Argument Thread

[diddle]

this'll start a good argument

men are better drivers than women

[dwightschrute]

wrestling is fake and dumb.

[cena-rules]

i want to be quoted in someones sig

[cena-rules]

this'll start a good argument

men are better drivers than women

true

[Cheesemore]

Insurance people don't think so, teenage boys' car insurance is way more expensive than teenage girls'

[cena-rules]

whoever quotes this in there sig will know the meaning of life

Cheese is the most valuble thing in the world

[Norse]

whoever quotes this in there sig will know the meaning of life

Cheese is the most valuble thing in the world

I disagree, I think ham+cheese are equally valuable

[Minister Masket]

Actually its neither. The real answer is PIE!!!!

[Cheesemore]

whoever quotes this in there sig will know the meaning of life

Cheese is the most valuble thing in the world

Thanks for mentioning it, I needed something else in my sig and here its is
Pie rules, but Pizza is better (it is already a pie, but better)

[pancakemix]

Actually its neither. The real answer is PIE!!!!

I thought is was 42.

[MeDeFe]

After carefully reading this thread and weighing the different positions against each other I have come to a few conclusions. Most positions were very well-formulated and a few were stunning in their clarity while still containing an amazing scope of information, the overall impression of this debate is that those partaking in it have invested tremendous amounts of time in research and they have all shown that their grasp of the english language goes far beyond what might be expected even of a native speaker.
It is also laudable how little the thread has strayed from the original topic, when taking into account the overall tendency of threads in these forums to become, and I hope you will forgive me for using a more colloquial term here, derailed. In this debate however that is not the case. A few excursions aside, which, I wish to add, were without fail related to the general topic, there is a clear line of argument and counter-argument throughout the discussion that is both interesting and enlightening, captivating the imagination of the reader while at the same time confronting him with viewpoints not easily classified within the usual philosophical, economical and political spectra.
The individual debaters were at all times aware of this as well of the fact that in some cases their viewpoints at first glance might seem to contradict each other, and took care to clarify their positions so as to avoid any misunderstanding that might ensue, should one not so gifted of mind and wit as you, esteemed debaters, venture to study these recordings.
To end this small commentary I would like to thank you all for the time and hard work you put down into this project. You can rest assured that it will certainly be preserved for generations to come, both as an example of superb debating skills displaying logical thought, clarity of language, courtesy even in the face of widely disparate points of view and a good portion of wit, as well as a scientific work that will found a new era within its field and have great consequences on other branches in the great tree that is human learning and knowledge.

Thank you.

[Norse]

I whole heartedly disagree with everything you just said.

[Balsiefen]

After carefully reading this thread and weighing the different positions against each other I have come to a few conclusions. Most positions were very well-formulated and a few were stunning in their clarity while still containing an amazing scope of information, the overall impression of this debate is that those partaking in it have invested tremendous amounts of time in research and they have all shown that their grasp of the english language goes far beyond what might be expected even of a native speaker.
It is also laudable how little the thread has strayed from the original topic, when taking into account the overall tendency of threads in these forums to become, and I hope you will forgive me for using a more colloquial term here, derailed. In this debate however that is not the case. A few excursions aside, which, I wish to add, were without fail related to the general topic, there is a clear line of argument and counter-argument throughout the discussion that is both interesting and enlightening, captivating the imagination of the reader while at the same time confronting him with viewpoints not easily classified within the usual philosophical, economical and political spectra.
The individual debaters were at all times aware of this as well of the fact that in some cases their viewpoints at first glance might seem to contradict each other, and took care to clarify their positions so as to avoid any misunderstanding that might ensue, should one not so gifted of mind and wit as you, esteemed debaters, venture to study these recordings.
To end this small commentary I would like to thank you all for the time and hard work you put down into this project. You can rest assured that it will certainly be preserved for generations to come, both as an example of superb debating skills displaying logical thought, clarity of language, courtesy even in the face of widely disparate points of view and a good portion of wit, as well as a scientific work that will found a new era within its field and have great consequences on other branches in the great tree that is human learning and knowledge.

Thank you.

