DADvocate decided to call me out in his post, and presented the following video for me, thinking that I would appreciate the actions of the guy who’s confronting a Chick-Fil-A employee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bPLNgkP9nzc
I would like to make it clear that I think that the guy in the video is a complete douche. I do not support what he’s doing. If you don’t want to support Chick-Fil-A, then don’t go there. Even if you want to get your free water as some form of protest, then be polite to the people who work there. They’re just trying to make a living. If you want to blow off some steam and sound off with righteous indignation, then write a blog post. I understand that the guy got fired for what he did. I don’t want to say “good” but I definitely want to say that I don’t feel sorry for him at all.
Just to be clear, for those who may forget from time to time how to embed a video in a post, just post the naked URL of the video on a separate line by itself and it will embed automatically – no href linking coding or anything else.
Lance, if your intention was merely to reference the video without wanting to redisplay it in its entirety, you did correctly above by swaddling it in linking code. If your intention was in fact to embed it, just go back into your HTML pane and delete everything fore and aft of the video URL itself and it will automatically embed.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
fyi, I just tried the video embedding as directed above but no success (on my last post I wanted the YouTube video embedded but couldn’t get it to work using any combination of the codes available on YouTube with the Media buttons on the toolbar.) so sad.
I had that problem here and on my own WordPress blog. I contacted help, and they said to remove the link–in other words, highlight it and hit the “break link” button so that it displays as plaintext. That solved it. If it still doesn’t work, do this: [youtube=linkasplantext].
Thanks Turmarion. I will try that too.
My good Sally,
Did you actually use the directions above, that is, to not use any combination of the codes available on YouTube with the Media buttons on the toolbar, but rather to just type (or cut and paste) the YouTube URL directly from your location bar onto a line by itself?
You can always go back and edit your post so that it does work.
Those directions, along with the types of videos one can embed, are also located in our Terms and Acceptable Use page, above.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
When I did the post originally I tried the Media buttons, etc. Then a little while ago I tried copying the URL directly. Maybe I’ll try again with a new post and different video. Hmmm.
My good Sally,
As I told Lance, if you want your “Sing along with Sally” video to embed, just go into your HTML pane where the code is visible and delete everything, including the quotation marks, surrounding the raw http, etc YouTube URL itself.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Well said.
Thanks for apologizing for lumping me into the same category as this guy.
Oh, wait, you didn’t.
Nope. You sound a lot like this guy in your posts. I’m glad you don’t harass servers at restaurants, etc. Now, if you could work on what you perceive as evil versus what is just something you disagree with.
I have a hard time when an atheist calls things evil. For me, good and evil is an absolute, although hare to divine at times. An absolute based on a belief that humans are higher beings than anything else on Earth, created in the image of God and are God’s children, or something like that.
If there is no Supernatural Being or Presence, then humans are just like any other animal on Earth in terms of the value of their life and their actions. There is no good or evil amongst animals, just whatever happens due to circumstances. Simpley because a majority agree that an action or behavior is undesirable doesn’t make it good or evil, just a majority opinion and, perhaps, the law of the land.
Since you decided to rant about how evil supporters of traditional marriage are, you showed nothing but anger and hatred, as there is no good or evil in atheism. There is only might makes right. You showed a complete willingness, nea eagerness, to condemn as evil an entire group of people based simply on your personal preferences.
Interesting how you accuse me of believing that “might makes right” when you believe that good and evil is defined by an all-powerful being who determines what is right and what is wrong.
Your conclusion does not follow the premise. The sheer fact that we have a concept of good and evil separates us.
Show me where I called anybody evil. Quote me, or admit that you’re putting words in my mouth.
You should try reading your own posts where you rant on about “liberals”. Pot, the Kettle is on line one.
And everything you wrote is a complete dodge. Whether I sound like this guy or not, I have never advocated harassing people at their place of work. But hey, go ahead and keep seeing me the way you want to see me if that makes you feel good about yourself.
Here’s where DaD’s perception seems RIGHT Lance; you are NOT merely reliably “liberal,” BUT you’re snarky, testy and all too often mean-spirited about it most of the time.
You tend NOT to refute arguments, instead you tend to dismiss them, usually with a heaping helping of vindictive personal attack.
