Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
I try to see similarities between myself and Margot Magowan; we’re both parents who are very concerned about the messages being presented to our children by a modern apparatus of commercialization and “news” and political agendas, which is not responsible for the impressions it leaves behind after it tires of one hot “new” craze and moves on to the next one. But, I haven’t commented on her pages for awhile by now, I’ve come to understand my opinions are just not welcome. I’ve found she’s willing to acknowledge that boys are being damaged too, but then again, she’s just not interested in that side of it.
We also don’t see eye-to-eye on victimhood in general. When George Will made the salient point that appears in the title of this post, she flipped out.
These particular words of his appeared in the Washington Post where he’s a regular columnist. That’s right, in 2014, an educated and “brilliant” man is informing the public that women covet rape.
:
I am so disgusted. It seems to me like George Will is getting nervous that women are going to start talking and that people might finally be listening.
Women covet rape? Well hey, some do. If there’s a rape hoax, how can you conclude differently? And there have been some; so, that settles that.
But it isn’t a fair characterization, anyway, is it? Will wasn’t singling out any particular woman or group of women. He was describing human nature, if I’m reading it correctly, and I’m pretty sure I am.
Will goes on to say:
Meanwhile, the newest campus idea for preventing victimizations — an idea certain to multiply claims of them — is “trigger warnings.” They would be placed on assigned readings or announced before lectures. Otherwise, traumas could be triggered in students whose tender sensibilities would be lacerated by unexpected encounters with racism, sexism, violence (dammit, Hamlet, put down that sword!) or any other facet of reality that might violate a student’s entitlement to serenity. This entitlement has already bred campus speech codes that punish unpopular speech. Now the codes are begetting the soft censorship of trigger warnings to swaddle students in a “safe,” “supportive,” “unthreatening” environment, intellectual comfort for the intellectually dormant.
It is salutary that academia, with its adversarial stance toward limited government and cultural common sense, is making itself ludicrous. Academia is learning that its attempts to create victim-free campuses — by making everyone hypersensitive, even delusional, about victimizations — brings increasing supervision by the regulatory state that progressivism celebrates.
And see, I think this gets to the heart of it. The honest way to debate this issue is not: “Women covet rape” versus “no they don’t.” But rather: “What we need is more victims” versus “no we don’t.”
Changing definitions over time can serve beneficial ends. One example might be, oh, let’s say, the scene early on in Patton where the General informs the cook that the mess hall will no longer be open after 6 a.m., and any soldier in this unit not wearing proper uniform is going to be skinned. Obviously, the intent was not just to make the men wake up earlier and dress sharper; it was all about discipline. This would lead to other disciplines, which would culminate in the ultimate objective of creating a superior fighting force. It is a vision not uniquely Patton’s. It is what the D.I. does for a living, year after year. The standards change, the goal of the moment changes, these things all change as the progress changes, just like in any teacher-student relationship.
With progressivism, though, the “progress” is downward, as definition of “victim” changes, loosens up, includes things it previously would not have included. They keep wanting to cast a wider net. But the effect is not to make a better, faster, stronger, brighter student. Nor is that the intent. The “progress” of progressives is toward chaos. Dysfunction, disorder, temptation, weakness, trouble. Victimology.
Margot, incidentally, went on to say this:
When will we learn to honor rape survivors as the heroes that they are instead of shaming them into silence?
Heroes?
I’m sure there is a legitimate purpose to saying such a thing. Probably has to do with saying something, effecting change, so that a serial abuser is not free to inflict suffering on more people. I can certainly grasp that. The problem is, just a few paragraphs earlier she ridiculed George Will for daring to insinuate there might be some desirable cachet involved in being a victim. And here she is providing it, not even indirectly.
So George Will was right, when you make victimhood a coveted status you will see more victims. According to human nature…and by design. There certainly is a political agenda behind all this, there’s been one for a very long time, and if it somehow isn’t fair for us to discuss it while it’s happening right under our noses then this is going to lead to problems.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Let’s try a thought-experiment. George Will is, Heaven forbid, a victim of sexual assault. Would he still considered himself privileged?
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 07:08What?
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 07:52Let’s try a thought-experiment. If, Heaven forbid, George Will is a victim of sexual assault, will Zachriel defend his (George Will’s) “privilege” to speak out about Rape?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/14/2014 @ 12:28Robert Mitchell Jr: If, Heaven forbid, George Will is a victim of sexual assault, will Zachriel defend his (George Will’s) “privilege” to speak out about Rape?
