Meowy Wowy Puddin' and Pie

Kitty eats a Word Salad

“Jesus, that was terribly written”

leave a comment »

ramblin’ on, ramblin’ on, ramblin’ on. potpourri post here.  lotta different things going on, some new, some old.  just wrote this great troll of L&F (here ) its not interesting enough by itself to transcribe in its entirety, but the post that that i reference initially is really ownage, so check it out:

a brief summary:

the basic question is this: why does the tea party act the way it does, with all its insane rage and contradictory demands? its easy to see that they may be spooked by the economic slump and changing demographic shifts, but why then does it express itself as it does? the OPAA uses a hegelian dialectic to try to understand this rage and where it may be heading next.

d&d’s retarded response to the article, and the discussion i had with dm yesterday over hitler’s motivation for the holocaust, reminded me of that new atheism thread from a few months back: here is the article, and here are my posts. i cannot believe that i actually bothered to logically deconstruct that one dude’s Neo Atheist trash.  i’ll replicate it here:

in response to this rebuttal, in a thread about how Neo Atheism is actually devoid of logic and reason, i wrote (editing slightly to remove the  word filter that SA needs for google adsense):

that kinda shit is like what the first two dozen paragraphs of what hart’s essay is about, all this recent infantalized garbage without any substance. 3000 years of western tradition countered by “Of course God doesn’t exist. Don’t be stupid. You’re not stupid, are you? Do you think think there’s some sort of Flying Speghetti Monster up the the Sky? Don’t be stupid.”

like, here’s how the essay reads:

paragraph 1: I know You Are But What Am I

next we got a quote, which is then completely ignored except to attack Hart as if he were one of those God Damned Liberal Elites that ann coulter and sean hannity are always raving about. its an example of an ad-populist fallacy: “guh, he tried to write to his audience as if they were INTELLIGENT??? asshole didn’t dumb himself down even at the risk that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE might not get it? how offensive.” notice he doesn’t actually say what’s wrong with his quote, except that since Hart Wrote it, it Must Be Dumb. (ad hom)

then, another quote, which is also ignored, except to tl;dr it and to suggest that the reader tl;dr it as well. (an ad-ignorantium if there ever was one) why include a quote if you’re just gonna ignore it? because he isn’t interested in engaging the ideas in hart’s essay. the ad-ig is followed through doubly-so by suggesting that whatever aquinas (who isnt even mentioned in the OP essay at all) and nietzsche wrote are irrelevant to the discussion, and that hart is an asshole for even bringing them (him) up. then we have ANOTHER ad-pop attack, strengthened with appeal to authority (of dawkins and hitchens) that is also combined with a converse fallacy of accident: “people don’t see the way got hart does. they see it the way dawkins does,” by which he means as an image of God as The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

next he begs the question: “So: do the New Atheists recycle old arguments? Of course they do. But that’s not because they’re illiterate, it’s because those arguments have never been convincingly answered.” this is right after tl;dring four times, including one of the most famous atheists of all time, who tried to address some of them. notice again he doesn’t specifically give examples of questions that he doesn’t think have been convincingly answered, unlike hart, who does. he could have even specifically refuted the examples hart gives, or defended the arguments that hart attacks, but doesn’t.

i don’t really understand the point of the next paragraph. hart does not mention newton anywhere. and how does what a 400 year-dead man felt about the relative importance of his own life’s work have to do with anything? (and besides, the “christian mysticism” was deeply important to newton) the paragraph ends with a fallacy of composition in two different ways:  judging the worth of religion on the basis of one large Bad Thing against one Obvious Good Thing That Good People Would Do Anyways, and by then equating religion with oppressive class structure. notice that we’ve moved from faith in god to Organized Religion.
the whole thing reeks of a strawman built from misplaced concretion (e.g. replacing a defense of faith, which Hart wrote about, with Organized Religion).

we end as he begs the question: “To say merely that Christianity is comforting or practical — assuming you believe that — is hardly enough. You need to show that it’s true.” which imposes his own definition on the purpose of Christianity/Religion, that it must be true in the sense of empirically true: “And if you want to assert that something is true, the onus is on you to demonstrate it, not on the New Atheists to demonstrate conclusively that it isn’t.” of course, that *is* true – its not onus of the New Atheists to prove that religion is false – but that isn’t what Hart wrote about at all. (fallacy of affirming the consequent).

so this response is pathetic through and through. it does not cite any specific instances in the essay other than 2 quotes which are completely ignored, and furthermore does not address any claim about how the arguments propounded the New Atheist authors are logically and rationally unsound. which, of course, again, is the whole issue that hart had a problem with to begin with! that this movement thats supposedly built from logic and reason do not actually apply logic and reason to their arguments!