I’m sure, that DaD has seen that before because I’ve rarely (if EVER) seen anything else from the Left.
As evidence, there (THANKFULLY) has never existed a “liberal” Milton Friedman, or a Left-wing Ronald Reagan (please don’t put Clinton OR Obama in that category, neither fits) because those on the Left (THANKFULLY) don’t make arguments and don’t seem to want “converts” they prefer instead to look down on those they disagree.
That makes me endlessly happy because it polarizes others and it’s almost certainly why “liberalism” has never grown beyond its 20% mark. . .there remain some 2 1/2X more “Conservatives” in America than “liberals” and I think that (along with the illogical nature of it) is the primary reason for that.
I’m never surprised that Leftists can’t make affirmative arguments for their views. After all, how can a person actually make an argument in favor of segregated standards/race-based preferences? Or how can one actually argue that guns are the issue when the most gun violence occurs in the cities with the strictest and best enforced gun bans, and England’s gun crime rate having skyrocketed with its gun ban?. . .You simply can’t argue such things logically.
That’s why contemporary “liberalism” IS entirely a “faith-based” belief system.
AND the anger that accompanies its adherents is that of a “true believer” excoriating and damning the heretic for daring to dissent from accepted dogma and orthodoxy.
It’s kind of natural therefor to feel that most of the adherents of contemporary “liberalism” exhibit the same sort of (Adam Smith) manners, because they evince the same anger that this Adam Smith did in this video, when they confront dissidents to their accepted orthodoxy.
You can look all you want, but you won’t find any such reaction by me toward those who’ve disagreed with me.
And what’s more, I shouldn’t even count, as I’m NOT a true Conservative. . .I’m basically a (reforming) NYC Tammany Hall liberal, a former supporter of “Unionism, Cronyism and Corruption” which IS contemporary Corporatism.
The irony is staggering.
The might is not human might. Are you that ignorant or that
Until Zoroastrianism, humans had no concept of right and wrong, just like and dislike. I don’t buy your premise that because we think at a higher level than any animal that makes us somehow different. In a atheistic world there is no intrinsic value to human life.
I used the word “evil” as a condensation of your entire rant where you said, “They are supporting the bigoted and hateful comments of a narrow-minded douchebag who justifies his bigotry with his religion. ” and other comments in your rant.
Haha. It’s not about me feeling good about myself. I learned to feel good about myself in 1978.
You and liberals in general have appointed yourselves arbiters of right and wrong, good and evil. As I said before, you’re rigid and judgmental in your belief. Change the dates and you could be one of the judges in Salem or a member of the Inquisition.
The liberals here deserve every shot I give them and more. People who spread hate need a rude awakening. You simply entrench yourself further in your hatred. You do a nice job of the Tu quoque fallacy, though.
Atheism is a philosophy of nothing. There’s no good or bad, just a moral void filled by whatever’s trendy that day.
Seriously? Yes. People have been condemned to death because of what I’ve said.
I’m really sick of your strawmen.
Here’s the thing, DAD, why don’t you admit that the real problem is that YOU hate ME for daring to not believe what you believe?
What? Source?
“You tend NOT to refute arguments, instead you tend to dismiss them, usually with a heaping helping of vindictive personal attack.” (JMK)
.
.
“The irony is staggering.” (LCJ)
.
.
.
Now that’s something that’s NEVER been said about me! If ANYTHING I OVER-refute. . .I wear people out.
But fact is, I absolutely refute every argument posed to mine. If anything, I’ve been far too generous in my time and efforts in clarifying the issues for others.
In my relatively brief time here I’ve posted over 200 links to outside supportive sources on these comments sections. One sure way to judge whether someone is actually and actively refuting another’s argument is to see how many links they post to bolster their position.
I will focus only on one of our more recent exchanges, the one over segregated standards or race/gender-preferences (under Paternalism Fuels “Racism”), in which I believe I posted a number of links in that thread and I don’t believe anyone else posted ANY. That’s not to say anything like “I win 4 to 0,” or anything like that, BUT I was clearly able to back up my positions (positions I didn’t come to lightly) and the others there simply were not.