Why, we defend his right to say any fool thing he likes—and the right of people to laugh at him when he does.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 12:29You get more of what you reward.
- Rich Fader | 06/14/2014 @ 12:37Rich Fader: You get more of what you reward.
Most people consider sexual assault a net negative, even if they later receive some sympathy. Just ask George Will.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 12:45Of course, Zachriel, thus your use of “privileged”, as in “check your privilege”. Nope, no “Shut up! He explained” here…….
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/14/2014 @ 13:33Robert Mitchell Jr: Of course, Zachriel, thus your use of “privileged”, as in “check your privilege”.
No. Our use refers to George Will’s statement concerning “when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges”. Our thought-experiment was if someone, such as George Will, were subject to a sexual assault, whether they would consider themselves “privileged”.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 13:37Most people would consider the exalted status of “hero” to qualify as a “privilege,” at the very least.
It’s rather bizarre to shame people for pointing out the P-word, and then a few paragraphs on down, insist on using the H-word. It has the effect of validating the original observation, and calling into question why there was any shaming. Are y’all making it known that y’all have an answer to offer?
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 19:33mkfreeberg: It’s rather bizarre to shame people for pointing out the P-word, and then a few paragraphs on down, insist on using the H-word.
The hero bit would be determined by their response to the rape. In any case, what were your results of the thought-experiment? Would you consider yourself privileged, if someone called you hero?
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 05:03[…] House Of Eratosthenes brings up victimhood […]
- Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove | 06/15/2014 @ 06:44The hero bit would be determined by their response to the rape.
As I said: “I can certainly grasp that.” It’s odd that y’all irrationally leap to the tired old repeated-refrain that the other side doesn’t understand something and what’s needed is an explanation. Makes no sense in this context, whatsoever.
I would say, if you’re going to lionize rape victims as heroes, that’s fine; and if you’re going to ridicule George Will for noticing victimhood is being made a coveted status, that’s fine too. One or the other of those. Just not both.
Because then, that’s nothing more or less than a war on noticing. And what about the “victims proliferating”? Will provided examples to support his assertion, and demonstrated that this has indeed been happening.
I truly do not understand y’all’s thought experiment, not even enough to ignore it.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 06:46mkfreeberg: I would say, if you’re going to lionize rape victims as heroes, that’s fine; and if you’re going to ridicule George Will for noticing victimhood is being made a coveted status, that’s fine too.
Victims of sexual assault are not typically treated as heroes.
We asked a question. As usual, you refuse to engage in a discussion.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 07:53mkfreeberg: I truly do not understand y’all’s thought experiment, not even enough to ignore it.
George Will suggests that victims of sexual assault have a privileged status. We asked whether George Will, or you, or your daughter, would think being a victim of a sexual assault would make them feel privileged. It’s not that difficult a question.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 07:56Victims of sexual assault are not typically treated as heroes.
We asked a question. As usual, you refuse to engage in a discussion.
Let’s re-word that last one to “you didn’t give the responses that fit our script.”
Y’all’s passive-voice statement cannot be evaluated, by anyone, because it doesn’t say anything. Typically? How typically? Are not treated? By whom? When? Where?
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 07:56We asked whether George Will, or you, or your daughter, would think being a victim of a sexual assault would make them feel privileged. It’s not that difficult a question.
Margot called them heroes, while simultaneously deriding George Will for noticing victimhood can confer privilege. One or the other of those might be reasonable; both, together, are not, since she’s castigating someone for noticing something is being done at the same time she’s actually doing it.
This has already been explained to y’all.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 07:58Zachriel: Victims of sexual assault are not typically treated as heroes.
mkfreeberg: Y’all’s passive-voice statement cannot be evaluated, by anyone, because it doesn’t say anything.
Gee whiz, mkfreeberg. It’s the same use as in the original essay, and in your own text.
Margot: When will we learn to honor rape survivors as the heroes that they are instead of shaming them into silence?
mkfreeberg: Most people would consider the exalted status of “hero” to qualify as a “privilege,” at the very least.
