum, not so many years ago, got all sorts of heat for daring to suggest a relationship between homosexuality and other sexual sins and misbehaviors, that tolerating one leads to tolerating all."

Now, if you replace those two ugly words, "Rick Santorum," with the beautiful words, "Abraham Lincoln," and you replace the word, "homosexuality," with the phrase, "constitutional slavery," you would reach a statement that finally has truth.

From the Second Inaugural Address:

"If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war THE WOE DUE TO THOSE BY WHOM THE OFFENSE CAME, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue UNTIL ALL THE WEALTH PILED BY THE BONDSMAN'S TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF UNREQUITED TOIL SHALL BE SUNK, AND UNTIL EVERY DROP OF BLOOD DRAWN WITH THE LASH SHALL BE PAID BY ANOTHER DRAWN WITH THE SWORD, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Mark said...

Feodor's utilization of the tired old 3/5 compromise argument indicates he either isn't capable of understanding it or simply stubbornly refuses to admit the left's understanding of it is dead wrong.

It has been explained ad infinitum to him and all the other Liberals but they still insist on using it as evidence of racism by the founding fathers.

No point in arguing further with him until he finally 'fesses up.

If he is as intelligent as he wants us to believe, he already knows the facts, however, I tend to believe he's just stupid. One can't say he's ignorant because that implies he's never been educated on this, but since we've all explained it to him hundreds of times, and he still falls back on the same tired argument, there can be no other explanation for his unwillingness to acquiesce than stupidity.

Sorry if that violates your "main rule", Art, but I can't say it in a less offensive way than that and still be telling the truth as I see it.

Feodor said...

I think Mark confuses me with Abraham Lincoln.

And himself as having integrity.

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

You haven't broken the rule if you say someone is stupid and then explain why. This is different than calling someone a "stupid asshole" for example. But to refer to someone as "the Simp", and also to do so with no explanation, does indeed break the very clearly explained rule. How typical is THAT of the lefties?

Marshall Art said...

feo,

There is no fear of ANYONE confusing you with Abe Lincoln. None whatsoever. You could disguise yourself to look just like Abe, and once you open your mouth, you'd give yourself away and no one would be fooled.

As to your excerpts, there is nothing there that in the least sounds like me. Not even close, despite how badly you want it be so.

These people you quote are doing the very thing I have said they do, which is to distort Scripture to pretend slavery is condoned by Scripture. So I'll say it again: the Bible makes no comment either for or against slavery, with the notable exception of enslaving one's self to God, which is clearly a good thing. Meanwhile, all the Bible does is to guide the behavior of both master and slave toward each other. This is NOT meant to suggest that the slave should be content with his lot, or that he is in anyway meant to be a slave as if God wants it that way. Nor can this be proven to be the case by any other passage of Scripture. It only means they are to deal with each other in a Christian manner WHILE the situation exists. And again, what slavery was back then was not exactly the same as slavery pre-Civil War.

I've also merely maintained a fact, that some slaves WERE content in their situation and that was BECAUSE of the manner in which their masters treated them. It also is not condoning the institution of slavery to say this, especially since it is only relating a fact.

And to be more clear, but please, read this slowly and sound out the words...get help if you need it, which you likely do...I do NOT support the institution of slavery in any form EXCEPT for enslaving one's self to God and His Will.

Furthermore, "Rick Santorum" is the name of a fine American and are NOT "two ugly word". "Abraham Lincoln" are not "two beautiful words" but is the name of another fine American. EVen "feodor" is not an "ugly word", but is the pen name of a complete asshole who is arrogant beyond reason and a false priest, which is an ugly thing to be.

Finally, as expected, you have failed to show any connection between bringing up the 3/5 compromise and the topic at hand. Slavery in America did not lead to anything that was not already happening except perhaps the war the led to its demise, though in one sense, there had been a war on the issue since the founding of the nation, just without shooting. Homosexual activism, as part of the moral decline to which I refer, has led to two other sinful behaviors whose participants are pushing for recognition, just as Santorum easily predicted. That doesn't necessarily make Santorum more brilliant than you, though you haven't ever demonstrated any brilliance here, but it clearly makes him far more honest than you by his acknowledging the clear logic of the negative effect of tolerating one form of sexual depravity. But of course, a false priest is too false to acknowledge such obvious consequences when supporting depravity as something "God-blessed".

Mark said...

I think Feodor confuses me with somebody who gives a hoot about him or his opinions.

Art, don't expect Feo to actually explain the relationship between his misapplication of the 3/5 compromise to your post.

Liberals are great at making pronouncements, but not so good at explaining their relevance.

Feodor said...

Mark deigns to analyze the left but cannot comprehend his own lacking grasp of logic in saying he doesn’t give a hoot about me or my opinions… even while responding to them.

Not that he’ll get this simple point, either.

Feodor said...

“...or that he is in anyway meant to be a slave as if God wants it that way…"

OK, Marshall, for the umpteenth time, and obvious to the most casual observer - except you who are so committed to your twisted sense of self that you will not admit biblical clarity - I’ll only take the time to point out Leviticus 25. And, because you are so dishonest on this, I’ll emphasize five verses: 42,43, 44,45, and 46.

As for the Israelites, God will not have them be slave for God brought them out of Egypt and so they now all belong to God as servants and cannot serve as slaves to anyone else: "For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold.”

God does not want Israelites as slaves.

BUT, God says, "As for the male and female slaves whom you may have [and this, now, is in legal language of commandments: “you may not”/“you may”], it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.”

God outlines what God wants: for slaves, they must be taken from the other nations and not from Israel.

Any other way you want to twist is this just plain wrong to the thrust of the Hebrew legal language in this passage.

And this is just Leviticus 25. There is a lot more, obviously, for anyone who cares to be honest.

I’ll not even take the time to label how glaringly a failure you are to engage in honesty. You’re repugnant as well as wrong as well as committed to the wrong.

Feodor said...

The 3/5 compromise is the principle on which slavery was established as constitutional policy in the United States ( Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3).

And so it stood until the 14th amendment, July 9, 1868, after the Civil War which made ALL persons born or naturalized in the US citizens of the US and gave due process and equal protection to all citizens - all citizens - and killed off the 3/5 compromise moot.

1787 - No 3/5 compromise, not constitution, no United Sates.

1868 - No slavery, no 3/5 compromise.

As simple as pie for people with minds and integrity.

Jim said...

Just like "homo" is an abbreviation for "homosexual", "simp" is clearly an abbreviation for 4simpsons.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Nice try. If feo had merely said "Simp", I could accept it as an abbreviation and likely would not even have given it a second thought. But to say "THE" Simp? Uh,uh. That's a not-even-thinly-veiled shot at Neil. What's more, there's a big-assed difference between using an abbreviation of a legitimate word for a group of people which is based on their psychological defect, and messing with someone's family name.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Mark deigns to analyze the left...etc"

Mark can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he meant that he doesn't give a hoot about your opinions of him. Your opinions of other things is a different story.

As for your 3PM comment on the 25th, you have not yet made the case that God has commented on the morality of slavery itself. Your excerpts do not say a thing about it. As God had done with divorce, which He does not like, there were certain laws/mandates/guidelines that served to mitigate their behavior away from what it had been.

First, He prohibits members of His Chosen from taking others of His chosen as slaves. It isn't slavery He is prohibiting, nor is He in any way saying slavery is wrong.

Then, He says the may take slaves from among the surrounding peoples. The word "may" suggests that He is allowing them to take slaves, not mandating that they should. This is not an example of God saying that He approves of slavery. As I said, He allowed some things that Jesus later clarified to God's true intention, because of the character of the people at the time.

So for the umpteenth time, nowhere is Scripture is there an excuse for the attitude that slavery is mandated by God. No honest person could rightly hold that position. Those "white Christians" who used Scripture to justify their positions were distorting Scripture, though not nearly as badly as you do, even if they sincerely thought otherwise.

