Two quick points

Welcome, "Rational" Nation!

If you've been reading our comment section, you've probably noticed that we have a new troll hanging around: the ironically-named Rational Nation. And I think we should all welcome new readers, even dissenting voices who might not have a particularly firm grasp on reality - maybe a dose of logic and kindness could bring him into the light. (Not likely, but, you now, keep a good thought...)

But anyone who knows me (a statistically insignificant number of people) will tell you that I'll give anybody a chance to make ignorant statements, if only because I'm more than happy to find new targets to point and laugh at.

After all, as I pointed out before:

You're just like all the other Birchers loving on Ron Paul. You're always out there looking for somebody to hate - the next Great Satan. Because if you can focus everybody's eyes on the bad guy over there, you can rob them blind over here.

Communists, Muslims - you don't care. And you don't mind if great evil is committed in the name of Good - as long as it matches your personal definition of "good," anyway.

It's actually sad, watching petty, insecure people make claim to a knowledge of "the Big Picture." You pretend to be rational and logical, but ignore truths when they're right in front of you.

Here, for example, you even used this link to bolster your claim that "6% of Muslims are extremist," while ignoring one important fact: you got it completely ass-backwards.

The statistic cited there only said that 6% of extremists are Muslim. The other 94% aren't, and the threat of Muslim terrorists is being overblown.

Go read it again. You were faced with the truth, and you either ignored it, lied about it, or just got it completely wrong. Just like you do with almost every other subject.

Like I said, your name must be meant ironically, right?

And of course, RatNat is a devout worshiper at the altar of Ayn Rand, who was a stunningly bad writer. I think Gore Vidal said it best, though.

This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the ‘freedom is slavery’ sort. What interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her ‘philosophy,’ but the size of her audience (in my campaign for the House she was the one writer people knew and talked about). She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the ‘welfare’ state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetent that’s your lookout.
[...]
Though Miss Rand’s grasp of logic is uncertain, she does realize that to make even a modicum of sense she must change all the terms. Both Marx and Christ agree that in this life a right action is consideration for the welfare of others. In the one case, through a state which was to wither away, in the other through the private exercise of the moral sense. Miss Rand now tells us that what we have thought was right is really wrong. The lesson should have read: One for one and none for all.

Ayn Rand’s "philosophy" is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous...

So, you're welcome to hang out, just don't muck up the carpet.

Argumentum ad lapidem

It's an argument by throwing stones and it's almost all they do these days. Anything can be dismissed by calling it "lefty" "Liberal" or "Socialist" and all the faithful will giggle and smile while swallowing the argument.

Take Andrew Sullivan, for instance: he's "a Lefty sockpuppet" according to Jules Crittenden because by talking about the hiring of wives, daughters and sons of political celebrities, like Jenna Bush and Liz Cheney as journalists or commentators in "snarky" fashion without calling attention to the media frenzy over the late Ted Kennedy is an obviously "lefty" thing.

What's "lefty" about America's obsession with celebrities? Not much, as the Michael Jackson / Princess Diana episodes would suggest and to imply that Ted Kennedy's long and influential career is of interest to the country simply and only because he was the Late President's brother is a bit more "sock-puppety" than Oscar the Grouch's opposition to everything.

Yes, Americans ( and many others) are obsessed with celebrity worship, but Ted Kennedy had a very long, very influential career while Jenna? Let's just say her future as a journalist of merit is still hypothetical and media investment in her has more to do with her father's notoriety than with a distinguished body of essays, commentaries and investigations. It's a very false equivalence Jules and it makes you look desperate. It makes you look like little more than a tube sock with some buttons sewn on and a persona that does nothing more than repeat "lefty, lefty."

It's an easy bit of Schauspiel and easy to produce. Perhaps you can get the letter H or the number 4 to sponsor it.

“DONE, FINISHED, OUT’A HERE …”

When one lives among sharks and barracuda, one acquires a healthy respect for … shall we say … diversity.  To eat or be eaten is not a lifestyle to be taken lightly.  It is the way of the reef. Nothing personal.  In contrast, (O)CT(O)PUS thinks of human beings as rapacious without purpose and fractious beyond reason.  Not unlike cannibals, humans predate their own kind.

