Posted: Mar 23, 2018 4:14 pm
Oh dear, I just have to have fun with this. The temptation is just too great. 
Wrong. Oh wait, apparently you haven't bothered looking up any of my past posts, in which I present reasons for rejecting Marxism. A particularly apposite example being this post, in which I expounded at length an analysis pointing to why the entire Marx project failed, namely that it failed because it failed to live up to its own billing as a purportedly 'scientific' endeavour, and its defining text acquired the mantle of a mythology.
Please explain, in which fantasy parallel universe, my posting this (repeatedly, I might add), makes me a "hardcore communist". I'm really going to enjoy seeing the hyper-Comaneci apologetic gymnastics required to pull this one off.
Even if your first assertion about my being a "hardcore communist" was something other than the product of your rectal passage, this second assertion of yours is so hilariously and farcically inconsistent therewith, as to constitute a veritable Total Perspective Vortex of fail. Because whilst practising communists have had many faults in the past, hatred of the "lower classes" isn't one of them, because, wait for it, the entire communst project was launched with a view to improving the lives of those "lower classes". The mere fact that you use the phrase "lower classes" in itself speaks volumes about your own prejudices, and is a term that no self-respecting communist would ever use. Every time I examine the output of communist authors and thinkers, they use working classes to denote the people pushed to the bottom of the socio-economic pile by the actions of the rich, frequently because a large number of people in that demographic, are the very people whose labours are essential to the maintenance of a decent, humane civil society. Furthermore, it was precisely because the actions of the rich inflicted harm in the past upon said decent, humane civil society, that the entire communist project became so attractive to a large number of people, and not merely within that downtrodden demographic - the communist project also attracted a substantial collection of intellectuals to its ranks. Not that any of these verifiable historical facts will probably have any effect upon your output, which even at this early stage, possesses the hallmarks of a cerebral vomiting induced by weapons-grade recreational pharmaceuticals.
Actually, my first instinct, is to look for evidence pointing to the truth-value of a postulate of interest. The mere fact that you failed to notice this, despite exhibiting signs of taking interest in my output, points to its own, unhappy conclusions about the diligence with which you pursue discourse.
Oh, and by the way, I'm male. Or did you fail to notice the "♂" symbol next to my name?
Actually, I pointed to Alabama in the manner that I did, not because of its population, but because of the stupidity of its legislators. Alabama, like other former slave states, has had a habit in recent years, of being governed by right-wing extremists who pander to rampant anti-intellectualism in order to secure their position. Furthermore, I learned recently that Alabama has the distinction of levying its own state income tax on the population, the burden of which is disporportionately shouldered by the poor, and also extracts sales taxes from food, again impacting the poorest most heavily, whilst, lo and behold, property taxes (affecting only the rich) are the lowest in the entire United States. It also has a less than happy history of legislative attempts to corrupt and pervert science education, and is one of the last places in the USA to retain corporal punishment in schools. I suspect that the African-American inhabitants of that state voted for none of this.
Except that according to your own assertion above, two-thirds of the population isn't black. Therefore any attempt to manipulate trends for apologetic purposes would impact that majority more.
You're not doing this very well, are you?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
The number of times I've castigated right-wing politicians here and elsewhere, for treating the poor as subhuman, on its own destroys your attempts to paint me as some sort of aristocratic snob.
I'm not a part of "the Left", however that is defined. I have my own highly individual take on issues, as the post of mine I linked to above should be telling you. But please, do continue your scatter-gun unsupported assertions, because I like having easy targets occasionally.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Oh now this is truly fucking funny. Oh wait, all of the attacks on scientific research and scientific thinking over the past decade or so, have emanated from the rabid right. Climate change denial (funded by corporate money), anti-vax woo, and creationism are all right-wing ideological fetishes.