Moving on to your next...

Marshall Art said...

The 3/5 compromise did not codify slavery into law. Slavery was already legal in a number of colonies. The question was whether they could be counted in order for determining taxation and representation. As slaves could not vote, the North did not want the slaves counted at all, initially. If the slaves were counted by their total number, the slave states would have had more control of the House of Representatives giving them inordinate power. The slave states were playing games with when the slave population could be given status, using them as property when it suited, and treated them as people when that worked to their advantage. The 3/5 compromise mitigated this behavior, which actually served to recognize them in the Constitution firmly.

What's more, in case you're not understanding the distinction, this compromise never stated that a single slave was 3/5 of a person, but that only 3/5 of the entire slave population could be counted for the purpose of determining how many representatives a slave state could send to Congress.

Thus, rather than any "slippery slope", the compromise moved the nation toward the uphill climb toward freedom for all, and any people with minds and integrity, that should be as simple as pie to understand. Those suffering from white guilt, possibly from marrying into a black racist family, might have trouble with this easy to understand history.

Feodor said...

So you’ll allow Simp, but not the Simp? One is an inoffensive abbreviation and the other is an offensive name. Right?

Marshall, do you ever take a moment to hear yourself explain things? It seems so narrowly focused, so anally retentive that to the reader it seems you’re living only in that 12 inch box on your shoulders and cannot make real, practical sense to the world.

Just like your autistic focus on the word, “may.” As you know, though cannot deal with, the writer did not use the word, “may,” in writing Leviticus. And so the writer did not intend any of the relative conditions that the English word, “may,” carries. As you know, but are unable to deal with, the writer used a Hebrew word, a Hebrew word used in its legal context and which carries the sense of free license.

You want to infer a grudging allowance. You can only do that, though even the English gist is against your autistic visions, because your playing with English senses. But the Hebrew gives us a strict delineation that it is illegal, against God’s direct command to enslave an Israelite in the same way the God is perfectly willing to give license (to legitimate, not mere grudging allowance) to enslaving non-Israelites for six years of slavery.

An umpteenth fail.

Feodor said...

“Slavery was already legal in a number of colonies…”

True. But the colonies were not the United States. There was no United States until the Constitution was ratified. And there was not Constitution to be offered for ratification until, and only until, the 3/5 Compromise was agreed to. Thus, no 3/5, no Constitution, no United States. And the 3/5 Compromise is the Constitutional article which thereby legally legitimizes slavery in the new United States.

You use the word “recognition” as if being recognized 3/5 of a human being for the sake of increasing the franchise of other people, with no 3/5 franchise for self, confers any dignity. This is more of your autistic, twisted thinking.

And this point, I really love: "this compromise never stated that a single slave was 3/5 of a person, but that only 3/5 of the entire slave population could be counted.”

The problem here, in terms of logic, is that you will never be able to get to the count of the “entirety” without considering each slave as “1” and then totaling the number. So, each slave is counted as “1”, but then all are reduced to 3/5. The exact language itself talks about persons, not entire groups. Each free person counts as one (“number of free persons”) and, logically, you can only count them by ones, by each person. And then, “add to the whole number of free persons… three fifths of all other persons.” So, logically, count all slaves by ones, and then reduce all slave “persons” to 3/5:

"which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

As for the balance you think was struck, again, your autistic limitations delude you. Gary Wills, in "Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power,” observes for us:

"In 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War."

Feodor said...

I’m off on vacation, Marshall, which will be as much fleeing the Hurricane as getting out of town for relaxation.

So I probably will not check in on how you are fighting, or giving into, your voluntary and stubbornly preserved disability.

Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

Enjoy your time away. Make it a working vacation and take time to understand reality and the meanings of words and how they're used.

"So you’ll allow Simp, but not the Simp? One is an inoffensive abbreviation and the other is an offensive name. Right?"

