XX Factor

Re: Or you are stupid enough to understand them...

the true conservative — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:07:14 GMT

Hilarious!

Re: Or you are stupid enough to understand them...

tonto_goldberg — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:42:21 GMT

It's not often that you see this kind of repartee around here. It seems almost like a testosterone storm. Do you have two pair of boxing gloves and a ring of hooting eighth-grade boys to watch them fight? I can probably round up a referee's shirt and a whistle. Who would the boys want as seconds?

Re: Or you are stupid enough to understand them...

the true conservative — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:45:00 GMT

I just love how this subject thread broke down . . .

Re: Or you are stupid enough to understand them...

thelyamhound — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:31:08 GMT

. . . that I'm not sure I'll hit every point. I'll try to consolidate your disparate threads and hit this in one big, congealed lump.

>>>All of which is to say, if I met this bonhomme gringo in the meat world today, he'd walk away marked for the rest of his natural life.<<<

I bet you a $100 that you if you meet me, you would not have done so. So, don't be a pussy, and stop the boasting.

Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know, having NEVER encountered someone who actually behaved in the real world like as much of an asshole as you've been right here on this thread.

In order for that bet to be of any value, we'd have to meet. I think we can at least agree that, one way or another, that would be vastly unpleasant for either of us. So I leave you to think what you like.

Apologize for calling my mother a bitch.

You're absolutely right. I don't know your mother, and for all I know, she raised you to be better than what you happen to have become.

I'm sorry, then, for referring to your mother in those terms. "Bitch that bore you" was chosen more for how it rolled off the tongue. Asked to choose between the well-turned phrase and the nice thing to say, I may err on either side, depending on the day.

You talked about christians that want to control your live, people who don't even know you. Surely, it's fair to call them "evil", since they are trying to limit your individual freedom.

All "rules," in whatever forum, stifle the freedom of the individual . . . provided, of course, that we're looking at an individual who wishes to engage in the proscribed activity, or wishes not to engage in the prescribed activity. So I don't think all limits, or desire to place such limits, reflect evil intent. To believe so is to believe, essentially, that law itself is evil. Which I do believe sometimes, I suppose, but doesn't really strike me as a useful rhetorical stance.

Again, a I said before, you are not terribly bright. Note, btw, that I am NOT trying to insult you, I am simply diagnosing you.

Based on what qualifications? If you'd like to believe, contrary to anything shown by dozens of standardized tests, the testimony of professors, bosses, and colleagues, that my failure to discern your intent in the matter of this argument illustrates conclusively that I'm not terribly bright, well, I doubt I'd be able to stop you from believing such. So have at.

People who try to control other people's lives through violence of threat of violence are evil - at least in my book.

Who said anything about violence or threat of violence?

You may think differently, but your post hinted that you don't particularily like those people.

Not at all. My post might well have hinted that I don't like external controls, whether we're talking about drug laws, speed limits, or concepts of sin derived from deities with no demonstrable attributes. But that's not really the same as having dislike for people who believe that is their right. In point of fact, if we vote, we're ALL suggesting that we're qualified to participate in the limitation of others' activities.

Next time, I suggest you write more clearly - somethink like a disclaimer "Not that there is anything wrong with this".

Your advice is noted, with all due bemusement. Interesting, really, that you ask me to clarify such subtexts, that you should not be required to extrapolate them from what I've written (or what I've not), while you hold your own unspoken truisms ("I didn't say you thought ALL Christians are evil!") are self-evident. Clearly, we each have views on what needs (and doesn't need) to be stated explicitly to be considered given that don't grow naturally from established rules governing rhetoric.

So, I am a small man, and you are a big man, which is why you dream of beating me up, you call my mother a bitch, etc., etc. Do you see some inherent contradiction in this situation, or I should explain it to you?

Yes, yes . . . Sorry for the comment about your mother. The names I called you, on the other hand, aren't an insult, just a diagnosis. :)

And I never said I was a big man. I'm the very definition of medium-sized (literally and figuratively).

You may have been oppressed by your christian mother, who forbade you to jerk off - that may well be true.

Oh, no. My mother was fine with my masturbation (though I certainly didn't like her bringing it up). Our church was less so. The conflict between what she believed on the matter and what our church preached was one of the more amusing contradictions I face during adolescence.

I assume you also grew up a catholic, so it may be you have been molested a child.

Why would you even say that? That's the sort of facile thinking I expect from liberals. Unlike many of my liberal brethren, I have no particular religious bias (being as I'm a pantheistic Buddhist). I don't even have an anti-Catholic bias; I don't imagine papists are actually more likely to molest than Protestants, or even atheists . . . They're just more likely to cover it up institutionally.

Let me assure you that this was one altar boy who remained unviolated by his mentors. My disagreement is strictly a matter of ideology and metaphysics.

SS was designed as smart way to have government elites save for our retirement. If you refuse to give the fruits of your labor to the state, you WILL go jail.

I suppose that's a salient point. I don't know, because you seem to be engaged in a different argument than I am. I only stated, as an experiential matter, that the activities in which I desire to participate are more often proscribed by Christians than by intellectuals, real or so-called, and that some of those proscriptions--against certain kinds of sexual acts, for instance--are, or have been in the course of my adult life, technically jailable offenses.

I'd love to use drug laws as an example, but of course, we have no real evidence that either liberal intellectuals or Christians have any particular affinity for regulating substances. So I'll be the first to admit, for my part, and point out, for yours, that there's not much of an argument here.

It's entirely possible--likely, to all appearances--that there are all kinds of rules that I don't think about often because I've never been inclined to disobey them that you can blame on "liberalism," as you define it. I actually consider myself more a classical liberal than a contemporary one; I only stick with "liberal" because conservatism still represents moral interests that I find archaic.

If you decide to fix the roof on your house - in many localities you will have to seek government approval, and if you refuse to do so, you can be eventually sent to jail.

Well, that really sucks. If I ever own property, you'll surely have an ally in contesting that.

And until Lawrence vs. Texas, sodomy laws applied to us universally. Did you concern yourself with this injustice, even though you didn't likely participate in any acts that constituted sodomy, any more than I'm concerned with SS laws and labor regulations that, so far, have only served to benefit me? Like I said, my comment was experiential.

What I would say is that I posted in a very different spirit than the one in which you responded. My tone, I believe , was, "Really? Funny . . . That hasn't been my experience at all." Apparently, you heard, "You're WRONG, sir! Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!"

So I still hold that I was unduly attacked. But I grant that your reasons might be that you simply misunderstood my intent, rather than that you're just a dick.

But with all the coaches, and masters of martial arts, all the violent I saw in Russia and in US, I don't remember anyone claiming that he was a good fighter solely because of his physical strength.

I responded with regards to my strength because that's what you asked about: But with all the coaches, and masters of martial arts, all the violent I saw in Russia and in US, I don't remember anyone claiming that he was a good fighter solely because of his physical strength. In point of fact, I've studied various martial arts on and off over the last 25 years, for a total of about 12 solid years of formal training, and do a lot of work that involves acrobatics. So speed, reaction time, and general slipperiness are all part of the package. As for taking punishing punches and such, I'd suggest that I've endured physical indignities for the cause of physical comedy that would make the average MMA competitor blanche.

That said, I've not been in an actual fight since adolescence, 'cause believe it or not, I'm generally a nice guy. I've stopped a fair number of them, which I hold to my credit. So the matter of my capacity to fight is undemonstrated outside of a class setting. If I had my druthers, I'd keep it that way. Take that as you will, so far as your opinion of me or my place in this argument is concerned.

What matters is that I was making obvious arguments, and you failed to comprehend them.

And I thought that I was "obviously" making a friendly rejoinder to your comment, and have been attacked mercilessly ever since. Perhaps not all arguments are as obvious as we believe them to be. It appears that we were both relying on subtext being self-evident.

On a side note, I am TRAINED to be much smarter than you, since I am a professional engineer - and high intelligence is in my job description. You are an actor - by all means a noble profession, but as someone famous said - being smart is actually an obstacle to good acting. In any case, you earn money by selling fake emotions - I earn money by selling the fruits of my mind.

If I considered you any kind of friend, or encountered you as a student or audience member, I'd surely disavow you of a number of mistaken understandings regarding acting--what an actor actually does, the intended result, the required skills. As it stands . . . shrug. To what end would I here defend my self-regard, or attack yours?

Of course, as a music critic and playwright, I DO earn money by selling the fruits of my mind. But I'm selling my poetic musings, not an analysis of physical phenomena, for whatever you find the distinction worth.

On the other side, I've read that a 40 point difference in IQ makes such a big difference that both sides cannot comprehend each other. So, it well may be that our differences are irreconcilable.

If you have an IQ of 178 or higher, consider me impressed. If not, your 40 points are a fiction. Nonetheless, IQ only measures certain facets of intelligence. We can both technically boast of our numbers, but it matters more how we use them. If you're a good engineer (and I'm happy to assume you are), good for you. If I'm a good actor (and I assure you I am, though you may not be inclined to accept my assurances), well, bully for me, eh?

I think our irreconcilable differences aren't a matter of divergent levels of intelligence, but divergent spheres of interest, different types of intelligence. I'm interested primarily in philosophy, theology, psychology, poetry . . . disciplines focusing on the subjective. You crunch numbers, analyze structures. Our assumptions are based on our foundational premises, which means that we're each expecting something of what we leave unsaid to be clear to the other that clearly is not.

Well, you called my mother a bitch - even though I did not insult you even once.

No, you've just "diagnosed" me. But if you can "diagnose" a reasonably successful actor and playwright with an IQ of 138 as being stupid, I fail to see why finding a belligerent logician to be an asshole wouldn't also qualify as a "diagnosis."

I assume this is because of your emotional stress, and I give you an opportunity to apologize for this.

Truly, I am underslept and overcaffeinated these days, and there is stress. I apologize for anything I said about your mother, even if I thought the turn of phrase was funny. I'll apologize for anything I called you when you apologize for insulting my capacity; otherwise, we'll have to accept them both as "diagnoses."

Ahm...

gringo_911 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:56:03 GMT

. . . you taunted me with the phrase evil Christians, as though I ever implied such a thing.

Yes, I did taunt you with this phraze, and you were "not-terribly-bright" to understand it in the most primitive sense - which actually put a big question mark on your whole play writing career.

"Evil Christian" is a taunting, but it is an accurate taunting. You talked about christians that want to control your live, people who don't even know you. Surely, it's fair to call them "evil", since they are trying to limit your individual freedom. On the other side, not ALL christians are like that, so when someone says "evil christians", this does not mean that a person is claiming all christians are evil. For example, if I say, "He was poisoned by bad apples", this won't mean I consider all apples bad. It's a simple logic, but I assume it is not very comprehensible to you. Again, a I said before, you are not terribly bright. Note, btw, that I am NOT trying to insult you, I am simply diagnosing you.

My mother is a Catholic; my in-laws are Mormon. I see no evil in anyone's belief system, and the implication that I did, had you been in my physical proximity, would have earned you a lesson-teaching beating that would render you unrecognizable to the very bitch that bore you.

1. If you have any decency, you will apologize for calling my mother a bitch.

2. I have no problems saying these exact words to your face, and I am sure you won't try to beat me up.

3. Saying that some christians, who want to control other people's lives are evil does not mean that all christians are evil, your mother notwithstanding. It is a simple and logical argument.

A quick glance at my original post will clearly illustrate that I never said anything negative about Christians, and also that I merely spoke to the matter of my own experience.

People who try to control other people's lives through violence of threat of violence are evil - at least in my book. You may think differently, but your post hinted that you don't particularily like those people. Next time, I suggest you write more clearly - somethink like a disclaimer "Not that there is anything wrong with this".

You, sir, are so small a man I marvel that you aren't randomly pissed on by passersby. If I waste another moment on you, I shall have done so against my better judgment.

Or you are stupid enough to understand them...

gringo_911 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:41:23 GMT

. . were non-existent. I asserted that I have been more stymied in my own actions by those who professed to know the will of a deity than by those who professed to know what was good for me by way of superior intelligence.