Half of me was reluctant to write this letter out of concern that Mr. MaDeFe may be one of those people who say unruly things for the sole purpose of gaining attention. But given Mr. MaDeFe's track record, I have concluded that he has made some very dangerous assumptions about uncompromising, passive-aggressive control freaks, so I've decided to proceed. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how he thinks that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as him. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. It troubles and amazes me to think that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, even if one is opposed to balmy jujuism (and I am), then surely, he says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, his time has run out.

The more I think about ornery, out-of-touch crybabies, the more troubled I become by Mr. MaDeFe's subliminal psywar campaigns. Some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, Mr. MaDeFe takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position.

I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that Mr. MaDeFe's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false. Just don't expect consistency from a man who is utterly and undoubtedly deranged.

Let's conduct a Gedankenexperiment. Suppose we could create a hypothetical population free of pestiferous ogres. Let's assume, furthermore, that Mr. MaDeFe were powerless to propitiate appalling cadgers for later eventualities. In this hypothetical situation, wouldn't we all be free to direct our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measure progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible? Let's make this dream a reality. Let's get people to realize that I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "The reason I'm writing this letter is that Mr. MaDeFe's representatives lie about their utterances, and then, when we're all convinced that no harm will be done, they truck away our freedoms for safekeeping." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that none of Mr. MaDeFe's "progressive" ideas have actually resulted in any progress. An equal but opposite observation is that I once told Mr. MaDeFe that the scantiness of his abstract knowledge directs his sentiments more to the world of snobbism. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that compassion and moral principle are not the main motives for Mr. MaDeFe's actions. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life.

This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that Mr. MaDeFe wants nothing less than to wipe out delicate ecosystems. His shills then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with rapacious lamebrains who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that whenever Mr. MaDeFe is blamed for conspiring to trade facts for fantasy, truth for myths, academics for collective socialization, and individual thinking for group manipulation, he blames his comrades. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Mr. MaDeFe turn the trickle of boosterism into a tidal wave. You may be wondering why vulgar usurers latch onto his smears. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why a great many of us don't want Mr. MaDeFe to turn boeotians loose against us good citizens. But we feel a prodigious pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his hopeless, slovenly paroxysms.

I have long been under the impression that I am making an appeal to the intelligence of the reader not to be fooled by Mr. MaDeFe's demagoguery. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of Mr. MaDeFe's club quite adamantly think that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could assert such a thing, but then again, I'm at loggerheads with Mr. MaDeFe on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that mandarinism brings one closer to nirvana. I take the opposite position, that if I hear Mr. MaDeFe's foot soldiers say, "Mr. MaDeFe is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine" one more time, I'm obviously going to throw up. It is not news that the absurdity of Mr. MaDeFe's insinuations requires no further comment. What speaks volumes, though, is that he is morally irresponsible and mentally feeble. End of story. Actually, I should add that I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like him deprive people of dignity and autonomy. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world.

Mr. MaDeFe had previously claimed that he had no intention to suppress all news that portrays him in a bad light. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would expose and neutralize his enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. We all know what happened then. Now, Mr. MaDeFe would have us believe he'd never ever defy the rules of logic. Will he? Go figure. My view is that there's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I insist, there's a time to enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds which contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their coldhearted memoranda. Or, to put it less poetically, Mr. MaDeFe spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his fibs while ignoring the fact that if I recall correctly, his thesis is that his expostulations provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. That's thoroughly pathological, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that I myself want to see all of us working together to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that if Mr. MaDeFe feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself.

What I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Mr. MaDeFe's line that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Mr. MaDeFe so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? This isn't such an easy question to answer, but let me take a stab at it: One of Mr. MaDeFe's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to recruit and encourage young people to make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent workers, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs, never the original problem. Admittedly, it is naive to think that Mr. MaDeFe wouldn't let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of illogical self-proclaimed arbiters of taste and standards if he got the chance. But that's because he believes that divine ichor flows through his veins. That's just wrong. He further believes that it's okay to stultify art and retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful. Wrong again! We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Mr. MaDeFe's neurotic anecdotes, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to remind him about the concept of truth in advertising.)

Nepotism is correctly defined by its satanic style, structure, and methods, not by its stated or apparent ideological premises or goals, as evidenced by the way that one could truthfully say that Mr. MaDeFe's half-measures would be totally risible if they weren't so malignant. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. The practical struggle which now begins, sketched in broad outlines, takes the following course: It is not my goal to strap us down with a network of rules and regulations, but the opposite. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Mr. MaDeFe has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because it strikes me as amusing that Mr. MaDeFe complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain.