Moreover, I believe I challenged you in that comments section to come up with a rational argument NOT rooted in black inferiority and you couldn’t. (““Here’s one: the playing field isn’t equal, and minorities are at a disadvantage not because they are inferior, but because they don’t have the same opportunities.” (LCJ)
“The only problem I see with the above defense (and that’s probably why it wasn’t used in the ongoing “FDNY discrimination” suit and other such lawsuits) is that it appears to be patently and demonstrably untrue.” (JMK)
In FACT, that argument is easily shown to be IRRATIONAL and refuted by this; “Across the nation, majority black public schools routinely receive more funding per pupil than majority white public schools.
“Washington DC is the perfect example. It has the highest average per pupil funding of any public schools in the nation. It also has the blackest public schools in the nation. Yet, this over-funding of black students yields no results in terms of academic improvement. DC public schools are widely touted as the worst performing schools in the entire industrialized world.
“If DC was a state, it would be the state with the highest average per pupil expenditure and the lowest average performance. More money does not equal better test scores.
“Missouri leads the nation in its black/white state funding gap. The state has spent billions of dollars in a failed effort to improve the academic performance of black students. Majority black schools in St. Louis and Kansas City have Olympic sized swimming pools, lavish theater and music departments, and state of the art computer labs. Per pupil spending is over double that of poor majority white public schools in the Ozark Mountain region of Missouri.” (SEE: . . .Hey! Yet another link!
I’m positive that both you and ETH came away from that thinking differently about that issue (you don’t have to admit it, I already know, after all, you’re both sharp enough fellows).
That issue very clearly comes down to whether you support segregation (segregated standards) or whether you do not.
I clearly DO NOT support such segregation and welcome all decent people of good will who may have previously mistakenly supported such segregation to renounce it and join with us at Merit Matters (http://meritmattersusa.blogspot.com/).
In fact a Letter of Objection of mine to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has been considered being used as an Amicus Brief in that filing; (http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/2012/07/my-objection-letter-to-dept-of-justice.html). . .I link to that because I KNOW that no one would even attempt to refute ANY of the points made therein. I actually WISH someone would. I’d LOVE to be shown to be even partially wrong on this issue.
Lance, say ANYTHING, say you don’t like my views, that you revile the way I throw so many links around, that you hate that I make so many points that are impossible to argue with, SAY my views are heretical. . .say anything EXCEPT that I don’t refute arguments, or that I respond with personal attacks, as either of those charges make you appear delusional.
And it seemed you two were getting along so well…and making progress toward some agreement just a few posts ago.
You get more and more ridiculous. First off, my comments about aren’t a straw man argument. Maybe you need to review your fallacies. I though you had them memorized since you use them so well.
Reference? Too lazy to look it up? My reference is Stan Lusby from whom I took an Ancient Near East Religions class in college. Perhaps, if you had studied something other than the easiest curriculum in collge, you’d know what a straw man is and who Zoroaster was.
Don’t worry, I don’t waste emotional energy hating anybody. But, I do enjoy taunting the half-baked, pseudo intellectual liberals here. I suggest you read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and try to decipher what you’re laughing at.
BTW – This example here is some of the dumbest logic ever, conflating marriage with water fountains. Plus, you conveniently ignore that through affirmative action, some hate crime laws, some sex crime laws, the VAWA and other laws more people suffer from bigotry than ever from no same sex marriage. Of course, that’s fully acceptable to liberals. You’re not against bigotry. You just want an excuse to attack conservatives and the religious. You certainly didn’t mention how Rahm Emanuel sucks up to Louis Farrakhan or the mayor of Boston gave special considerations and joined in the ribbon cutting ceremony for an Islamic group that advocates killing gays. Naw, just more of the same, stupid liberal bullshit.
Because if you took the time to actually learn what traditional marriage is, you’d know that you don’t support that either. Also, when you tell one group of people that they shouldn’t be allowed to do the same thing as another group of people, then YOU ARE A BIGOT.
Man, it’s like asking, “Why am I called a racist just because I think that blacks should have separate drinking fountains? I’m not saying that I hate them or that they’re worse than me. I just don’t think they should be able to use my drinking fountain.”
Can you ever make a point without telling me what I supposedly think? Farrakhan’s an asshole, but we’re not talking about him, are we? How about sticking to the point?
(liberals) conveniently ignore that through affirmative action…hate crime laws…the VAWA and other laws more people suffer from bigotry than ever…” (DaD)
Now THAT is absolutely true!