All right, lets try this once again. Clearly, you were not paying attention. You may have been oppressed by your christian mother, who forbade you to jerk off - that may well be true. I assume you also grew up a catholic, so it may be you have been molested a child. So far, you haven't made these arguments. But in real life, the oppression of the people who think they know better is easy to point our for ALL people. For example, SS was designed as smart way to have government elites save for our retirement. If you refuse to give the fruits of your labor to the state, you WILL go jail. Your mother cannot send you to jail if you jerk off. Your catholifc priest cannot send you to jail if you refuse to suck his dick. Same goes for Medicare and myriad of other government programs. If you decide to fix the roof on your house - in many localities you will have to seek government approval, and if you refuse to do so, you can be eventually sent to jail.

Everything I am saying here is quite obvious to people with minimum understanding and knowledge, but clearly you are not one of them.

It was never more than a description of my experience; it was not held out as a universal statement, and would certainly not be falsifiable with the information at your disposal.

I showed you a few examples of the power of the people over you. It surely is universal in this country. Can you claim that for some reason you don't have SS taxes? That you can avoid paying for Medicare? That for some reason you can avoid following labor regulations? Again, you surely do NOT understand what the state is doing, and you can only concentrate on your little childhood traumas. Grow up.

It'd be like you saying that hip-hop fans are always beating up on people, and my noting that my friends have been physically terrorized more often than country music fans, which you'd follow by spewing some garbage about how the existence of affirmative action programs negates a point that I wasn't making in the first place.

The federal and state and local programs are relatively universal, they cannot be compared to an accident that happened to some people. It's a quite obvious difference, which I can see you have an amazing difficulty to grasp.

Again, I refer people to the original post, that they may determine for themselves who redirected this conversation for their own ends (in fact, I'll even show them your very next response, that they might note you began there to argue against a point I hadn't even made--first in the implication that I'd called Christians evil, and next in the implication that I was referring to anything other than my own experience).

Interstingly enough, your "original post" was a response to my letter, and more over you even quoted me. And since you were trying to critisize the point that I was making - it's doubly peculiar that you now attempt to present yourself as some kind of original writer, who has been unexpectedly attacked. Now, there are two possible reasons for your obvious "intellectual irregularity" - either you are stupid, or you are dishonest. You may tell me that it was an honest mistake AND APOLOGIZE FOR IT, but I won't hold my breath.

I imagine I'm a better fighter than you because, thus far, I'm better than any layperson I've met. If, in real life, you're a Navy Seal, maybe I'd have to revise that assumption with regards to you. but my physical strength is occasionally said to border on creepy.

This was a very peculiar passage. I've done some very limited training in martial arts - sambo, typical self-defense, israeli self-defence. There were different people, there, surely. But with all the coaches, and masters of martial arts, all the violent I saw in Russia and in US, I don't remember anyone claiming that he was a good fighter solely because of his physical strength. Moreover, physical strength, while important is no match for speed, reaction, feeling of distance, ability to withstand punishing punches. Yes, endurance, the brute of the punch played a role, but their role is not primary. In short, you sound like a typical body-builder, not a martial arts expert, who is training every day to perfect his skill of beating up people. You also don't sound like a street fighter. A bodybuilder, a lift weighter, or possibly an internet warrior, not a martial arts expert. I may be wrong on this one, but surely for a man like you, who clearly tries to write his posts well, this passage was hardly supportive of your claim.

So far as I can see, I've met exactly two people in my life who I would consider to be smarter than me. You aren't one of them. You're welcome to think otherwise, but I doubt you'd find even a conservative on these boards who'd agree with you.

You should not worry - there are plenty of right-wingers on this site who think I am smart, but it's not a popularity contest, so it matters not to me. What matters is that I was making obvious arguments, and you failed to comprehend them. On a side note, I am TRAINED to be much smarter than you, since I am a professional engineer - and high intelligence is in my job description. You are an actor - by all means a noble profession, but as someone famous said - being smart is actually an obstacle to good acting. In any case, you earn money by selling fake emotions - I earn money by selling the fruits of my mind.

On the other side, I've read that a 40 point difference in IQ makes such a big difference that both sides cannot comprehend each other. So, it well may be that our differences are irreconcilable.