It is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about blinkered, insufferable nabobs of Bonapartism. For those of us who make our living trying to clean up the country and get it back on course again, it is important to consider that he attracts stinking slimeballs to his gang by telling them that his vices are the only true virtues. I suppose the people to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, Mr. MaDeFe is doing everything in his power to make me react, on cue, to the trigger-words that Mr. MaDeFe has inserted into my mind by dint of endless repetition. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance. Think of all the lives that could be saved if we would just bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate. Mr. MaDeFe refers to a variety of things using the word "philoprogenitiveness". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, I have a message for him. My message is that, for the good of us all, he should never poison the relationship between teacher and student. He should never even try to do such a vicious thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by "never", I don't mean "maybe", "sometimes", or "it depends". I mean only that Mr. MaDeFe has been deluding people into believing that sin is good for the soul. Don't let him delude you, too. One other thing: You'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Mr. MaDeFe's plans to make human life negligible and cheap. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum. It is imperative that we inform such people that Mr. MaDeFe's politics are a cancer that is slowly eating away at our flesh. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that I, for one, wouldn't want to exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation. I would, on the other hand, love to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. I have one final message for you before ending this letter: Mr. MaDeFe justifies his plans to prosecute, sentence, and label people as lawless stumblebums without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever as "preemptive self-defense".

[The Weird One]

explain why in detail

(and don't use small words)

[Norse]

As Balsiefen's anti-Christian diatribe contains no discernible connection to the practice of medicine I have to wonder why it was published in a medical journal? Balsiefen may think his article daring, but it represents only the latest in an ever increasing tide of abuse to which Christianity is subjected daily. It deserves to be challenged.

Balsiefen brings out the old chestnut about "the horrors wrought in the name of religion" The great atheistic tyrannies of the 20th century--communism and Nazism--slaughtered many millions more than the Conquistadors could ever have dreamed of. That some rulers and politicians have used Christianity as a convenient cloak to disguise their wrongdoing shows only how some people behave. Tony Blair claims to be a Christian, and Bill Clinton will readily go to a prayer breakfast to seek forgiveness for his latest transgression.

Presumably Balsiefen thinks that I, and all other Christians, should shoulder responsibility for the bombing of a Belgrade television station or a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant or for the deaths of a quarter of a million Iraqi children since United Nations sanctions began. The horrors of history have all been wrought in the name of politics.

The writings of Madefe and other philosophers differ from the Bible not only in their rejection of God but also in the fact that they remain largely unread--I suspect because they are virtually unreadable. It is noteworthy that 'The weird one' entitled his book Why I am not a Christian. This shows one of the most depressing things about atheism, which is that it can define itself only by what it is not. It is a philosophy based on a negative: there is no God; there is no hereafter; there is no point; there is no hope.

I take some comfort from the fact that Balsiefen works in public health and is therefore unlikely to come into contact with "mostly aged" patients. It is too much to bear the thought of him stalking an oncology ward, a geriatric ward, or, God forbid, a hospice, cheerily disabusing his patients of their "anthropocentric wish fulfilment" and reassuring them that all that awaits them once the suffering is over is the promise of eternal nothingness.

[The1exile]

Recent troubling developments prompt me to revisit a subject I've discussed in the past: Norse and his plan to transform our whole society to suit his own sniffish, drossy interests. For openers, his representatives aver that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. This is precisely the non-equation that Norse is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that he fears nothing more than the truth. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to issue a call to conscience and reason, I must explain to the population at large that his buddies have the power to commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge his longiloquent musings whenever they feel like it. Still, I recommend you check out some of his scare tactics and draw your own conclusions on the matter. The important point here is not that there is no defense against ridicule. The vital matter is that Norse's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false. It looks like Norse's claim of fairness is demonstrably false. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that his legates can be stereotyped as clueless tools of prepackaged political ideology and incomprehensible dummkopfs to boot. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that the spectrum of views between ageism and antipluralism is not a line but a circle at which ridiculous segregationists and the most brainless Philistines I've ever seen meet. To properly place Norse somewhere in that spectrum, one needs to realize that Norse must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why he is so desperate to feature simplistic answers to complex problems; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Norse also realized that if he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

Norse's lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of crotchets. Others are in the form of disquisitions. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion.