We asked a simple question directly relevant to the topic. George Will suggests that victims of sexual assault have a privileged status. We asked whether George Will, or you, or your daughter, would think being a victim of a sexual assault would make them feel privileged. It’s not that difficult a question.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:12I find it fascinating that the behavior of the “typical” is in error, here; whereas, in this other situation, it is the reference by which we are to establish what words mean.
Y’all’s question is irrelevant because Margot herself is willing to call rape victims heroes, even as she castigates George Will for noticing that victim-status is coveted and confers privilege. Now, would y’all care to reconcile this seemingly irreconcilable contradiction? Does the behavior of the typical define what is correct, or does it not?
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:29mkfreeberg: Y’all’s question is irrelevant because Margot herself is willing to call rape victims heroes, even as she castigates George Will for noticing that victim-status is coveted and confers privilege.
Of course it’s relevant.
George Will suggests that victims of sexual assault have a privileged status. We asked whether George Will, or you, or your daughter, would think being a victim of a sexual assault would make them feel privileged {because someone on the Internet said rape victims should be treated as heroes}. It’s not that difficult a question.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:32Of course it’s relevant.
No, Margot proved that victimhood is, indeed, a coveted status that confers privilege. While criticizing someone for noticing that very thing. We already know who’s right and who’s wrong, it’s settled by her own words.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:35mkfreeberg: No, Margot proved that victimhood is, indeed, a coveted status that confers privilege.
Yes, because when Margot says you’re a hero, you have a coveted status that confers privilege.
George Will suggests that victims of sexual assault have a privileged status. We asked whether George Will, or you, or your daughter, would think being a victim of a sexual assault would make them feel privileged {because someone on the Internet said rape victims should be treated as heroes}. It’s not that difficult a question.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:36I already answered it in the post. Go look.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:39mkfreeberg: I already answered it in the post.
Hmm. Don’t see anything about the thought-experiment we proposed. We asked whether George Will, or you, or your daughter, would think being a victim of a sexual assault would make them feel privileged {because someone on the Internet said rape victims should be treated as heroes}. It’s not that difficult a question.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:41Hmm. Don’t see anything about the thought-experiment we proposed.
That’s okay. I answered the question.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:45mkfreeberg: That’s okay. I answered the question.
Hmm. Don’t see anything about the thought-experiment we proposed. We asked whether George Will, or you, or your daughter, would think being a victim of a sexual assault would make them feel privileged {because someone on the Internet said rape victims should be treated as heroes}. It’s not that difficult a question.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:49Hmm. Don’t see anything about the thought-experiment we proposed. We asked whether George Will, or you, or your daughter, would think being a victim of a sexual assault would make them feel privileged {because someone on the Internet said rape victims should be treated as heroes}. It’s not that difficult a question.
The difficulty of the question is not at issue, since it’s been answered already.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:57mkfreeberg: The difficulty of the question is not at issue, since it’s been answered already.
Sorry. We must have missed it, and can’t find it. Please restate the answer. Thank you.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:59I’d add to “you get more of what you reward” that turning victimhood (sexual or otherwise) into some perverse sort of participation trophy does more to devalue it than anything George Will said.
- Rich Fader | 06/15/2014 @ 16:51Sorry. We must have missed it, and can’t find it. Please restate the answer. Thank you.
Sure. I generated a link to a generic Google search for “rape hoaxes”. It’s in the first paragraph after the excerpt.
I realize that’s a vulgar and unseemly conclusion to reach, but sometimes reality is like that. It’s a more than adequate rebuttal to the point Margot is seeking to make here, which boiled down to its essentials, is really nothing more than the old standby of modern feminism: “I hate what this person just said, come gather around and help me hate it.” Seems reasonable, at first. But, some women do “covet rape” enough to fake their complaints about it, it’s provable, it’s happened, and in light of that it becomes unreasonable to hold George Will up for Internet-wide derision for pointing out what simply is.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 18:42Would George Will, or you, or your daughter, feel privileged having been a victim of a sexual assault?
mkfreeberg: I generated a link to a generic Google search for “rape hoaxes”.
So if, Heaven forbid, George Will was raped, he would feel privileged?
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 05:27There are rape hoaxes. This proves that rape can involve, whether it should or not, a coveted status that confers privilege.
Think of this as y’all’s opportunity to comprehend things that definitively settle the matter in dispute, even though they may not directly answer y’all’s question. Because if y’all truly can’t comprehend that, it comes off looking like a learning disability.
