The irony of one anonymous troll, hiding behind a pseudonym, and an empty blog profile (whose admitted that he hides his identity) refusing to answer questions from someone who posts as anonymous on a blog, is stunning.
The sense of humor deficit that is deleting my attempts to point this irony out is equally amusing.
8 comments:
If only I could get one specific, detailed, and defined answer things would be so very different.
Of course that doesn’t mitigate the irony.
Last time. I asked for specific, detailed, defined plans, which haven’t been produced. That’s the only reason your comments never show up. All you have to do is provide what you’ve been asked for instead of dodging and blaming others.
Specific, detailed, defined. A list of talking points is none of those.
Blaming others is just a dodge.
And I even addressed the talking points! But the actual plan? Not so much as a whisper. He has, however, suggested that all those talking points implemented together is the key. That's why they're all ineffective so far...because all 20 must be in place at the same time. That would, of course, require an example of where all 20 are in place and working to produce the results he believes are possible. But, as he refuses to provide what's been requested, we'll never know and more will die because feo won't comply with the terms his infantile behavior has brought down upon him.
A list of talking points, absent details, specifics,definitions of terms is, at best, the framework for a plan. Certainly not a plan. The strange thing, is how easy it would be to flesh out the talking points with details, definitions, and specifics and thereby regain commenting privileges. Is it possible that the refusal to do so is as much about clinging to victim status and having something to misrepresent and bitch about, as opposed to the inability to provide what's been asked for?
Clearly Feo, has no interest in truth, or accuracy, but instead is simply lashing out because he is too proud to simply provide what he's been asked to provide. Instead he'd rather stoke his "I'm an oppressed, mistreated, martyr complex" without regard to reality.
Life as a troll hiding behind a false identity because of fear of exposure must be difficult.
Making assumptions about those who disagree with you, is the easy, lazy route.
Yes, a numbered list of items absent context, detail, definition, or explanation is simply a list of talking points.
Blaming innocent people for the actions of the guilty, isn't a plan, it's insane.
On the off chance that Dan chooses to ignore his own guidelines for comments, I’ll preserve this here.
While I reject your conflating of Muslim codified Sharia law with the Christian concept of modesty, I’ll answer your question.
1. To the extent that any religious or civil ruling body promulgates rules that mandate the covering of specific body parts as a prerequisite for someone to “be moral”, I would say that is a wrong position to hold.
2. Given your (and most sociologists) definition of morality as being absolutely not objective and completely determined by the social mores of a given society or group, it’s rational that a particular society could make those sort of decisions as a society about what degree of body coverage is moral. Given a fluid, subjective, flexible standard of morality, I see no reason why that would be a problem as long as they didn’t try to force it on those outside that society.
3. I would argue that dress codes for particular places (schools, public buildings, or for particular roles) would be appropriate in certain circumstances.
4. I’ve never said that I had the ability to impose “my” definition of virtue on anyone. Suggesting or attempting to persuade people that engaging in behaviors that have historically been considered virtuous, is a far cry from playing “God”. Even from a purely pragmatic perspective saying “If you do A, then this positive result might happen.”, is a rational position and not at all coercive.
5. “The school was wrong”. A) please provide objective proof of your claim. B) “No one died and made you God.”.
6. Please provide a quote and context that demonstrates that anyone in this conversation is specifically advocating “blaming victims”.
7. Please provide a quote and context that demonstrates that anyone in this conversation is “giving a pass or support to rapists”.
I'm betting that feo is less inclined to provide the requested details now that I've explained the stupidity of each point on his list of talking points.
Post a Comment