Wrong. That is, your conclusion is wrong. To state it again in other words that hopefully might be more understandable to you, I would have allowed "Simp" as an abbreviation had you simply said "Simp" and not "THE" Simp. I may not have recognized it as more than a mere abbreviation, regardless of your intention for using it. But when you add "the" in front of it, it implies a possibility of pejorative. And considering the source, I elected to take no chance. And so there's no further confusion, henceforth, you will NOT refer to ANY visitor by anything other than their nom de plume or their true name, should they choose to make it known.

"As you know, but are unable to deal with, the writer used a Hebrew word, a Hebrew word used in its legal context and which carries the sense of free license."

As does the word "may", you twit. In any case, giving "free license", on any level, in any sense, in law or otherwise, does not imply anything about the morality of the behavior. God didn't say anything like, "because slavery is cool" or "because I like some people owning others". He merely permitted it as He did divorce, though it is clear He doesn't like divorce, and not clear whether He approves or disapproves of slavery itself. Your argument fails again for not addressing the point.

Marshall Art said...

Regarding the compromise, you still fail to support your contention that it was some kind of slippery slope. You also fail with understand the meaning of words.

You rebuke my use of the term "group" in this discussion, but "all other persons" is a group. And again, it was not a slight on individual slaves at all. It merely stated that whatever the total of "all other persons" was in a given slave state, only 3/5 of that number could be used to determine the number of representatives. This was done because the slaves were not free people (obviously) and to count them as people needing representation was unconscionable. Congressmen represent self-determining people and their legislative policies have self-determining people in mind, affecting how such people are able to live in a free society. The thought was that if they are to be considered property, then to count them in the same manner as free people, without their being able to live their lives as they choose, then why not count the mules, and the hammers and any other tool used by the slave holder in the pursuit of prosperity. The compromise, while not freeing anyone, was a move toward realizing the personhood and worth of the enslaved by limiting the manner in which the slave holder viewed the person enslaved.

What's more, you fail to regard the word "compromise" in the whole equation. "Compromise" does not mean that both sides feel the same. This should be obvious to even a psuedo-intellectual like yourself. It implies that each side of a decision is agreeing to something not preferred. It is in effect saying, if you Southerners insist on maintaining the institution of slavery, you cannot then pretend they are equal as free men for the purpose of gaining greater representation or favorable taxation.

Finally, I never said the compromise led to a perfect balance between northern and southern states in Congress, but only that it balanced it better than it would have been without it as you own recent offering supports nicely.

Feodor said...

When God gives free license to a society, it doesn’t imply anything about the morality of the practice?

Wow. Try that thinking on a Simp.

Mark said...

As I said, there is no point in arguing further with Feodor.

You have once again, as we all have many many times, explained the intent of the 3/5 compromise to him, and he either fails to grasp the concept or is too stubborn to admit he is wrong.

Either way, you're beating a dead horse.

Feodor will never, never, ever admit that he has been bested. Save your energy to debate those who are willing to learn.

Marshall Art said...

"When God gives free license to a society, it doesn’t imply anything about the morality of the practice?"

No, of course it doesn't. It is merely God giving license to do something, in the same manner as when He allowed the tribes the avenue of divorce.

"Wow. Try that thinking on a Simp."

I've been doing just that, but you're far too much of a simpleton to understand what is so easily understandable to honest people.

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

"Save your energy to debate those who are willing to learn."

But they are so few and far between as to render my blog posts comment-free. I'd much rather help those willing to learn by exposing the falsehoods and corrupted reasonings of those who think they know everything. That way, those willing to learn can better face those who sometimes can be convincing in their corruption.

Feodor said...

I love these “Lenny” and “George” conversations.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

"I love these “Lenny” and “George” conversations."

What a coincidence. I saw you as Lenny, too, only not as bright.

Feodor said...

Get your own literary references...
............ oh............ wait, that' not possible.

Never mind.

Marshall Art said...

That's very funny...in a pathetic, pitiful, non-clever Parklife kinda way.

Parklife said...

"That's very funny...in a pathetic, pitiful, non-clever Parklife kinda way."

lol.. Ma.. you never like a joke at your expense.