The matter is settled. Margot proved George Will is correct; the rape hoaxes have proven George Will is correct.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 05:38mkfreeberg: There are rape hoaxes. This proves that rape can involve, whether it should or not, a coveted status that confers privilege.
So, you’re saying that if your daughter, Heaven forbid, were raped, she would feel privileged? It’s the same question we brought up before.
This isn’t that hard to argue. Do we really have to do it for you?
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 06:00By the way, your link to Google only lists one actual hoax on the first page, the Tawana Brawley incident. Evidence provided to the Grand Jury showed that Brawley was trying to avoid violent punishment at home. Some privilege.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 06:06By the way, your link to Google only lists one actual hoax on the first page, the Tawana Brawley incident. Evidence provided to the Grand Jury showed that Brawley was trying to avoid violent punishment at home. Some privilege.
Are y’all trying to put together an argument that victimhood is never a coveted status that confers privilege? If so, are y’all trying to offer an explanation for why rape and other assaults are faked?
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 06:28mkfreeberg: Are y’all trying to put together an argument that victimhood is never a coveted status that confers privilege?
It’s interesting how you can’t bring yourself to ever answer direct questions about your position. Your link suggests that false accusations of rape are relatively rare, and that there are often other factors besides ‘privilege’. This isn’t that hard to argue. Do we really have to do it for you?
The vast majority of people who suffer sexual assault are ostracized, not idolized. There may be a few people who falsely claim they have been raped. Rarely is this due to some sort of idolization by society, but either to punish someone or to avoid punishment. There are bound to be a few with various emotional problems who want the attention, but that seems to be the exception to the exception.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 06:36Here’s an interesting response your readers might find interesting.
“I am a 47 year-old financially and professionally secure woman in a stable, loving relationship and it took 25 years and your jackass column to get me to speak up about my rape. How easy do you think it is for a scared 20 year-old to call 911 or walk into a police station and say, ‘I was just raped?'”
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 07:46http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/an-ob-gyn-s-open-letter-to-george-will-about-his-rape-column
It’s interesting how you can’t bring yourself to ever answer direct questions about your position.
Not really. Most people don’t answer questions when they pick up the vibe that the question was posed for purposes other than collecting information.
I have come to the conclusion that these sessions of “We asked a question and you didn’t answer” are y’all’s way of admitting defeat. So by all means, do continue to do it a few more times.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 17:44mkfreeberg: Most people don’t answer questions when they pick up the vibe that the question was posed for purposes other than collecting information.
We can’t understand your position, if you refuse to discuss it. By asking specific questions, we hope to elicit specific answers. We try to be very clear in our own position, provide support as appropriate, and answer questions.
The vast majority of people who suffer sexual assault are ostracized, not idolized. There may be a few people who falsely claim they have been raped. Rarely is this due to some sort of idolization by society, but either to punish someone or to avoid punishment. There are bound to be a few with various emotional problems who want the attention, but that seems to be the exception to the exception.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 17:53We can’t understand your position, if you refuse to discuss it. By asking specific questions, we hope to elicit specific answers. We try to be very clear in our own position, provide support as appropriate, and answer questions.
Right, y’all try to be very clear in y’all’s own positions, but…
The vast majority of people who suffer sexual assault are ostracized, not idolized.
See, that’s the premise which causes the conflict with George Will’s statement. The conflict relies on this, completely. But the statement doesn’t say anything, it doesn’t clarify anything, it’s passive-voice. As such, of course it’s true in the strictest technical sense, it cannot be refuted the way any passive-voice statement cannot be refuted. “Are ostracized” — sure they are, by someone, somewhere. We all are. Question is, who’s doing it?
And “vast majority.” Yet another mathematical concept that doesn’t involve any mathematical reasoning. Let’s not pretend y’all interviewed all of the sexual assault victims within some defined set, figured out some number within them had been ostracized, engaged simple division to produce the fraction and there it is — a vast majority. That’s not what is happening here. It’s just another victimology-lefty-statement designed to elicit emotion.
That is not to say it isn’t a real problem. But it in no way contradicts what George Will said.
There are bound to be a few with various emotional problems who want the attention, but that seems to be the exception to the exception.
