Comments on: Evil Christians

By: Brainslug

Brainslug — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:38:05 +0000

Christians are busy killing of non-believers by putting bacteria in food, this is a fact they are doing this in africa as i am typing this. Are lot of people are being “drugged” this way be advised that when you by food from fast food outlets that you should use the following signs for them to think that you are one of them. Rub your nose or scratch you head or yawn loudly don’t forget to make eye contact with the person serving you. These people are evil be advised, be careful.

[This comment has been awarded the COMMENT OF THE YEAR award for 2009]

By: Fedeendophy

Fedeendophy — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:59:12 +0000

Good Dy:
Mostly that’ s becauser most people don’ t realize how many skills they do have. If you have office skills, for example, you may be able to find work as a virtual assistant. If you have transpoortation you might try mystery shopping , although it can.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 16:42:26 +0000

OK, Horatio, now we can talk. But for Christ’s sake, you are one hell of a guy to be talking about ad homs.

Of course Schultheis isn’t as evil as the Sudanese government. Irrelevant. Red herring.

Administrative liberals and social engineers among the ethically disarmed liberals I’m criticizing, so the fact that some of them might support testing for different reasons than mine is also irrelevant.

Again, my point has been that liberal or radical disagreements with evil Christians should never be framed as moralism vs. tolerance or secularity vs. religion struggle. Many good, not-illiberal people no longer respond to to that kind of argument, if they ever did, and the obligatory use of value-neutral “pragmatist” arguments only prevents you from responding to what is really the worst thing about Schultheis’s outburst.

By: horatiox

horatiox — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:45:09 +0000

In terms of global evil (like Sudanese government type Evil), Schultheis is not that evil. Schultheis does uphold the Prezbyterian creed, however, so he’s probably more stupid than sinister.

And stripped of your Ad Homs (and hysteria), his argument for testing mamacitas for STDs does not lack a certain plausibility, even from an administrative-liberal perspective. The State might have an interest in preventing diseased people from conceiving. Early notification, and we can abort that puppay.

That applies to testing pregnant mothers for drugs as well–a few glasses of wine, OK. A diet of meth and JD–not OK. With drug testing, the state Doc could step in, and terminate, and also prevent another SpecEd basketcase.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 06:05:51 +0000

We’re going in circles, obviously. I’m struck by the stubbornness with which you taboo moralizing speech and identify it with Dobson, and the way you fail to notice that the topic of my original post is your attitude, which is quite pervasive in our world.

By: The Raven

The Raven — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 04:44:20 +0000

I’m struck, thinking it over, by how strongly you cling to the language of absolute morality. What I find striking is that it’s the language of your–our–enemies. It’s only from the mouth of someone with real power that such language has any force–from the likes of you and me, we might as well shout into the wind.

In any event, I think I’ve done way too much croaking on this, and I’m going to let it rest. Krawk!

By: The Raven

The Raven — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 03:19:24 +0000

Um, “good and objective technocrats?” Look back on what I wrote. Everything has been a critique of the idea of “objectivity” as applied to ethics.

You may use as many words I disagree with as you wish. But sometimes I will object. Seriously, I don’t want you–or anyone I like, even a little–as sounding like the James Dobson (or whoever) of the left.

By: horatiox

horatiox — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:12:12 +0000

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:32:54 +0000

The MSM runs the show, dear Raven. It is people such as yourself who are right* who are insignificant. The MSM have pretty much ruled on what will happen and what won’t, so if they’re not beaten we all lose.

My perception is the opposite of yours. By defining cases such as this as bad moralists vs. good objective technocrats and men of law, you give away the game. Substantial proportions of the population don’t respond to that thinking, and they have some pretty good reasons.

*In your case, so right that you won’t let other people use bad words.

By: The Raven

The Raven — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:57:46 +0000

“On what grounds do you object to the pain, misery, and death they advocate and cause, if not moral ones?”

I have a heart.

“The conventional wisdom today [...]”

John, John, you’ve got to stop listening to the MSM. Me, I’ve been saying I want to send the top Bush administration officials, and half the Senate (only I now I’d rather it be 3/4s of the Senate) for war crimes trials for some time now. If war crimes trials are not politically possible, let us at least have an airing of truth.

It’s not judgment I object to–it’s claiming that one has authority to judge which comes from on high, which is what one does when one invokes “good” and “evil” without qualification. When I am tempted in that direction I have usually been wrong and the most judgmental people I know are without exception wrong-headed. They are often extremely destructive as well. I hope people I think well of will not go there.