So-called “Hate Crimes Laws” are thought-crimes and “Affirmative Action’s “preferences”/quotas amount to segregated standards, and those have perpetuated and exacerbated bigotry and racism across the country.
I WILL say, however, that many, MANY “liberals” have “come around” on this issue (especially on segregated standards). We have at least one die-hard “liberal” on the Board of Merit Matters. . .and he’s a pretty good guy and a “good fireman” (the highest praise you can give in that job).
I’ll say THIS once more because it bears repeating, ” There (THANKFULLY) has never existed a “liberal” Milton Friedman. . .because those on the Left (THANKFULLY) don’t make actual affirmative arguments (you DON’T HAVE TO make arguments in favor of a FAITH) and don’t seem to want “converts” either, as they prefer instead to look down on those they disagree with.
“That actually makes me endlessly happy because it only polarizes others and it’s almost certainly why “liberalism” has never grown beyond its high-water 20% mark. . .there remain some 2 1/2X more “Conservatives” in America than “liberals” and I think that (along with the illogical nature of it) is the primary reason for that.” See Gallup on this, I’ve posted that link quite a few times already.
Here’s a link to Milton Friedman positively SCHOOLING Phil Donahue on basic economics, freedom and “GREED.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A) IF a contemporary “liberal” were able to do what Milton Friedman could, he’d become an overnight media sensation. . .a “Media God,” as it were. BUT I’m afraid searching for that (a “liberal Milton Friedman”) is about as realistic as a search for a unicorn.
That’s an absolutely clear statement on your part against buffoonery, without any pre or post-script minimizing it at all and I commend you for making it.
The problem with your previous statement on the righteous Left & Right concerns of “public officials gone wild” was that you post-scripted it with a statement that dismissed that concern as unfounded, in your view.
DaD’s statement, “I’m amazed how rigidly puritanical liberals are in their beliefs,” is actually a very prescient observation – “contemporary liberalism” is entirely faith-based. People who acknowledge they “understand none behind AGW,” are religiously/magically able to divine which “scientists are telling the truth” by assessing which one’s apparently promote ideas closest to their accepted dogma.
That’s a single example of faith-based dogma. They exhibit the same on tax policy, anti-discrimination policies, etc.
History shows that using discrimination/segregation to remedy discrimination ALWAYS perpetuates discrimination, but magical/religious “liberal thinkers” reject the lessons of history. . .apparently on faith.
That was your interpretation of what I said, but not an accurate representation of what I meant.
You called such very valid concerns (the actual reason behind all the outrage) “overblown.”
That minimized that very legitimate concern.
Reading that full statement, one would come away believing that either you didn’t believe such concerns were at all valid , OR even IF legitimate they were canceled out simply because Mr Cathy appears to oppose gay marriage.
You mentioned “Exodus” somewhere else, and said it “helped gay people become straight.”
So WHAT!? There’s NOTHING at all “bigoted” about that.
UNLESS they actively kidnap gay people and force them to become straight against their wills, that is “providing a services,” as apparently there are actually gays looking to avail themselves of such services!
I think homosexuality, bestiality and necrophilia are all “OK”. . .“To each their own,” I generally say, BUT I DO fully acknowledge that such behaviors are generally rooted in various neuroses and as such, those “lifestyles” are very much “painful styles of living.” I have little wonder but that many gay people would seek to “become straight” if possible, but alas, I think people are mainly “wired” the way they are.
BUT just because such programs may not work is no reason to condemn a service that exists solely BECAUSE of a demand from homosexuals!
I did not use that word. Please stop quoting me with words that I haven’t actually used.
You see nothing bigoted in that? Is this because of your lack of empathy? I’m not saying that to be flip, but I don’t even know how to begin explaining this to you.
What about kids who are sent there against their will by their parents?
“I did not use that word. Please stop quoting me with words that I haven’t actually used.” (LCJ)
.
.
Actually what you said was somewhat MORE demonstrative; “although it seems like complaints about that sort of thing are a bit of a tempest in a teapot.” YES, that is even MORE dismissive than merely “overblown.” I was inadvertently diminishing the original impact of your derisively dismissive statement.
I tend to do that. . .diminish the impact of things over time. . .I had to look that up to realize what I did. I am sorry I didn’t go with the actual statement. It really was MORE snarkily dismissive, in my view.