Norse has yet to acknowledge the preternatural wickedness of the blood flowing through his veins. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: He stands for rogue authority, social directives, and onerous laws that weaken personal freedoms. As sure as you're born, if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. To make a long story short, Norse occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being sappy, fastidious philosophasters. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Norse habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that he sometimes uses the word "anthropoteleological" when describing his homilies. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response.

Norse's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "Norse's vices are the only true virtues" and, "Supercilious scapegraces are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive". What they don't tell you, though, is that when you tell Norse's co-conspirators that Norse has the gall to enable lascivious, obstinate loan sharks to punch above their weight, they begin to get fidgety, and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that if you think that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Norse wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance, such as that his favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that Norse wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to tell you things that he doesn't want you to know. In whatever form it takes -- magazines, music, propaganda, or any other form -- Norse's rhetoric is designed to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering. A plan of rational reaction to Norse's puerile, resentful indiscretions is unquestionably in order, so to speak.

Norse's tirades are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that Norse has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches Norse's nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of sectarianism and how free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing him and the warped, venom-spouting hermits in his retinue. As you listen to Norse's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that he had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, Norse gave us Trotskyism, anarchism, and antiheroism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since Norse keeps saying that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of his army of saturnine exhibitionists quite adamantly claim that the sun rises just for Norse. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could maintain such a thing, but then again, Norse has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. If an attempt to deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens isn't power-drunk, it certainly is sick. We must reach out to people with the message that Norse's analects are a perfect example of overgeneralization and blatant nonrepresentationalism. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to fight tooth and nail against him. I close this letter along the same lines it opened on: Norse is perfectly willing to show his embarrassingly poor reasoning and warped ethics in print.

[Chystal Halon]

youre all very sad.

[The1exile]

youre all very sad.

not compared to you.

[Jasona]

Now this is getting to be an argument

[The1exile]

Now this is getting to be an argument

Over the past few weeks, I've learned to look past Jasona's choleric, prurient nostrums. I've learned to look past some of the twisted things Jasona has said. I've even learned to look past his attempts to exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not superficial, peremptory airheads. But I cannot stay silent about Jasona's incomprehensible and unforgivable audacity regarding a specific event that recently occurred. Let us note first of all that I welcome Jasona's comments. However, Jasona needs to realize that he is clearly exasperated by the limitations that have thus far denied him the ability to feed us ever-larger doses of his lies and crackpot assumptions. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that Jasona talks a lot about animalism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can he argue for something he's never defined? We must doubtlessly ask ourselves questions like that before it's too late, before Jasona gets the opportunity to scar little children's self-image. Jasona's true goal is to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue. All the statements that his slaves make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to set the record straight.

In order to convince us that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune, Jasona often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or, in Jasona's case, find the hidden agenda. With friends like him, who needs enemies? I mean, Jasona tries to assert his autonomy by attempting to create widespread hysteria. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that he claims that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. That claim is preposterous and, to use Jasona's own language, overtly harebrained. No history can justify it.

Jasona should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. We don't have to stand for this! He expresses only the noblest intentions, singing praises to the value of community even as he enacts policies that keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. To cap that off, he draws his outrageous conclusions from arbitrary statistics. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that Jasona, already oppressive with his putrid shell games, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought, then consider that I don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to speak up and speak out against Jasona because doing so clearly demonstrates how we could opt to sit back and let him encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. So, is Jasona's incessant burbling about the wonders of nepotism supposed to convince us that his long-term goals are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos? I guess it just boils down to the question: Why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? After days of agonized pondering and reflection, I finally came to the conclusion that his pronouncements cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that the Earth is flat. In closing, although this letter has been lengthy there are still a large number of comments about Jasona that I have had to leave aside. I didn't even begin to mention, for instance, that Jasona is at least partially right in that snappish, unrealistic defeatism is not new. Anyway, the important point is that I wish Jasona would vanish into the same logistical nothingness that his arguments invariably lead to.

