Tidbits of life in 9 minute increments.

August 31, 2005

Death brings validity?

This has been bugging me. Not Ilyka's post itself, but rather the topic dissected therein. You see, there are three things I really can't stand: idiots, poseurs, and idiot poseurs. They rankle me. It seriously bothers me that people without a basic rational understanding of logic can pretend to offer arguments.

This fellow Robert Crook, a blogger for Salon, makes the following arguments:

Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war.
Her opinion is valid because her son died there.
Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war.
Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there.

Lets boil that down:

The prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the war in Iraq is the traumatic loss of a son in Iraq.

Given that Mr.Crook has not lost a son in Iraq, his argument invalidates his own opinion of the war in Iraq.

That, my friends, is the mental misfiring of an idiot poseur.

UPDATE: Charmaine's post, where Crook supporters are busy saying "HE DID NOT!"

Well, HE DID TOO:

Tammy [Pruett] can get back to us with what she thinks of Gee Dubya's Gulf War II if one of her immediate family members is killed.

Posted by: Jim at 08:52 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

1 What're you doing posting on your blog when I'm posting on your blog?!?!?!?

Posted by: Victor at August 31, 2005 08:56 AM (L3qPK)

2 Down, Victor. Did you see the comments at Charmaine's? That's where Robert argues that he was not either granting more moral standing to Sheehan; he was only saying that Pruett can't be her logical opposite! Really! That's all he was tryin' to say! Why we all pickin' on Robert? He was only saying they're not opposites! Oh, and that Bush lied, people died, because Halliburton. I think I caught something about that too.

Posted by: ilyka at August 31, 2005 12:13 PM (FLmL2)

3 Where's Charmaine's?

Posted by: Victor at August 31, 2005 12:17 PM (L3qPK)

4 So the whole "She can give her opinion when she loses a son" thing was just topical humor? What a piece of work. Charmaine is over here.

Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 12:21 PM (tyQ8y)

5 First of all, you wingnuts need to know that I'm not affiliated with Salon.com in any real sense. Anyone, even one of you wingnuts, can have a Salon blog if you plop down your yearly fee. Salon is not responsible for/does not endorse what Salon bloggers post. Secondly: "Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war. Her opinion is valid because her son died there. Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war. Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there." I never wrote that nor was that my argument. My argument was that you can't compare a mother who hasn't lost a child in Vietraq to a mother who has. Therefore, the Bush regime's trying to use Tammy Pruett as the anti-Cindy was bullshit because there is no comparison. That was my point, nimrods. Funny how you wingnuts like to put words in the opposition's mouth and then attack the words that you pulled wholly from your ass. For the record, I support Tammy Pruett's First Amendment right to say whatever misguided crap she wants to say. She lives in Idaho, so I consider the source. Thirdly, have you seen the latest polls, my fellow Americans? More than half of Americans (53 percent) support Cindy Sheehan and think that Gulf War II wasn't worth it. And Gee Dubya's approval rating is no higher than 45 percent in any recent national poll. (Of course you know this -- you like to troll my blog.) Fourthly Bush lied, people died and Halliburton profited -- yes, that's all true. Bush, Cheney, et. al. are traitors and war criminals and should be executed as such. It appears to be your "argument" that something is untrue if you've heard it before. Morons. Your responses to my blog demonstrate your panic. I'd be panicking if I were you, too.

Posted by: Robert at August 31, 2005 09:33 PM (ARY2A)

6 First of all, you wingnuts need to know that I'm not affiliated with Salon.com in any real sense. Anyone, even one of you wingnuts, can have a Salon blog if you plop down your yearly fee. Salon is not responsible for/does not endorse what Salon bloggers post. Secondly: "Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war. Her opinion is valid because her son died there. Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war. Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there." I never wrote that nor was that my argument. My argument was that you can't compare a mother who hasn't lost a child in Vietraq to a mother who has. Therefore, the Bush regime's trying to use Tammy Pruett as the anti-Cindy was bullshit because there is no comparison. That was my point, nimrods. Funny how you wingnuts like to put words in the opposition's mouth and then attack the words that you pulled wholly from your ass. For the record, I support Tammy Pruett's First Amendment right to say whatever misguided crap she wants to say. She lives in Idaho, so I consider the source. Thirdly, have you seen the latest polls, my fellow Americans? More than half of Americans (53 percent) support Cindy Sheehan and think that Gulf War II wasn't worth it. And Gee Dubya's approval rating is no higher than 45 percent in any recent national poll. (Of course you know this -- you like to troll my blog.) Fourthly, Bush lied, people died and Halliburton profited -- yes, that's all true. Bush, Cheney, et. al. are traitors and war criminals and should be executed as such. It appears to be your "argument" that something is untrue if you've heard it before. Morons. Your responses to my blog demonstrate your panic. I'd be panicking if I were you, too.