The title of this post does not signal my intent to quit The Swash Zone or retreat from Cyberspace.  These are my last words in a comment thread posted yesterday at Conservative Convictions, or as Captain Fogg likes to jest, Conservative Convicts.

It started with this post, “The Call to Dunkirk” Launches Mass Exodus From Public Schools. According to a video, it equates public education and “liberals” with fascism and Nazis. I responded to this post with the following comment:

(O)CT(O)PUS:  Gayle, if you don’t want to send your offspring to public school, that is your business; but to imply that those of us whose support of public education is akin to National Socialism, your attitude is disrespectful of other religious denominations and persons of conscience who hold different views.

A reasonable reply, I thought, but not according to Robert. Having known him for some time, he has … shall we say … a head for illogic thicker than a stone crab.  He obfuscates, perambulates, or simply ignores any point deemed inconvenient.  Here are examples:

ROBERT:  First, the suggestion that the First Amendment bars religion from public schools is absurd and I think it sad [Note Appeal to Emotion fallacy] that people consider this worthy of debate …

The framers had no problems with simply stating that troops quartered in private homes was forbidden, but the left suggests that they "meant" that religion was to be only a private matter [Note Analogical Argument fallacy] …

This intenet [sic] is supposed to have come from delegates to the Constitutional Convention where many were required to be a member of a church to be a delegate [Note Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy] …

I did not find this offensive at all [Note Subjective Argument fallacy].

Public education, as a general rule, has deteriorated to the point of spending an entire year teaching to pass a single test [Note Projective Identification fallacy that blames liberals for a program authored by conservatives] …

I knew more about history, geography, science, and humanities by the 5th grade than my children who are in high school have been taught [Note Questionable Authority fallacy] ….

There is tight local involvement, and because we are a red state and red county, our system is mostly rid of the liberal infestation of Al Gore movies and absurd anti-religious views [Note Appeal to Ridicule fallacy] …

Nowhere does it say that we are to humble ourselves before other religions, nor to place them on a level field with Christianity [Note Special Pleading fallacy].

Robert, however, is not the subject of this post.  This is:

GAYLE:  Wow! I didn't realize liberals were so against people deciding how they want their own children to be educated … I'm an American, and we still have freedom of choice in this country whether liberals like it or not. Public school, private school or homeschool [sic]. It's up to the parents, period.

Fine, fine, fine, except that is NOT what I said. If you are reading this, Gayle, please write on the blackboard 100 times:  This is not what 8pus said.  In fact, your faithful 8pus is himself a graduate of the Sargasso Academy, a posh and exclusive preparatory school for snooty cephalopods.

If you are re-reading my first comment, Gayle, I objected to your use of Godwin’s Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy that equates liberals with Nazis:

(O)CT(O)PUS:  Do you mean to imply that Jewish Americans, whose ancestors were killed in the Holocaust, are now consorting with Nazis just because they send their kids to public school?

There is more to Gayle’s post that I found objectionable. I referenced the website, ExodusMandate.org, and found this:

"Christians have already become numb to the moral relativism that is taught in all public schools today. Now children will be told that their sexual orientation and gender are relative, too. No longer will children raised in these schools understand that God made us male and female with different, but complementary roles. Instead, children will be taught that sexual orientation and gender are merely a matter of personal choice … The likely consequences of this for children, the institution of the family, our churches, and our culture are horrendous."

In other words, The Exodus Mandate is not about reading, writing, and arithmetic, or about a better education, or even about a religious education. The hidden message is all too obvious (my paraphrase):  “Since those fascist liberals will not allow discrimination against homosexuals in public, we choose to separate ourselves and practice discrimination in private.” Thus, the covert mission of the Exodus Mandate is DISCRIMINATION and HOMOPHOBIA.  I am just shocked to discover Christians engaging in stealth and guile; I thought this was Satan’s work.

I cannot, will not countenance discrimination in any form whatsoever based on ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion, or sexual orientation.  And I refuse to be associated with any forum that does.  With a heavy heart, I have decided to remove Conservative Convictions from our link list and shall return there no more.

Any objections?