Total bollocks. I'm not "hiding" behind anything, I'm telling you how it fucking is. I've been a lifelong lover of science ever since I first dived into The Children's Encyclopaedia at the age of six, and I've spent a decade here and elsewhere exposing anti-science lies on a grand fucking scale. I've been pissing on creationists since 2007, and pointing out, among other embarrassing facts, that creationism is actually a corporate business in the USA, one using the bizarre fetish for religion in the USA as a springboard for revenue generation. I've been taking time out to explain what scientists are actually saying in their work, as opposed to duplicitous misrepresentations thereof by lying sack-of-shit creationists, throughout that time, and in the process, demonstrating that a lot of the mouths on sticks who post creationist masturbation fantasies on forums like this, are lying sacks of shit.
Hiding? I'm as fucking visible as fucking Jupiter.
More shite.
Oh wait, how often have I and others here, explicitly stated that what we do here, is to provide a vigorous response to lies and bullshit, for the benefit of those watching from the sidelines, so that they will be able to see for themselves that what we're countering IS lies and bullshit? Oh wait, that's because we credit people with possessing enough functioning neurons to work out what's happening, when they're given an honest appraisal of the issues, and presented with proper data. Which destroys your asinine assertion above.
Oh wait, one of our number came here originally as a creationist, and woke up and smelled the roses. Paging Willhud ... who also destroys your asinine assertion above.
Actually, if you bother to READ our collective output here, instead of skimming it to find isolated snippets to bolster your prejudices, you'll find that the people we accuse of this, are the hardcore ideological warriors (including, in some instances, actual paid trolls). The rest, we simply give them the data, and say "here you go, study this and ask yourself what conclusion this points to".
Oh, and "heretics" is a word we leave to supernaturalists. Because unlike them, we value plurality of opinion. Which is why you're still here.
See above. Once again, paging Willhud ...
Oh wait, you purport to be in a position to lecture us on discoursive conduct, despite providing an epic piece of fail in this regard?
Bollocks. Oh wait, why would we have spent time tracking down the actual data with which to refute creationist lies and bullshit, if we shared creationist hatred of genuine inquiry? Another assertion of yours dies a pathetic death.
This is some weapons-grade wank you're posting here, not least because I've never seen anyone of the regular contributors here use the juvenile slang you've just posted above.
We have. Or did you fail to notice this before posting this drivel?
This doesn't work with the hardcore ideological warriors, and I've explained why at length in the past, as you would know if you'd engaged in some inquiry of your own.
Oh this is precious.
Er, wait, we are the ones reminding our audience, that ideas are disposable entities, and commenting on frequently manifested supernaturalist failure to detach themselves emotionally from their most cherished shibboleths.
Given the degree of rampant reality-inversion you're posting here, I'm tempted to ask a few questions about this, but those are best left to another time and place.
Oh look, he's trying to teach his grandmother to suck eggs. How cute.
We do. What part of our doing this many times in the past, did you fail to notice?
Oh wait, we did a number on Expelled as well. That was really hilarious. One of the funniest parts being, when the people responsible tried to block PZ Myers from attending a screening of this pile of excrement, but let his invited friend into the theatre. Apparently, they failed to notice that the invited friend in question was none other than Richard Dawkins.
It's this sort of hilarity and fail that deserves fucking ridicule.
If you think I have anything in common with Ken Ham, then this says far more about you than it does about me.
Did you intend to post something that reads like a parody of the worst creationist excesses, including rampant projection, or is your output here indicative of an altogether far more dire conclusion, with respect to your command of discourse?
UltimoReducto wrote:OP is a hardcore communist
Wrong. Oh wait, apparently you haven't bothered looking up any of my past posts, in which I present reasons for rejecting Marxism. A particularly apposite example being this post, in which I expounded at length an analysis pointing to why the entire Marx project failed, namely that it failed because it failed to live up to its own billing as a purportedly 'scientific' endeavour, and its defining text acquired the mantle of a mythology.
Please explain, in which fantasy parallel universe, my posting this (repeatedly, I might add), makes me a "hardcore communist". I'm really going to enjoy seeing the hyper-Comaneci apologetic gymnastics required to pull this one off.
UltimoReducto wrote:and her first instinct is to trash the lower classes.
Even if your first assertion about my being a "hardcore communist" was something other than the product of your rectal passage, this second assertion of yours is so hilariously and farcically inconsistent therewith, as to constitute a veritable Total Perspective Vortex of fail. Because whilst practising communists have had many faults in the past, hatred of the "lower classes" isn't one of them, because, wait for it, the entire communst project was launched with a view to improving the lives of those "lower classes". The mere fact that you use the phrase "lower classes" in itself speaks volumes about your own prejudices, and is a term that no self-respecting communist would ever use. Every time I examine the output of communist authors and thinkers, they use working classes to denote the people pushed to the bottom of the socio-economic pile by the actions of the rich, frequently because a large number of people in that demographic, are the very people whose labours are essential to the maintenance of a decent, humane civil society. Furthermore, it was precisely because the actions of the rich inflicted harm in the past upon said decent, humane civil society, that the entire communist project became so attractive to a large number of people, and not merely within that downtrodden demographic - the communist project also attracted a substantial collection of intellectuals to its ranks. Not that any of these verifiable historical facts will probably have any effect upon your output, which even at this early stage, possesses the hallmarks of a cerebral vomiting induced by weapons-grade recreational pharmaceuticals.
Actually, my first instinct, is to look for evidence pointing to the truth-value of a postulate of interest. The mere fact that you failed to notice this, despite exhibiting signs of taking interest in my output, points to its own, unhappy conclusions about the diligence with which you pursue discourse.
Oh, and by the way, I'm male. Or did you fail to notice the "♂" symbol next to my name?
UltimoReducto wrote:Anyone else not surprised? I mean Alabama is over one third black people.
Actually, I pointed to Alabama in the manner that I did, not because of its population, but because of the stupidity of its legislators. Alabama, like other former slave states, has had a habit in recent years, of being governed by right-wing extremists who pander to rampant anti-intellectualism in order to secure their position. Furthermore, I learned recently that Alabama has the distinction of levying its own state income tax on the population, the burden of which is disporportionately shouldered by the poor, and also extracts sales taxes from food, again impacting the poorest most heavily, whilst, lo and behold, property taxes (affecting only the rich) are the lowest in the entire United States. It also has a less than happy history of legislative attempts to corrupt and pervert science education, and is one of the last places in the USA to retain corporal punishment in schools. I suspect that the African-American inhabitants of that state voted for none of this.
UltimoReducto wrote:Imagine how upset the OP would be if someone were to cite Alabama’s collective IQ and obesity as an example of black inferiority.
Except that according to your own assertion above, two-thirds of the population isn't black. Therefore any attempt to manipulate trends for apologetic purposes would impact that majority more.
You're not doing this very well, are you?
UltimoReducto wrote:But poor people are fair game. They’re trash.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
The number of times I've castigated right-wing politicians here and elsewhere, for treating the poor as subhuman, on its own destroys your attempts to paint me as some sort of aristocratic snob.
UltimoReducto wrote:This is the problem with the Left.
I'm not a part of "the Left", however that is defined. I have my own highly individual take on issues, as the post of mine I linked to above should be telling you. But please, do continue your scatter-gun unsupported assertions, because I like having easy targets occasionally.
UltimoReducto wrote:They hate science.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Oh now this is truly fucking funny. Oh wait, all of the attacks on scientific research and scientific thinking over the past decade or so, have emanated from the rabid right. Climate change denial (funded by corporate money), anti-vax woo, and creationism are all right-wing ideological fetishes.
UltimoReducto wrote:They use science, as a shield, as a cloak, as a means, to achieve political ends, because they are so threatened and impotent in the face of any disagreement.
Total bollocks. I'm not "hiding" behind anything, I'm telling you how it fucking is. I've been a lifelong lover of science ever since I first dived into The Children's Encyclopaedia at the age of six, and I've spent a decade here and elsewhere exposing anti-science lies on a grand fucking scale. I've been pissing on creationists since 2007, and pointing out, among other embarrassing facts, that creationism is actually a corporate business in the USA, one using the bizarre fetish for religion in the USA as a springboard for revenue generation. I've been taking time out to explain what scientists are actually saying in their work, as opposed to duplicitous misrepresentations thereof by lying sack-of-shit creationists, throughout that time, and in the process, demonstrating that a lot of the mouths on sticks who post creationist masturbation fantasies on forums like this, are lying sacks of shit.
Hiding? I'm as fucking visible as fucking Jupiter.