Posted by: Robert at August 31, 2005 09:33 PM (ARY2A)

7 Thank you for so aptly proving my point, twice. Sifting through your chaff I have found at least a couple of kernels to address. Wingnut? Well, no. You never said Pruett's opinion is invalid because she hasn't lost a son? Well, no: Tammy [Pruett] can get back to us with what she thinks of Gee Dubya's Gulf War II if one of her immediate family members is killed. I'm also pretty big on the First Amendment. That's why I support Cindy Sheehan's right to do what she's been doing. That isn't the same thing as either understanding her logic or supporting what she's doing. Polls also favored Kerry to win the Presidency by a similar margin. Exit polls were slanted even more towards him. With a bit more experience you'll learn not to rely on marginal polls to support arguments. Bush lied, people died? Prove it.

Posted by: Jim at August 31, 2005 10:19 PM (oqu5j)

8 Pardon me just a minute but-- HAHAHAHAHA! Criminy, Robert. Do you just sit around Googling instances of "Robert" all day long or WHAT? Because I'm thinking you must wind up looking at pictures of this fellow a lot. No wonder you're upset. Here, have a cookie.

Posted by: ilyka at August 31, 2005 10:20 PM (FLmL2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 23, 2005

Hmmm...

Pixy thinks it was spammers.

I have a different theory.

Posted by: Jim at 06:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

August 18, 2005

"man rape movies"

Since my post about Deliverance went over so well, I thought I'd try to do a series of posts about the male-rape-by-hillbilly outre of movies. I thought you all might enjoy it, plus it would certainly boost the gayness rating of Jim's blog.

Folks, don't ever google the phrase "man rape movies." Just trust me on this one.

Posted by: Victor at 06:15 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

August 16, 2005

Dentist Visit

I'd originally posted this on my blog and since I'm sure Jim's legions of fans are itching for a post, much like heroin addicts waiting for their next boost of smack, I figured I'd share.

I was recently discussing dentist appointments with the guys at work one of them mentioned he'd rather have his nads waxed than go to the dentist. Dentist visits donÂ’t bother me, maybe itÂ’s that my dentist is an attractive lady or that most of her assistants have always been attractive women.

I'd defiantly take a trip to visit them over a nad waxing, especially after catching a couple of stray hairs in my zipper this morning.

Posted by: phin at 02:20 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

August 07, 2005

Hey, girl. You shore do got a purdy mouth.

Well, usually she does. Right now she's not feeling too happy about it.

In brief, Venomous Kate and her Venomous Hubby pinched the pocketbook to get her teeth fixed. Mere days before she was to receive her new pearly whites she had a bike accident and knocked out about half a score of teeth. She's now the proud owner of 6 grand worth of dental appliances that can't be used because of the new tooth loss and eight grand away from fixing the new mouthal problems.

This is very sad. When Kate smiles the blogosphere is a brighter place. If you'd like to help restore Electric Venom's bite just head on over to the Fang Fund.

Posted by: Jim at 04:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

August 01, 2005

It's alive! Alive!

Protomonkey has fresh content after (mumble mumble) days. Id posted an intriguing story about youthful professionalism and growing up really quickly.

Posted by: Jim at 02:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

36kb generated in CPU 0.024, elapsed 0.0812 seconds.
89 queries taking 0.0682 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 6909
Files: 158
Bytes: 51.8M
CPU Time: 9:53
Queries: 569017

Content

Posts: 2644
Comments: 11507

Feeds