.
.
AND I see NOTHING WRONG with entities like “Exodus” because they exist solely to provide a service demanded by homosexuals. IF homosexuals didn’t go to these places, they couldn’t keep their doors open.
.
.
.
.
“What about kids who are sent there against their will by their parents?” (LCJ)
.
.
That’s NOT an “Exodus” (or groups like that) issue, that appears to be a parental control issue.
That brings up quite a dilemma. Do you blame parents for NOT wanting to see a child of theirs have an unhappy life? Most of the homosexual and bisexual people I’ve known were NOT at all effeminate, but they were, for the most part, often conflicted and unhappy about their lives. (YES, some certainly for other reasons as well, but none seemed to have stable, permanent relations)
Like I’ve said, I’ve mostly known “aggressive top” homosexual and bisexual men and none of the ones I’ve known had been “bullied, discriminated against, etc. Those dopes weren’t “stuffed into lockers,” they stuffed other people into lockers.
AGAIN, what many so-called “pro-gay” folks support seems more about opposing the very natural and ineluctable human bias against effeminate/feminine males, than anything else.
BUT that bias seems so ingrained in the human psyche that people of all stripes, all ideological & ethnic backgrounds, of all levels of education, etc., tend to react both viscerally and negatively in the presence of such (effeminate) males.
I firmly believe that has something to with our aversion to “weak men.” As a guy, if you’re not a protector. . .”Then what the fu*k good are you,” as they often say.
THAT’S the normal and natural order of things.
This innate and nearly universal bias against effeminate/feminine males is NOT, in my view, a legitimate part of the “gay-rights” viewpoint.
Like I’ve noted before, Michael Jackson (effeminate but NOT gay male), made fun of and if he weren’t tremendously wealthy and talented probably WOULD’VE been discriminated against. . . .and the generic “Tiny the Biker” (bisexual top”) NOT made fun, never bullied and NOT “discriminated against” primarily because most people are deathly afraid of him.
IF you do feel that eliminating the natural bias against effeminate/feminine males is a worthy cause because you see it as “standing up for the underdog,” I can commend those sentiments WITHOUT agreeing with, nor endorsing them.
Like I said, I DON’T see that as a valid part of any “gay-rights” viewpoint. That natural and ingrained bias isn’t wrong. It’s served a very intrinsic purpose among humans for eons – incentivizing/mandating males to “be men” and take up their natural responsibility as “protectors.”
To that I say let’s embrace it, protect it and NOT simply dismiss it because we might “feeeeel” that it’s “mean.”
Okay, we’re going in a circle. I explained what I meant by that, and you keep telling me what I meant. This is where I have to stop because to go on is pointless.
CORRECTION (missing word): “People who acknowledge they “understand none of the science behind AGW,” are religiously/magically able to divine which “scientists are telling the truth” by assessing which one’s apparently promote ideas closest to their accepted dogma.”
“Okay, we’re going in a circle. I explained what I meant by that, and you keep telling me what I meant. This is where I have to stop because to go on is pointless.” (LCJ)
.
.
That’s erroneous. . .I won’t call it a “lie,” on your part because it seems you don’t understand what I’ve very clearly said.
I’ve carefully explained to you exactly HOW your last line comes off. . .as “snarky and dismissive.”
Now you’re acknowledging that you now apparently accept that the widespread outrage over those “public officials gone wild” was legitimate and righteous!
I’m OK with that. . .that you either DIDN’T intend that to dismiss those very legitimate concerns OR you’ve since changed your mind.
I believe you can edit comments (within a certain time frame here). . .might be past that time now, BUT dismissing those very legitimate concerns (concerns that sparked the outpouring the other day) as “a tempest in a teapot” came off somewhat insensitive.
Now you say, that’s NOT what you meant to say.
You hadn’t said that before.
You erroneously claimed I “misinterpreted” that statement, which would mean you meant something OTHER than what you actually posted. BUT that would seem to require a clarification, something along the lines of, “And by tempest in a teapot, of course, I mean very valid and legitimate concerns that galvanized ALL Americans who support freedom of expression both Left & Right”
OK, you didn’t mean what you initially clearly said.
We apparently agree the concerns were valid and legitimate. All is well.