At Dan's Blog of Bullshit, he likes to put strict rules on conservatives and any who present true Christianity. Anything which strays from those rules (and by "strict", I mean, rules strictly stifling opposing positions on every shifting grounds) is deleted. A current trope of his is "stupidly false and unsupported claims" usually directed toward claims which have been supported beyond his ability to rebut in past post threads.
Yet, when it comes to Dan's behavior, he doesn't in the least abide the rules he imposes on his betters either at his blog, or more egregiously, at the blogs of others. What follows was a comment he tried to post to the last thread after my request that he refrain from posting any further comments not related to the topic of the post. I believe it was, in the first place, he who took that discussion on the tangent to which I wished to put an end. Don't hold me to it, as I didn't check to verify. But I do know in my own posts on my own blog I tend to stick to the subject, because...well...that's why I wrote the post...to present and/or discuss that specific topic.
But Dan's dismissal of my request...which would have earned me another deletion had I behaved the same way at his Blog of Bullshit (the Bullshit Blog!)...compelled me to post it here to address his list of lies inherent in his platitude filled response to Glenn. To wit:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Glenn... "Real tolerance from perverts, eh?"
Y'all are such incredible snowflakes. You compare expecting businesses
to not discriminate is a lack of tolerance, but telling women what
medical choices they can and can't make, telling LGBTQ folk who they can
and can't marry, telling parents and children who they can and can't
listen to telling stories, THREATENING VIOLENCE to Drag Queens for
reading stories, kicking LGBTQ people out of your families and churches,
that's just making room for "your rights..."?
You're confusing having your own liberties with deciding for OTHERS what
they can and can't do and threatening jail and violence if they dare to
disagree with your religious bigotry?
Theo-Fascists! Open your eyes.
This is just a great evil on your part. Stop it.
You make your decisions, we'll make ours."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's begin:
""Real tolerance from perverts, eh?" Y'all are such incredible snowflakes."
Given the whining by the left when their bullshit complaints fail to receive complete support by better people, it's amazing "progressives" ("progs") dare suggest that legitimate complaints about true misbehavior indicates the complainant is a "snowflake". So look how actual snowflakes pervert reality:
"You compare expecting businesses to not discriminate is a lack of tolerance.."
Uh...yeah. And in a most hypocritical way, given he's refusing to let businesses make their decisions while insisting we all should let his kind make theirs. But this isn't the type of discrimination liars like him and those he enables assert it is. The businesses in question, as has been confirmed over and over, aren't denying service to his kind. In many of them, the person's peculiarities aren't at all unknown to the merchant. But that person is requesting what the merchant won't provide for anyone regardless of what the person is. And rather than simply go to where they can get what they seek, Dan favors forcing them to abide the whims of those he defends without the least bit of tolerance for the positions and beliefs of the merchants. And to make matters worse, his kind will make the absolutely false comparison to race/gender/ethnic discrimination. An intentional lie.
"...telling women what medical choices they can and can't make"
We would demand of anyone they can't murder their own children, whether father or mother. No true Christian would do otherwise. No non-Christian person of similar honor, morality and virtuous character would do otherwise. We also aren't in the habit of pretending a procedure which has no purpose other than to accomplish that can honestly be described as a "medical" choice. It is not. There is no illness or threat to the mother in 99% of the cases which result in the child being murdered. Dan and his kind exploit that remaining 1%, which themselves exploit cases of rape and incest, but at least are actually victims of those cases, to defend the 99% who simply murder for convenience...to abdicate their obligation to the child who exists by their direct invitation by virtue of having engaged in the very behavior designed for procreation. Yeah...we see no problem "telling" women not to murder their own children, regardless of the child's age, size or location.
And of course, though some of us see no legitimacy in any of the excuses provided for allowing abortion...be it rape, incest or a supposed threat to the life of the mother should abortion not be provided...we are willing to make the trade-off. Victims of those three situations are granted the option to off their child, in exchange for the lives unjustly taken after the offering of all other superficial excuses...that other 99%. One can see they don't care about that 1%, but are only exploiting them because they're scumbags.