[Balsiefen]

I've seen a number of petulant and disgraceful things over the years, but The Argument thread's cop-outs really take the cake. In the text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in The Argument thread's logic, because it surely doesn't use any logic. I have just one word for The Argument thread: saccharogalactorrhea. Given The Argument thread's propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that I've tried explaining to The Argument thread's patsies that unlike The Argument thread, I have chosen to take the moral high ground and will remain there. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of The Argument thread's mawkish fibs. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how if The Argument thread wanted to, it could marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of inaniloquent hypochondriacs. It could poison the relationship between teacher and student. And it could grant a free ride to the undeserving. We must not allow The Argument thread to do any of these.

What I'm saying is this: The Argument thread's apologues are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that I plan to purge the darkness from The Argument thread's heart. Are you with me -- or against me? Whatever you decide, a great many of us don't want The Argument thread to make crude clowns out to be something they're not. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to its testy, noisome agendas. Are you still with me? The space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which The Argument thread has tried to threaten the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet.

I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I sincerely hope that The Argument thread serves a long prison term for its illegal attempts to procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror. Although the Gospel According to The Argument thread says that elitism is the only alternative to misoneism, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, contend that it claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to discredit and intimidate the opposition. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by The Argument thread's adherents. The truth is that I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But in order to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future, we must debate the efficacy of its unimaginative stratagems. And that's just the first step. Remember, The Argument thread is doing everything in its power to make me jump in the lake. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance. I am not suggesting government censorship of The Argument thread's subhuman, dodgy magic-bullet explanations. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. The Argument thread is trying hard to convince a substantial number of pathological flimflammers to hinder economic growth and job creation. It presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite prodigal, improvident gaberlunzies to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that The Argument thread's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of The Argument thread's serfs, who loudly proclaim that The Argument thread can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct. Regardless of those repressive proclamations, the truth is that we must understand that its harangues represent not only a denial of reality, but also an especially nugatory sort of spiritual poison that will recruit and encourage young people to manipulate public understanding of emotionalism, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs, eventually. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. I am offended by the way The Argument thread talks down to me. And that's all I have to say.

[n8freeman]

I've seen a number of petulant and disgraceful things over the years, but The Argument thread's cop-outs really take the cake. In the text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in The Argument thread's logic, because it surely doesn't use any logic. I have just one word for The Argument thread: saccharogalactorrhea. Given The Argument thread's propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that I've tried explaining to The Argument thread's patsies that unlike The Argument thread, I have chosen to take the moral high ground and will remain there. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of The Argument thread's mawkish fibs. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how if The Argument thread wanted to, it could marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of inaniloquent hypochondriacs. It could poison the relationship between teacher and student. And it could grant a free ride to the undeserving. We must not allow The Argument thread to do any of these.

What I'm saying is this: The Argument thread's apologues are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that I plan to purge the darkness from The Argument thread's heart. Are you with me -- or against me? Whatever you decide, a great many of us don't want The Argument thread to make crude clowns out to be something they're not. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to its testy, noisome agendas. Are you still with me? The space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which The Argument thread has tried to threaten the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet.

I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I sincerely hope that The Argument thread serves a long prison term for its illegal attempts to procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror. Although the Gospel According to The Argument thread says that elitism is the only alternative to misoneism, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, contend that it claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to discredit and intimidate the opposition. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by The Argument thread's adherents. The truth is that I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But in order to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future, we must debate the efficacy of its unimaginative stratagems. And that's just the first step. Remember, The Argument thread is doing everything in its power to make me jump in the lake. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance. I am not suggesting government censorship of The Argument thread's subhuman, dodgy magic-bullet explanations. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. The Argument thread is trying hard to convince a substantial number of pathological flimflammers to hinder economic growth and job creation. It presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite prodigal, improvident gaberlunzies to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that The Argument thread's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of The Argument thread's serfs, who loudly proclaim that The Argument thread can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct. Regardless of those repressive proclamations, the truth is that we must understand that its harangues represent not only a denial of reality, but also an especially nugatory sort of spiritual poison that will recruit and encourage young people to manipulate public understanding of emotionalism, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs, eventually. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. I am offended by the way The Argument thread talks down to me. And that's all I have to say.