I hope so. Trouble is, chronic and hypochondriac victims are like alcoholics, wholly unsuitable to remit their own diagnoses. In fact, in the past couple of decades, “with various emotional problems who want the attention” would be a fair and accurate description of leftist politics in America, in general.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 04:04mkfreeberg: As such, of course it’s true in the strictest technical sense, it cannot be refuted the way any passive-voice statement cannot be refuted.
Where in Heavens did you get that idea?
Passive voice: The flat tire was changed
Are you actually saying we can’t never determine whether the tire was changed?
mkfreeberg: And “vast majority” {of people who suffer sexual assault are ostracized, not idolized}. Yet another mathematical concept that doesn’t involve any mathematical reasoning.
Are you really arguing this point isn’t true? Seriously? Do you really need to look this one up?
http://www.policymic.com/articles/50419/13-year-old-colorado-boy-sodomized-by-peers-and-then-ostracized-by-town
How many examples do you need?
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 04:30M: As such, of course it’s true in the strictest technical sense, it cannot be refuted the way any passive-voice statement cannot be refuted.
Z: Where in Heavens did you get that idea?
Passive voice: The flat tire was changed
Are you actually saying we can’t never determine whether the tire was changed?
Poor example. The state of the tire is altered. The statement is missing its subject, but if we want to fill one in, it’s a matter of fact that someone did the changing. Unless some un-burglar snuck in, did a good deed, and left again, this open question is going to get settled.
This is not true of the person who suffered sexual assault suffering her supposed ostracism; she was assaulted already. Y’all’s statement cannot be evaluated logically, because it is pure conjecture. We’re left debating in a vacuum: They are lionized. No they’re not, they’re ostracized. They’re hailed as heroes. No they’re not, they’re criticized. None of it can be tested OR challenged. All of such statements, on both sides, in the purest technical sense, are true.
That’s why people who work to make things better and to improve conditions like these, make an effort to use active voice. Passive voice is what you use when your objective is just to do a lot of grandstanding and complaining.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 05:14mkfreeberg: Poor example.
What you mean is that it contradicts your claim that a passive voice sentence isn’t subject to verification.
mkfreeberg: The state of the tire is altered.
Well, yeah. That’s rather the point.
mkfreeberg: None of it can be tested OR challenged.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/50419/13-year-old-colorado-boy-sodomized-by-peers-and-then-ostracized-by-town
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 05:25M: Poor example.
Z: What you mean is that it contradicts your claim that a passive voice sentence isn’t subject to verification.
What I mean is that it does not fit the situation; that is something examples should do.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 06:05mkfreeberg: What I mean is that it does not fit the situation; that is something examples should do.
It’s a straight syllogism.
mk: any passive-voice statement cannot be refuted.
Z: counterexample; The flat tire was changed
Your claim is false.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 06:07There’s something that bugs me about these two oppositional statements.
My first thought is that the ostracization often would come from being made to feel powerless – the natural hesitance to admit that something awful was done to you, that you could not prevent, that you may never be able to find justice for. That would apply in many cases, but you have two other things going on with a rape: for one, it’s so personal and invasive as to make it particularly stressful; for another, it also can leave much less physical and outward sign than a common mugging or assault. To post a hypothetical: I may be mortified to be shown, beyond doubt, that I am no physical match for a person who sets upon me in a rage, but I can’t easily hide a broken arm and battered face. I’d be confronted with it just getting outside my door. A rape involves further exposure (physically and psychologically) when the natural impulse is to shield oneself.
My next thought is, when we think of “stigma” in terms of crime victims in general and rape victims in particular, it may be less a function of patriarchy or “blame the victim” and more a matter of feeling terribly for a victim, not knowing how exactly to help. What the sufferer feels as “ostracism” may be family and friends at a complete loss. They may also blame themselves (not the victim) for not being a good enough protector or guardian, as I’ve heard is quite common among husbands and fathers. There’s a reason people train years to be able to counsel PTSD sufferers and other crisis patients.
My third thought is that those two problems are largely inseperable from the actual crime of rape. By this crime’s nature, victims and loved ones are going to feel that way and need help to fight through and heal.
So the options for society at large are limited – helpful as those few things might be, there’s little to do for those already traumatized except to vigorously prosecute offenders and offer effective, compassionate counseling.
As is usual, the list of things people can do to screw it up worse is a lot longer. And near the top of that list has got to be “false rape accusations.” If victims already have a hard time being believed in some cases, how is making that problem worse going to help anyone else come forward? It wastes resources set up for actual victims and it makes people less likely to believe them.