"telling LGBTQ folk who they can and can't marry"
Since the fallacious Lawrence v Texas ruling...every bit the crap sandwich the Obergefell and Roe rulings were...few could give a flying rat's ass if two perverts wished to live together pretending they're married. Hell, they can even say it out loud. What honorable people object to is having the definition of marriage perverted for their sake without any consent of the people. In the only polls which are real representations of the people, 11 states voted overwhelmingly to block the implementation of SSM...an average of over 60% of those who voted. After the "LGBTQ folk" realized the nation opposed the perversion of an institution long recognized as defined as the union of one man and one woman (this is when "legal precedent" has no value to progs), they sought an end-around through taking their whine to activist judges, until a SCOTUS majority imposed that abomination on the nation with the Obergefell ruling. So it was never about who queers could "marry", or whether they were allowed to marry legally (they had been marrying throughout human history, as well as throughout American history). It was always a battle for the true definition, and the queers couldn't win. They needed to have it unConstitutionally imposed upon us. After the SCOTUS overturned Roe, it's possible they'll at some point revisit the fallacious Obergefell decision and return that choice to the states as well. I'm afraid the culture may be too far gone to see them do the right thing on this issue, but prayers and a really good president got us the anti-Roe ruling, so...
"...telling parents and children who they can and can't listen to telling stories..."
The lie here, of course, is twisted asshat men dressed as sluts reading to kids is no different than Grandma doing it. That might be true if Grandma was trying to groom kids into pervs and queers, but normally Grandma's not doing anything of the kind (can't say the same for grandmothers Dan knows). What Dan defends is no different than exposing little kids to pornography or any other adult themed sexual content. Dan listed four books, and aside from two which have been around for a long time, the other two are standard for use by "gay" "parents" to read to the kids in their possession for the purpose of legitimizing their perversion. This is the case with "Drag Queen Story Time". It's not so much the actual books these cretins use, but how they're using it to groom kids into believing their perversion is just fine and dandy. The data showing the harm to kids who've gone down that path...regardless of which letter of the queer agenda they choose to emulate...is well known, but totally ignored and dismissed by those who push perversion. Honorable people are just in telling them to leave the kids alone. Dan and his kind are child molesters by exposing little kids to their deviancy.
"...THREATENING VIOLENCE to Drag Queens for reading stories..."
Dan feigns outrage as evidenced by his putting the first two words in caps. It's no different than being outraged at the thought of responding violently to child pornographers. Dan wants to pretend this is an exaggeration...overstating the seriousness of the situation. But as with the Father of Lies, evil is best inculcated gradually, with little things...like putting small amounts of arsenic in the coffee of one's spouse until the spouse eventually dies. This describes how our culture became so decayed in the first place, and Dan and his kind continue with that agenda.
Now, that's not to say that Dan even realizes what he's doing. I can't confirm that, though I don't believe a word the guy says given all the lying he does. But regardless of whether he knows he's doing it or rather that he himself is a victim of it doesn't matter. It's what's happening and if pervs feel they're at risk of physical assault for grooming little kids...that's a good thing, and fewer little kids will be indoctrinated.
"...kicking LGBTQ people out of your families and churches..."
This is one of Dan's favorites. It suggests families and churches who cast out pervs at the first discovery of their perversion. No honest people should buy it. At best, no honest person should take a position based on this legend alone. The reason is it's so incredibly one-sided and crafted to portray the queers as hapless victims of cruel and bigoted churches and families. Again, I don't buy it and won't until any "LGBTQ" person who claims to be so victimized can be cross-examined by moral people and those they accuse can be welcomed to provide their side of the story. It's an "innocent until proven guilty" sort of thing to which the progs are routinely unwilling to submit themselves. No. Just believe the accusation, because why would they lie or embellish? Stupid question.
"You're confusing having your own liberties with deciding for OTHERS what they can and can't do and threatening jail and violence if they dare to disagree with your religious bigotry?
No Dan. You're purposely misrepresenting our position in order to portray us in the worst possible light. It's what you do. Lying is the only way to push your agenda, since honest and honorable people are actually devoted to things like truth, reason, morality, honor and compassion for others. Otherwise we'd be moronic progs, too.
11 comments:
I probably won't carry this too far, I've just for now...
Step-by-step:
At Dan's Blog of Bullshit
Rather childish name-calling
he likes to put strict rules on conservatives and any who present true Christianity.
I don't "like to." As a point of fact, I have not done this for the vast majority of my blog's life.
Unfortunately, stupidly false claims have become so common in conservative world that I'm insisting the people either support the support their claims with data, or admit that it's an opinion.
This is not a radical expectation. It's just a simple way of trying to sort out and make clear the distinction between opinion claims from fact claims.
Any comments made as if they are a fact claim that are unsupported and not factual will be deleted. I don't consider stopping stopping the passing on of false claims to be strict. It seems odd to me that you do.
current trope of his is "stupidly false and unsupported claims" usually directed toward claims which have been supported beyond his ability to rebut in past post threads.
This would be an example of an opinion claim that was stated as if it's a fact claim and that is false, and stupidly false, and unsupported. We can see that it's unsupported because he provides no support for it. It's just an empty claim.
For instance, when people are passed on stupidly false claims about a stolen election, that is the sort of claim that is unsupported by facts and by experts. Those who pass it on, do so falsely. It's so patently false that it's reasonably called stupidly false. No one who looks at the data could reach that conclusion.
To say, in that instance, that he has proven the stolen election claim, is just stupidly false. On my blog, that would be deleted.
As a point of fact, for a very long time I'm on my belog, I did not delete such stupidly false claims. False claims. But they become so common and so dangerous in trump's conservative world that it's a threat to allow those false claims to keep persisting. This is an opinion claim on my part, but it's a common opinion claim shared by many historians and legal experts and rational people across the political spectrum.
in a most hypocritical way, given he's refusing to let businesses make their decisions while insisting we all should let his kind make theirs.
1. Businesses and individuals can make their own decisions. Liberals don't stand in the way of that.
2. The dividing line, then, is that businesses and people CAN'T cause harm.
Businesses are free to make widgets BUT they're not free to dump toxic waste in the process.
Businesses are free to choose their employees BUT they're not free to openly discriminate in the process. Not based on race, religion, disability, gender or orientation.
Do you recognize that this is the reality of it all?
Do you see the wisdom in why we created our system this way? That is, do you recognize the harm that has historically been done to women, people of color, minority religions, LGBTQ folks, the disabled and others outside the majority when it comes to hiring practices?
I'll leave it there for now.
I moved this comment here, as it refers to that on which the post is based. -Art
Glenn E. Chatfield commented on "Reasons To Be Cheerful"
3 hours ago
Trabue, Snowflakes are people who are offended at every turn. The only people that fit that description are LEFTISTS like you. The business I mentioned didn’t discriminate; they offered to sell anything. They just didn’t want to use their talents to promote what they didn’t agree with. That’s called a 1st Amendment right. No one is telling what MEDICAL choices women should make. Keeping a baby or murdering it in the womb is not a MEDICAL decision. Marriage has always been the union of opposite sex people. That is the definition. SCOTUS was wrong to redefine the word because doing so was unconstitutional. It is a perversion of human sexuality and of God’s intention for marriage to put same-sex unions as officially married. You KNOW this but deny it because you are a pervert who is obviously demonically possessed. Parents who take their children to have perverts read to them are guilty of child abuse and should have the children taken from them. Kicking perverts out of families is their right if the person is not repentant. Churches are for Christians to gather for worship and fellowship. Any who is living an unrepentant sexually immoral lifestyle is definitely to be cast out of the church. I’m not confusing anything and it isn’t bigotry to speak the truth and act on the truth. Your use of the term “theo-fascist” proves you have no idea what a fascist is. No one is stopping you from making decisions— its the queers who are trying FORCE people to do their bidding. It is the “trans” people forcing people to call them what they aren’t. You are definitely anti-God and a follower of Satan.
June 29, 2022 at 6:11 PM
"At Dan's Blog of Bullshit
Rather childish name-calling"
Your Blog of Bullshit is a childish blog.
"he likes to put strict rules on conservatives and any who present true Christianity.
I don't "like to." As a point of fact, I have not done this for the vast majority of my blog's life."
If you say so, but that's what your Blog of Bullshit is now.
"Unfortunately, stupidly false claims have become so common in conservative world that I'm insisting the people either support the support their claims with data, or admit that it's an opinion."
Sounds like a stupidly false claim. You make so many with regard to conservatives. And while you insist on those strict rules for conservatives and actual Christians, you don't abide them yourself there or at the blogs of others.
"This is not a radical expectation. It's just a simple way of trying to sort out and make clear the distinction between opinion claims from fact claims."
It's radical in its biased application and insistence. Yet it is more simple than lifting a finger to provide evidentiary support against the claims of another when you don't want to accept the claim as the truth it is. And again, quality evidence for YOUR claims is rarely, if ever offered.
"Any comments made as if they are a fact claim that are unsupported and not factual will be deleted. I don't consider stopping stopping the passing on of false claims to be strict. It seems odd to me that you do."
Not odd, Dan. Just entirely subjective and based more on you unwillingness to accept what you know is true but don't like. Worse is how you lie about what you've deleted. I certainly can't lie about what YOU say here, but unlike you at your Blog of Bullshit, I don't delete the stupid things you say.
June 29, 2022 at 6:17 PM
"current trope of his is "stupidly false and unsupported claims" usually directed toward claims which have been supported beyond his ability to rebut in past post threads.
This would be an example of an opinion claim that was stated as if it's a fact claim and that is false, and stupidly false, and unsupported. We can see that it's unsupported because he provides no support for it. It's just an empty claim."
I see. So now you want me to support the claim that your trope is directed toward claims which have been supported beyond your ability to rebut in past post threads. How is that possible when you've deleted my comments?
"For instance, when people are passed on stupidly false claims about a stolen election, that is the sort of claim that is unsupported by facts and by experts. Those who pass it on, do so falsely. It's so patently false that it's reasonably called stupidly false. No one who looks at the data could reach that conclusion."
What data? You've never produced any data which prove the claims of a stolen election are false. You've never even taken the time to review even 10% of the many claims which support the premise, must less provided any proof of anything. All YOU'VE ever done is provide the opinions of other people who say the same thing you do, but nothing they might have (assuming they have anything) which proves a given claim to be false.
"To say, in that instance, that he has proven the stolen election claim, is just stupidly false. On my blog, that would be deleted."
The claim of a stolen election has indeed been supported by the body of evidence, 99% of which hasn't been reviewed in any court. I never offered "proof", but merely pointed to all that evidence, most of which you don't even acknowledge exists because you're too focused on your hatred of Trump and the unproven claim he's lying about the election being stolen.
"As a point of fact, for a very long time I'm on my belog, I did not delete such stupidly false claims. False claims. But they become so common and so dangerous in trump's conservative world that it's a threat to allow those false claims to keep persisting."
That's hilarious. One doesn't just subjectively refer to a claim as "stupidly false" without putting out any evidence to demonstrate that it is. Indeed, you bullshit about "stupidly false claims" is itself a stupidly false claim for which you offer no supporting evidence whatsoever...EVER! The ironic hypocrisy is how must abjectly false claims are made by Dan and his kind. The "more than two genders" is but one of likely thousands. There's no science behind it at all. But again, at the Blog of Bullshit, Dan doesn't feel required to do what he demands of others. Worse, the laughable attempts he makes never fail to elicit counter arguments from experts he petulantly dismisses simply because they expose Dan's "evidence" as the bullshit it is.
"This is an opinion claim on my part, but it's a common opinion claim shared by many historians and legal experts and rational people across the political spectrum."
No it's not. More importantly, Dan hides behind the word "opinion" as if one can have one without evidence for holding it. "Historians and legal experts and rational people across the political spectrum" don't operate that way...unless they're progs like Dan.
June 29, 2022 at 6:49 PM
"in a most hypocritical way, given he's refusing to let businesses make their decisions while insisting we all should let his kind make theirs.
1. Businesses and individuals can make their own decisions. Liberals don't stand in the way of that."
Well, this is just an abject, absolute lie...except that libs don't merely stand in the way. They actively seek to destroy businesses who operate in a manner which fails to abide their petulant demands. Normal, honorable and honest people simply do business elsewhere, or failing that, lodge a complaint and get other to do so as well. They don't sue for not sharing the same beliefs and acting accordingly. Normal, honorable and honest people aren't pussies like progs.
"2. The dividing line, then, is that businesses and people CAN'T cause harm."
That's not what progs are whining about. They're simply lying that such takes place when they don't agree with the beliefs and social positions businesses express.
"Businesses are free to make widgets BUT they're not free to dump toxic waste in the process."
That's not at issue here. It's a typical bullshit distraction from the issues at hand.
"Businesses are free to choose their employees BUT they're not free to openly discriminate in the process. Not based on race, religion, disability, gender or orientation.
Do you recognize that this is the reality of it all?"
Yeah. I recognize that lefties force businesses to make decisions which please them without regard to the intentions, positions and purposes of the business in question. What's worse, is that lefties have imposed upon business forced hiring of perverts with whom they'd rather not associate nor have representing them and pretend it's "harm" toward perverts...as if anyone should care. Businesses prefer to hire based on standards and criteria preferred by the owner, mostly as it regards improving profitability. Businesses hate being forced to publicly support perversion, even while pretending to be "inclusive" and other such bullshit expressions of leftist tripe.
"Do you see the wisdom in why we created our system this way?"
I see that morons like you have abused and corrupted the system and the result is a more corrupted culture which is far more harmful than telling some queer couple they'll have to get their cake somewhere else.
"That is, do you recognize the harm that has historically been done to women, people of color, minority religions, LGBTQ folks, the disabled and others outside the majority when it comes to hiring practices?"
I recognize that you like to exploit true instances of harm in the past to pretend it matters to today so that you can further your prog bullshit on the nation. I recognize that you purposely and intentionally conflate categories of race, sex, religion and the disabled with categories of behavior, like your beloved LGBT pervs and expect everyone else to do so as well.
You true snowflakes are liars as well and there's no limit to how much you'll corrupt reality, definitions, HISTORY, in order to further your vile, immoral agenda.
One thing that you all have to keep in mind is that today's conservatives are especially in need of being forced to support their claims precisely because so many conservatives have bought into so many conspiracy theories.
From the way out there types like Q-Anon and the Great Replacement Theory nuts to the more day-to-day insane theories like
The gov't wants to take my guns away
The election was stolen
"Election fraud" in 2016 cost Trump the popular vote
The gov't is being taken over by a cabal of Hollywood pedophile liberals
Hillary Clinton and Democrats were running a child-peddling operation out of a pizza joint in DC
The media is an enemy of the state
Obama was not a US citizen
"Climate change" is fake science
"Covid" is fake science and Fauci et al are spreading lies
The Clintons killed Epstein, Foster, Rich and others to silence them
"The earth is only ~6,000 years old and any evidence to the contrary was placed there by Satan...?"
The "homosexual agenda"
...and on and on and on it goes. One set of crazy stupidly false claims after another, promoted as if they are real or that they MIGHT be real.
Because of this endless cascade of "alternate facts" and stupidly false claims, we just have to start holding Trump-style/supporting "conservatives" to a strict, "Prove it with data" set of guidelines.
There simply is no corresponding set of "liberal conspiracy theories" that are as common and widespread and widely taken seriously. In fact, I did a search and just couldn't find anything serious. Sure, there are outliers like the liberals (and conservatives) who believe that 9/11 was staged, but those are not commonly accepted amongst rational people/liberals.
Don't want to be asked to support your claims? Don't lie down with pigs in their stupidly false claim pit.
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-2016-5
https://www.salon.com/2015/11/12/10_right_wing_conspiracy_theories_that_have_slowly_invaded_american_politics_partner/
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2010/patriot-paranoia-look-top-ten-conspiracy-theories
Lots of drivel and outright fabrications by the guy who never supports anything he says. Here, he backs up his need to believe the right...to whom he refers as "Trump-style" conservatives...as if he actually knows what means when he says that...are generally conspiracy nuts, and that when a conservative makes a claim, that conservative is obligated to provide support to Dan. Dan, on the other hand, who makes claims of his own but hides behind "my opinion" as if that means he's not required to provide support to explain why he holds his false opinions, never provides jack. Here, he provides three links to questionable sources in support of his conspiracy theory about conservatives and their alleged conspiracy theories. I cursory look indicates another comment of Dan's ready for shredding. Over the next few days, I'll be doing just that.
Marshal...
"the guy who never supports anything he says."
1. Demonstrably, stupidly false. Of course, I regularly support what I've said.
2. But not always. Often, I'm citing/referring to points that are obvious or clearly true or already amply demonstrated. Trump HAS made more overtly false claims than any other president in our lifetime. That's been shown over and over. Climate change IS a real concern AND is impacted by human behavior. It's been demonstrated. The universe is NOT ~6,000 years old. Slavery - one human owning another human, forcing them to do what they want - IS a great evil and an attack on human rights, the election was NOT stolen, there ARE NO unicorns living on the dark side of the moon, etc. These are not vague unknowns. These are established matters. If you doubt any of them, you'll have to take that up with the experts, not with your fellow citizens.
3. Progressives DON'T have the record in recent years of citing and largely believing in an promoting any serious conspiracy theories that are taken seriously in the manner of today's conservative beliefs in multiple conspiracies. Conservatives DO have that baggage. Therefore, there is an even greater onus on conservatives to support their claims and an onus on rational citizens to begin with a healthy distrust of what conservatives say/claims they make.
You can't point to conspiracy theories that liberals believe and promote.
Apples and oranges.
No more Dan. You've already given me a ton of stuff to rebut. There's no point in adding any more right now. I'll be responding to all of this and then you'll just wet your panties, say "Nyuh uh" and at best, do your usual tap-dancing.
Post a Comment