UltimoReducto wrote:Yelling at people isn’t going to win you any converts, which I don’t think you even want, because they’re not worthy.
More shite.
Oh wait, how often have I and others here, explicitly stated that what we do here, is to provide a vigorous response to lies and bullshit, for the benefit of those watching from the sidelines, so that they will be able to see for themselves that what we're countering IS lies and bullshit? Oh wait, that's because we credit people with possessing enough functioning neurons to work out what's happening, when they're given an honest appraisal of the issues, and presented with proper data. Which destroys your asinine assertion above.
Oh wait, one of our number came here originally as a creationist, and woke up and smelled the roses. Paging Willhud ... who also destroys your asinine assertion above.
UltimoReducto wrote:It’s so much easier to other them. “They’re evil heretics! They can’t be reasoned with!”
Actually, if you bother to READ our collective output here, instead of skimming it to find isolated snippets to bolster your prejudices, you'll find that the people we accuse of this, are the hardcore ideological warriors (including, in some instances, actual paid trolls). The rest, we simply give them the data, and say "here you go, study this and ask yourself what conclusion this points to".
Oh, and "heretics" is a word we leave to supernaturalists. Because unlike them, we value plurality of opinion. Which is why you're still here.
UltimoReducto wrote:But that’s loser psychology, a rationalization for failure to persuade.
See above. Once again, paging Willhud ...
UltimoReducto wrote:Don’t wallow in despair. Here’s some advice.
Oh wait, you purport to be in a position to lecture us on discoursive conduct, despite providing an epic piece of fail in this regard?
UltimoReducto wrote:I know that inquiry is the bane of you people.
Bollocks. Oh wait, why would we have spent time tracking down the actual data with which to refute creationist lies and bullshit, if we shared creationist hatred of genuine inquiry? Another assertion of yours dies a pathetic death.
UltimoReducto wrote:Asking questions is derided as “JAQing off”, free speech is mocked as “freeze peach”, coming up with novel ways to deny FOIA requests is a national pastime, etc...
This is some weapons-grade wank you're posting here, not least because I've never seen anyone of the regular contributors here use the juvenile slang you've just posted above.
UltimoReducto wrote:But try some inquiry of your own.
We have. Or did you fail to notice this before posting this drivel?
UltimoReducto wrote:Try asking “creationists” to explain their position to you like a two year old. Put them on the spot, on the defensive, and very likely they will crumble on their own.
This doesn't work with the hardcore ideological warriors, and I've explained why at length in the past, as you would know if you'd engaged in some inquiry of your own.
UltimoReducto wrote:That’s what the other side does to you all the time, because they know that when your position is tenuous, the simplest question will be seen as a vicious attack.
Oh this is precious.
Er, wait, we are the ones reminding our audience, that ideas are disposable entities, and commenting on frequently manifested supernaturalist failure to detach themselves emotionally from their most cherished shibboleths.
Given the degree of rampant reality-inversion you're posting here, I'm tempted to ask a few questions about this, but those are best left to another time and place.
UltimoReducto wrote:Even simpler. Simply report the events, without the adlibbing and hostility.
Oh look, he's trying to teach his grandmother to suck eggs. How cute.
UltimoReducto wrote:Have some confidence in your own position, trust your audience to notice the right patterns for themselves. It’s much more compelling.
We do. What part of our doing this many times in the past, did you fail to notice?
UltimoReducto wrote:Nobody likes a preachy movie except the Oscar crowd, and creationists.
Oh wait, we did a number on Expelled as well. That was really hilarious. One of the funniest parts being, when the people responsible tried to block PZ Myers from attending a screening of this pile of excrement, but let his invited friend into the theatre. Apparently, they failed to notice that the invited friend in question was none other than Richard Dawkins.
It's this sort of hilarity and fail that deserves fucking ridicule.
UltimoReducto wrote:Are you going to let them have that in common with you?
If you think I have anything in common with Ken Ham, then this says far more about you than it does about me.
Did you intend to post something that reads like a parody of the worst creationist excesses, including rampant projection, or is your output here indicative of an altogether far more dire conclusion, with respect to your command of discourse?