- nightfly | 06/17/2014 @ 12:30nightfly: What the sufferer feels as “ostracism” may be family and friends at a complete loss.
Societal ostracism has been a near constant for centuries, and it is in modern liberal society that such ostracism has waned. However, your points are well taken.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 13:16Yuup, if you ever want to know what acceptance and tolerance look loke, just look to our friends the liberals. Just remember they’re better than you.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 13:34mkfreeberg: Yuup, if you ever want to know what acceptance and tolerance look loke, just look to our friends the liberals.
Social ostracism for so-called fallen behavior is usually associated with conservative social values.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 14:57Social ostracism for so-called fallen behavior is usually associated with conservative social values.
In error, apparently.
mk: any passive-voice statement cannot be refuted.
Z: counterexample; The flat tire was changed
Your claim is false.
And your example is poor. In the way I’ve explained. Already.
Something was done to the tire. Nothing was done to the assault victim, to change that person’s state, besides the assault itself.
It’s like saying “I have been receiving death threats in the e-mail” when you’re in trouble. It’s the bullet-proof refuge of scoundrels because, well hey, who can possibly deny it? Nobody can say “No that’s not true, you haven’t either!” And so when public figures are in trouble and deserve to be, they haul that one out reliable as rain. Which demotes the claim to nothing more than an outburst. There’s no basis of fact around it, and nobody expects there to be any.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 18:06mkfreeberg: Nobody can say “No that’s not true, you haven’t either!”
Of course they can. The evidence is in the emails and their IP traces.
mkfreeberg: And your example is poor.
Any counterexample contradicts your claim that “any passive-voice statement cannot be refuted.”
- Zachriel | 06/18/2014 @ 05:27Of course they can. The evidence is in the emails and their IP traces.
Right, ++cough++ Lois Lerner ++cough++.
Any counterexample contradicts your claim that “any passive-voice statement cannot be refuted.”
To find this counterexample, y’all had to change the characteristic of the passive-voice statement, opting for an object whose state could be plainly demonstrated to have been changed. That’s what makes y’all’s example poor.
I’ll amend the statement to say “any passive voice statement of that sort cannot be refuted.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/18/2014 @ 20:12mkfreeberg: I’ll amend the statement to say “any passive voice statement of that sort cannot be refuted.”
What “sort” is that?
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 05:17What “sort” is that?
Are y’all trying to argue that molestation victims being ostracized, are like tires being changed?
- mkfreeberg | 06/19/2014 @ 05:57mkfreeberg: Are y’all trying to argue that molestation victims being ostracized, are like tires being changed?
You didn’t answer the question.
mk: I’ll amend the statement to say “any passive voice statement of that sort cannot be refuted.”
Z: What “sort” is that?
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 06:09What “sort” is that?
Are y’all trying to argue that molestation victims being ostracized, are like tires being changed?
- mkfreeberg | 06/19/2014 @ 18:19mkfreeberg: Are y’all trying to argue that molestation victims being ostracized, are like tires being changed?
No. Now try to answer the question. You said “any passive voice statement of that sort cannot be refuted.” What “sort” is that?
- Zachriel | 06/20/2014 @ 02:51Are y’all trying to argue that molestation victims being ostracized, are like tires being changed?
No. Now try to answer the question. You said “any passive voice statement of that sort cannot be refuted.” What “sort” is that?
If y’all acknowledge that these two things are not equivalent, thus the example sucks, then how is it necessary to answer the question?
- mkfreeberg | 06/20/2014 @ 05:55mkfreeberg: If y’all acknowledge that these two things are not equivalent, thus the example sucks, then how is it necessary to answer the question?
Your claim is “any passive voice statement of that sort cannot be refuted.” The question is what “sort” is that? If you can’t answer, then you should retract the claim.
- Zachriel | 06/20/2014 @ 09:17Your claim is “any passive voice statement of that sort cannot be refuted.” The question is what “sort” is that? If you can’t answer, then you should retract the claim.
I could explain it. Y’all couldn’t understand it though.
If y’all could, it wouldn’t require explanation. It’s fairly obvious. Molestation victim being ostracized…tire being changed…y’all have already admitted these things are not the same. So y’all aren’t capable of recognizing how, without someone else spelling it out? Really?