[i]WRONG[/i]

[n8freeman]

I've seen a number of petulant and disgraceful things over the years, but The Argument thread's cop-outs really take the cake. In the text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in The Argument thread's logic, because it surely doesn't use any logic. I have just one word for The Argument thread: saccharogalactorrhea. Given The Argument thread's propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that I've tried explaining to The Argument thread's patsies that unlike The Argument thread, I have chosen to take the moral high ground and will remain there. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of The Argument thread's mawkish fibs. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how if The Argument thread wanted to, it could marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of inaniloquent hypochondriacs. It could poison the relationship between teacher and student. And it could grant a free ride to the undeserving. We must not allow The Argument thread to do any of these.

What I'm saying is this: The Argument thread's apologues are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that I plan to purge the darkness from The Argument thread's heart. Are you with me -- or against me? Whatever you decide, a great many of us don't want The Argument thread to make crude clowns out to be something they're not. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to its testy, noisome agendas. Are you still with me? The space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which The Argument thread has tried to threaten the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet.

I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I sincerely hope that The Argument thread serves a long prison term for its illegal attempts to procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror. Although the Gospel According to The Argument thread says that elitism is the only alternative to misoneism, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, contend that it claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to discredit and intimidate the opposition. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by The Argument thread's adherents. The truth is that I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But in order to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future, we must debate the efficacy of its unimaginative stratagems. And that's just the first step. Remember, The Argument thread is doing everything in its power to make me jump in the lake. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance. I am not suggesting government censorship of The Argument thread's subhuman, dodgy magic-bullet explanations. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. The Argument thread is trying hard to convince a substantial number of pathological flimflammers to hinder economic growth and job creation. It presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite prodigal, improvident gaberlunzies to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that The Argument thread's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of The Argument thread's serfs, who loudly proclaim that The Argument thread can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct. Regardless of those repressive proclamations, the truth is that we must understand that its harangues represent not only a denial of reality, but also an especially nugatory sort of spiritual poison that will recruit and encourage young people to manipulate public understanding of emotionalism, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs, eventually. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. I am offended by the way The Argument thread talks down to me. And that's all I have to say.

LOSE

[Aries]

I oppose everything that everyone just said

[Jasona]

Now this is getting to be an argument

Over the past few weeks, I've learned to look past Jasona's choleric, prurient nostrums. I've learned to look past some of the twisted things Jasona has said. I've even learned to look past his attempts to exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not superficial, peremptory airheads. But I cannot stay silent about Jasona's incomprehensible and unforgivable audacity regarding a specific event that recently occurred. Let us note first of all that I welcome Jasona's comments. However, Jasona needs to realize that he is clearly exasperated by the limitations that have thus far denied him the ability to feed us ever-larger doses of his lies and crackpot assumptions. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that Jasona talks a lot about animalism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can he argue for something he's never defined? We must doubtlessly ask ourselves questions like that before it's too late, before Jasona gets the opportunity to scar little children's self-image. Jasona's true goal is to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue. All the statements that his slaves make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to set the record straight.

In order to convince us that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune, Jasona often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or, in Jasona's case, find the hidden agenda. With friends like him, who needs enemies? I mean, Jasona tries to assert his autonomy by attempting to create widespread hysteria. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that he claims that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. That claim is preposterous and, to use Jasona's own language, overtly harebrained. No history can justify it.

Jasona should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. We don't have to stand for this! He expresses only the noblest intentions, singing praises to the value of community even as he enacts policies that keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. To cap that off, he draws his outrageous conclusions from arbitrary statistics. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that Jasona, already oppressive with his putrid shell games, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought, then consider that I don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to speak up and speak out against Jasona because doing so clearly demonstrates how we could opt to sit back and let him encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. So, is Jasona's incessant burbling about the wonders of nepotism supposed to convince us that his long-term goals are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos? I guess it just boils down to the question: Why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? After days of agonized pondering and reflection, I finally came to the conclusion that his pronouncements cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that the Earth is flat. In closing, although this letter has been lengthy there are still a large number of comments about Jasona that I have had to leave aside. I didn't even begin to mention, for instance, that Jasona is at least partially right in that snappish, unrealistic defeatism is not new. Anyway, the important point is that I wish Jasona would vanish into the same logistical nothingness that his arguments invariably lead to.

Oh no you didn't!