to address the OP as “content-less” while saying that this retarded response is anything worthwhile is just unbelievable (lol) to me. like it really does read like some big socratic manifesto, like as if this guy is adding all sorts of purposely contradictory shit and giggling to himself. (although, to that, i can relate…)

the best part of that thread was that i was able to troll this totally insane Neo Atheist dude named Sylph into trying to derive an empirical model for ethics.  insane as it sounds, here it is in its original form.  truly one of my greatest trolling accomplishments.  it is without a doubt one of the gooniest things ever written, and, as a bonus, totally implodes the neo athiest position with a far greater percussive force than anyone outside their dumb movement could ever write. i will preserve it here for all eternity:

Observed statistically significant number of people of different races to prove the experimental hypothesis “biological and potential mental differences between racial categories are negligible” The reason given for the Holocaust was contingent on the falsehood “Biological and mental differences between racial categories are significant.”

Behind the idea “equality” is the scientific fact “racial categories are spurious.” The equality of man is true. A Christian can hold the idea “All Men are Created Equal” which is a poor interpretation of an observation. “Men” exist, “Equal” is a strong approximation and “Created” is non sequitur “Jews should be killed” is a conclusion drawn upon a scientifically untrue statement, “The category ‘ethnic Jews’ is sufficiently biologically and neurologically different to permit moral judgements on the basis of race.”

“Racial categories are so biologically similar that the very idea is spurious” is Science, we know because men of science have met and examined other men. “All Men are Created Equal” is sentiment in part approximating reality and “Jews are a category of inferior men” is false.

I guess I’m defining “Science” and “True” in an ideological way. “Science” means “attempting strong approximations of reality through experiment” and Truth means “approximating reality.” Feynman’s “Science” and Dawkins’ “Truth” I suppose. Therefore to find a “Scientific Truth” is to approximate reality through reasonable conclusions drawn upon empirical observation.

I realise now I’ve been way too loose with those words and I really ought to have defined terms, also I’ve been taking the piss when I thought it might be funny, sooo yeah. Sorry everyone.

You CAN observe “a Jewish dude.” and disprove “Jews are inferior life”. That statement takes one good Jew to disprove. To disprove “Jews are inferior life” as an approximate, not a definite statement you would have to observe a statistically significant number of Jews.

Arbitrary meaning “Individually determined and divorced from reality”. I don’t have to define “Good” here except to say that “Good” necessarily approximates “true” in some sense whilst “Death” ends perception. “Good” is contingent on human experience of something while “brain death” precludes human experience of anything.

Causing death is not good because “good” pertains to human experience and a man’s murder entails the destruction of a capacity to experience. It cannot be “Good” to destroy “Good”.

“Pain”, when perceived, precludes a search for the good by limiting perspective. There are other vastly better ways of getting at the essence; “Pain is bad” but they all approximate in some way the truth “Pain is obscuring and obstructive.”

Nazi racial categorisations are not true because the biological differences do not correlate with the alleged categories. The differences are too superficial for the approximation “Jewish inferiority” to be in any way meaningful since “inferiority” is contingent on the falsehood “Jews are sufficiently biologically distinguishable from Aryans for a qualitative assessment based on an existing criteria to be possible”.

“Killing the ethnically Jewish is right” is factually wrong because killing prevents good and besides “ethnically Jewish” is a weak approximation. “Killing the ethnically Jewish is right” is not a matter of opinion because the men labelled Jews exist aside from the category as men biologically indistinguishable from non Jews and murder is a physical act, not a preference for one thing over another. A volitional act creates circumstances that exist as reality, not mental “software” simulations. Brain death is a factual and permanent state of thoughtlessness precluding all experience including whatever the good is.

Even if “Good” and “Right” are opinions, murder and torture are still “anti-good” because they are opinion annihilators. “thought” and “opinion” are at the least properties of the material arrangement called “the Brain”. Experimental observation confirms that “the Brain” is the arrangement of matter necessary for thought, because the empirical observation of neurological activity through machinery shows a factual correlation between brain damage and altered thought patterns.

If you believe that “the Good” is mere opinion, then on your own terms I reject your concept of “Good”.

I hope at least the loving hours this took to beat out of my aching head go some way to at least evidencing that Dawkins Atheists are not intellectually lazy.

he has a few other equally retarded posts in the original thread (i branched this into its own new thread because i was so wowed by it) which i quote in that other link above.

anyways, back to that first link i posted, it went over most ppls’ heads although Red Ken had this ownage response.  It looks like some d&d ppl just found it though, so we’ll see where it goes from here.

Update: ahahahaha a big retard d&d-er took my “Jesus, that was terribly written” thread seriously and tried to start flaming me as if i were a real mod imposing some draconian policy, and then started flustering after i said that i would ban him

now this is one disjointed blog update!


Written by meowywowy

June 20, 2010 at 11:23 pm

Posted in propaganda, Trolls

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: