About two weeks ago, the big news stories involved Obama shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, and those Fox News-sponsored "tea parties." Well, I left a few comments in various places, and the responses were mixed: In a lot of cases, people wouldn't even try to respond. And then I've got one lady who apparently fashions herself the world's Mommy or something, who sent me the following note:
while i publish comments that are in disagreement, I do not publish those that are sarcastic or treat me as if I were intellectually inferiorAnd she refused to publish my response. Kind of what I expect, although I don't usually get a personal note telling me why she isn't supporting that whole First Amendment thing.
As a former radical leftist I am all too familiar with the way your comment reads. I now understand that intelligent people can disagree and treat each other with respect.
Conservatives are not stupid. I have an IQ of 150+ and a BA in Philosophy.
Grow up. realize that intelligent people can disagree and learn to treat others with respect.
On the other hand, she also runs a blog called Mommy, Teach Me (although, from what I've seen, I wouldn't want her teaching capitalization or punctuation). But it has the somewhat disturbing title on the front page of "Why send your child to preschool to fall in love with a teacher?"
Consider that for a moment. What is that saying about her relationship with her kids? Is it just me, or is something just a little... wrong in that?
Oh, and then there's a group of guys who consider themselves Curmudgeonly + Skeptical, who did try to engage me a little bit, but now they close off comments in every thread where I say "hi" - it seems I'm not welcome there, either. (I wonder why? Could Rodger be angry because I called him a conspiracy theorist? Or a racist? Or is it just that they can't handle the fact that a former military guy disagrees with them on just about every level? I just don't get it - could it be my deodorant?)
I rarely just give up on an argument, but once in a while it just isn't worth the headache. They make specious arguments, and pull up textbook examples of logical fallacies. I'm not clear that they really think about what they're writing - they just keep arguing for the sake of arguing. (Kind of like me, only I like to think that I have a point.)
(OK, sometimes I do...)
(...really, I've been known to...)Anyway, as far as I can tell, the point was that marriage can only be considered to be for procreation. Period. That's it, end of story. There is no other reason to get married, and therefore no gays can get married. (I wasn't clear on this going in, but we got around to it eventually.) Of course, they refused to admit that the logic starts to break down at that point. Straight couples who can't or won't have children (medical reasons, age, their own choice - whatever the reason) must then have their marriages invalidated, yes? Well, apparently not - the only reason to get married is to have children, but you're allowed to get married even if you can't have children. Unless you're gay.
(One guy honestly tried to argue that gay marriage had to be banned because it discriminated against straights, while at another point the argument seemed to be that a gay marriage exposed the couple as gay, advertising their status to the world. And, lest we forget, "we've never had gay marriage, thus we cannot in the future." Or some crap like that. It just became ridiculous and I gave up on them.)
And this week, I found new subjects to irritate people. The Right Wing decided that expanded hate crimes protection meant that priests were going to be locked up in droves if they spoke out against homosexuality. Now, a blogger who thinks that The Night Cometh felt that just reprinting an article from that bastion of journalistic integrity, WorldNetDaily, was enough. And when I say "enough," I mean that he refused, not just to answer, but even to print my response.
Definition of irony: Complaining that your free speech is being stifled, as you're preventing other people from talking. (At least this P.O.'ed Patriot was willing to talk about it.)
I'm having a nice chat with an apparent Russian, too, who seems to think that the swine flu is going to topple the US government. (You see, all pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others...)
I've also got a fairly wide-ranging discussion going on here involving religion, Miss America, feminism, and apparently whatever pops into people's minds.
The big news, though, was Arlen Specter changing political affiliation from Republican to Democrat. Now, while Dena Leichnitz, who fancies herself Black'n'Right got a little pissy with me on the subject, she seems to have tapered off into sullen silence. (To be honest, she doesn't use the apostrophes, but I think that Blacknright just looks silly without them, so I overruled her.)
A blogger who types On Freedom's Wings actually thought that I should be nicer because she's a lady! (Now, I'm not clear about that whole patriarchal, gender-discrimination thing, but do you lose your standing as a protected species when you refer to the 79-year-old senator as "Arlen Sphincter"?)
David Drake apparently got tired of trying to defend his idiocy, and now refuses to post my responses. (Looking at the web address for his blog, I'm a little curious why he originally called himself "Mrs. Satan" - just not curious enough to ride the Wayback Machine and find out.)
So I feel reasonably confident when I point out that the Far Right is just as unhinged and self-deluded as ever.