Truth be told, however, I can't pretend to know how smart you are. You've made it pretty clear what an asshole you are, but without trawling your MBTU, I'd have no way of knowing from this one encounter what the full spectrum of your intellectual capabilities include, or where your expertise lies. I only know that if you're even half as smart as you apparently think you are, it's that much sadder that you're such a goatfucking shitbag.

Well, you called my mother a bitch - even though I did not insult you even once. I assume this is because of your emotional stress, and I give you an opportunity to apologize for this. In any case, I can feel your pain, and I know why my purely intellectual replies would make you call me names and desire to beat me up. I am not sure you want me to explain those reasons to all.

Good day, sir.

That's an interesting twist. You starting by expressing your desire to beat me up, you followed this up with insults of my mother, and by calling me names. But you decided to end your post with calling me a "sir". Well, I don't think I will respond in kind to either.

You can go in peace.

Lets look at this once again...

gringo_911 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:07:45 GMT

All of which is to say, if I met this bonhomme gringo in the meat world today, he'd walk away marked for the rest of his natural life.

I bet you a $100 that you if you meet me, you would not have done so. So, don't be a pussy, and stop the boasting.

Okay, who is the swine here?

gringo_911 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:05:11 GMT

You have to make a choice now.

I give you a chance to redeem yourself...

gringo_911 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:04:33 GMT

Given that you yourself said that you are in huge emotional turmoil, I give you a chance to redeem yourself. Apologize for calling my mother a bitch. It's your last chance.

Re: Your arguments . . .

the true conservative — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:48:56 GMT

Now both of you calm down and play nice.

Like I tell my kids, I don't care who started it.

;-)

Re: Your arguments . . .

tonto_goldberg — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:00:17 GMT

Pearls before swine, dude.

Your arguments . . .

thelyamhound — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:55:03 GMT

. . . were non-existent. I asserted that I have been more stymied in my own actions by those who professed to know the will of a deity than by those who professed to know what was good for me by way of superior intelligence. It was never more than a description of my experience; it was not held out as a universal statement, and would certainly not be falsifiable with the information at your disposal. It'd be like you saying that hip-hop fans are always beating up on people, and my noting that my friends have been physically terrorized more often than country music fans, which you'd follow by spewing some garbage about how the existence of affirmative action programs negates a point that I wasn't making in the first place. Again, I refer people to the original post, that they may determine for themselves who redirected this conversation for their own ends (in fact, I'll even show them your very next response, that they might note you began there to argue against a point I hadn't even made--first in the implication that I'd called Christians evil, and next in the implication that I was referring to anything other than my own experience).

It only means I am smarter than you.

Good day, sir.

You are funny...

gringo_911 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:31:10 GMT

It's amazing how qickly a self-professed semi-intellectual goes from a debate to spewing hatred towards his opponent's parents and dreaming of beating him up. Clearly, my arguments won the day, since you could not respond to what I wrote.

BTW, what makes you so sure that you are a better fighter than me? The fact that I can make coherent arguments, and you cannot, does not prove than I am physically weaker than you. It only means I am smarter than you.

For him?

thelyamhound — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:46:39 GMT

No.

I should probably chant for his well-being--cultivate compassion, and all--but I've been playing lamb all the last two weeks, and I'm feeling a bit the lion the last coupla days. My wife had surgery a little over a week ago, and I was, at the time, in the midst of the working on a show with children (three rotating casts of between 30-40 children each, to be precise, so I had to exercise 100-120 kids' worth of patience between rounds of playing Florence Nightengale). The show was fun, and I'm more than happy to care for my lovely wife, lest I sound like I'm complaining. I'm just sort of crashing into both physical exhaustion and empathy fatigue now. I'm attending a memorial (I eulogized him here) for a friend tomorrow, and I'm not sure I'm up to it (though my [highly appreciated] reputation for intensity buys me some slight leeway, so I'll probably be fine).

All of which is to say, if I met this bonhomme gringo in the meat world today, he'd walk away marked for the rest of his natural life.

If anything, my "conversation" with him made me appreciate our exchanges that much more, so I suppose I can't say that nothing good came of it. Odd how grounds shift.

Re: What's more . . .

the true conservative — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:45:47 GMT

Wow, that was a bit harsh, wasn't it?