Maybe y’all can make the Weekend Update segment this weekend with Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers.
- mkfreeberg | 06/20/2014 @ 17:02mkfreeberg: I could explain it. Y’all couldn’t understand it though.
Ah, it’s a secret {wink}!
You made a claim, but hide behind ambiguity.
- Zachriel | 06/21/2014 @ 06:38We know that some types of passive voice statements can be refuted. What “sorts” of passive voice statements cannot be refuted?
- Zachriel | 06/21/2014 @ 06:39M: I could explain it. Y’all couldn’t understand it though.
Z: Ah, it’s a secret {wink}!
No. I said y’all couldn’t understand it. It does not necessarily follow that others couldn’t. Just y’all.
- mkfreeberg | 06/21/2014 @ 16:09mkfreeberg: No. I said y’all couldn’t understand it. It does not necessarily follow that others couldn’t.
But no one will ever know because it’s, psst, a secret.
As usual, you made a claim, but won’t support it.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 04:38But no one will ever know because it’s, psst, a secret.
As usual, you made a claim, but won’t support it.
The issue here is y’all’s failure to understand. This is not my problem.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 07:02Your claim is “any passive voice statement of that sort cannot be refuted.” The question is what “sort” is that? If you can’t answer, then you should retract the claim.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 09:09Your claim is “any passive voice statement of that sort cannot be refuted.” The question is what “sort” is that? If you can’t answer, then you should retract the claim.
The issue here is y’all’s failure to understand. This is not my problem.
But it is good y’all have made plain why it is that liberals can’t actually solve problems. They do not comprehend enough about reality to be able to.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 10:05mkfreeberg: The issue here is y’all’s failure to understand. This is not my problem.
You make claims and won’t support them, won’t even answer simple questions about them. That’s not a problem for us, but it is a problem for your credibility.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 15:48You make claims and won’t support them, won’t even answer simple questions about them. That’s not a problem for us, but it is a problem for your credibility.
A trigonometry teacher doesn’t lose credibility when asked questions about his subject by someone who can’t even do simple arithmetic, and properly points out that the student needs to learn the rudiments.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 20:09mkfreeberg: A trigonometry teacher doesn’t lose credibility when asked questions about his subject by someone who can’t even do simple arithmetic, and properly points out that the student needs to learn the rudiments.
Theorems of trigonometry are built on fundamental axioms, and any decent teacher of trigonometry will be happy to show you.
You make claims and won’t support them, won’t even answer simple questions about them. That’s not a problem for us, but it is a problem for your credibility.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 05:18Theorems of trigonometry are built on fundamental axioms, and any decent teacher of trigonometry will be happy to show you.
Show you, maybe. But he won’t walk you through the more advanced problems if you don’t know how to put 2 and 2 together to make 4. That would be futile.
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2014 @ 06:05mkfreeberg: But he won’t walk you through the more advanced problems if you don’t know how to put 2 and 2 together to make 4.
The fundamentals of arithmetic also derive from a few basic axioms. And any teacher would be happy to provide that information, or at least lead the student in the correct direction.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 06:09The fundamentals of arithmetic also derive from a few basic axioms.
But if the student cannot put 2 and 2 together to get 4, trigonometry is not likely to be within his comprehension. The responsible teacher will therefore recommend remedial coursework.
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2014 @ 18:22mkfreeberg: The responsible teacher will therefore recommend remedial coursework.
In other words, any decent teacher will point to the resources where the answer can be found, rather than just making unsupported claims.
You make claims and won’t support them, won’t even answer simple questions about them. That’s not a problem for us, but it is a problem for your credibility.
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 04:00You make claims and won’t support them, won’t even answer simple questions about them…
It’s not my problem if y’all can’t understand.
- mkfreeberg | 06/24/2014 @ 04:26mkfreeberg: It’s not my problem if y’all can’t understand.
Ah, it’s a secret!
You make claims and won’t support them, won’t even answer simple questions about them.
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 04:31Ah, it’s a secret!
No more than trigonometry is a “secret” from people who don’t bother to learn basic math. Try to keep track.
- mkfreeberg | 06/24/2014 @ 04:44mkfreeberg: No more than trigonometry is a “secret” from people who don’t bother to learn basic math.
We’re willing to learn, but so far, it’s seems to be a secret, like alchemy.
Your claim is “any passive voice statement of that sort cannot be refuted.” The question is what “sort” is that? If you can’t answer, then you should retract the claim.
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 04:48We’re willing to learn, but so far, it’s seems to be a secret, like alchemy.
I see. Would y’all characterize y’all’s behavior in these various threads, as a model of “being willing to learn”?
I think most of the people following would comment they have seen a lot of casual dismissal of new ideas. They’ve very often said so. I’ve seen the phrase “hand waving” thrown around an awful lot, without too much concern for its definition, most recently just this morning. That kind of “willing[ness] to learn”?
- mkfreeberg | 06/25/2014 @ 04:30mkfreeberg: Would y’all characterize y’all’s behavior in these various threads, as a model of “being willing to learn”?
We’re more than willing to learn, but you’ve indicated repeatedly, you’re not willing to teach. You won’t defend your positions, or even answer questions about them. You expect them to just hang out there in public with no one speaking up.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 05:19Well, heck, let’s do some “science”!
Y’all have posted well over a thousand comments here since we’ve had the misfortune of making your acquaintance. A good many of those have been in the form of questions. The law of averages indicates that y’all should’ve learned something from all that. So: list some. Let’s see that vaunted willingness to learn. List some new things you’ve learned from Morgan; stuff you didn’t already know.
I’ll bet the whole cost of an ObamaCare bronze plan that any lame things y’all try to list will be easily reducible to leftist bromides: He doesn’t care about poor people; he’s a racist; he doesn’t believe in science. Which — since y’all are obviously putrid little trolls — you believed already.
Here’s your chance to shine!
[since I’ve directly asked y’all a question, you are permitted to respond. I won’t show y’all the Shame Closet as long as you stay on point].
- Severian | 06/25/2014 @ 07:14Severian: A good many of those have been in the form of questions.
But very few answered. With regards to your own responses, from the looks of our spam-filter, most of them have been, shall we say, off-topic.
Severian: The law of averages indicates that y’all should’ve learned something from all that.
That would depend on the quality>, not the quantity of comments.
Severian: He doesn’t care about poor people; he’s a racist; he doesn’t believe in science.
Actually, we don’t see any evidence of that. We doubt very seriously that mkfreeberg is a racist; however, his political views would not have addressed the very real concerns of blacks and other minorities. His eyes are closed to many things in this world. More generally, he has a misunderstanding of how science works, how to evaluate findings, and even how to construct a valid argument.
Severian: List some new things you’ve learned from Morgan; stuff you didn’t already know.
Nothing so far. But we live in hope.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 08:54So y’all have made 1,000+ comments — several hundred of them questions — and have learned nothing. Not one single thing.
That’s all we wanted to establish.
- Severian | 06/25/2014 @ 11:49Severian: So y’all have made 1,000+ comments — several hundred of them questions — and have learned nothing. Not one single thing.
Your question was “List some new things you’ve learned from Morgan”.
However, we have learned that the Mount Vernon Association has a staff of historians and documentarians, and they determined that the “Government is fire” quote is likely spurious. So there is that.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 11:52Yes, that was my question. You answered it. Your answer was, “nothing so far.”
1,000+ comments, hundreds of questions, zero things learned.
That’s all we wanted to establish.
- Severian | 06/25/2014 @ 12:04Severian: Your answer was, “nothing so far.”
Learned from mkfreeberg, nothing so far.
Severian: That’s all we wanted to establish.
Cool.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 13:031,000+ comments, hundreds of questions, zero things learned. Got it.
- Severian | 06/25/2014 @ 13:08Severian: 1,000+ comments, hundreds of questions, zero things learned.
That’s not quite correct, as we pointed out above. When mkfreeberg attributed the “Government is fire” quote to George Washington, we learned that experts consider the attribution likely spurious.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 13:14The question: “List some new things you’ve learned from Morgan”.
The answer (twice): Learned from mkfreeberg, nothing so far.
And now we can add “three lame-ass attempts to backtrack in order to get the last word in” to the mix.
1,000+ comments, hundreds of questions, zero things learned. Got it.
- Severian | 06/25/2014 @ 13:24Severian: The answer (twice): Learned from mkfreeberg, nothing so far.
That is correct.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 14:23That is all we wanted to establish. Be sure to drop by here on your way out.
- Severian | 06/25/2014 @ 14:27