Marginalizing a true moron, part II

This entry is going to be a bit grittier than usual. Like a sign I once saw at a movie theatre, "We don't give refunds for content. Please choose your movies carefully." So, if you want to see just the nice side of me, if you don't like argumentative posts, or if you have a heart condition that can be aggravated by one my former commenter's inanity, please skip this entry.

Previous: Marginalizing a true moron

Some people can't leave things well enough alone, like Nuthead. It's a shame that someone like him, who can have good thoughts on a variety of subjects, instead chose to inject his vitriol into my blog. I noticed his rebuttal when Googling my name.

His "Self-Oblivious Example #1" boils down to, "OMG, look at all the uncivil language he used, when he said all he wants was civil discourse." First, I'm quite aware of myself, my opinions and what I've stated/written, so his description is quite a foolish one. Second, I never claimed that my responses were "civil" or "discourse"; I merely said that's all I want (when my readers post comments, of course). Third, and I hate to put it this way, but if he didn't want to participate in an "argument," then he should not have caused the "discussion" to degenerate in the first place. The original thread has all the evidence we need. Really, what kind of person expects to start an argument on someone else's blog, especially repeating such tripe as "You're a socialist" when he knows it's the furthest thing from reality, and not receive in kind?

As a battle-hardened veteran of Usenet flamewars, which made WWW forum flamewars look like kindergarten conflics, I must laugh at the accusations of bad language. I can string together a half-dozen epithets without a second thought, which still don't approach the worst of what some elementary schoolchildren say to each other (and what the rest hear on cable TV). Furthermore, if someone came onto my front lawn and fires a popgun, he should not be surprised when I pull out greater firepower. The same applies to my intellectual property, i.e. my blog. And should I write anything "unkind," "uncivil" or vulgar, my responses are all the evidence we need that my chosen words are not the basis of my argument. Consider them like adverbs, not really quite like Spock's "colorful metaphors."

As a fan of dialogue whereby participants filter out impurities to arrive at the truth, I welcome all points of view so long as we discuss and reason, not argue. However, if you want to start an argument, like Nuthead and Paul learned, my blog is not the place. When I was younger and had more free time, I'd have welcomed regular flamewars. Not now, though, not just because my time is too limited, but because that's not why I blog. Besides, aren't my other 700+ entries more worthy of an argument than one about American Idol? Really now, if this guy wants to expend keystrokes this way, I've written far more controversial things.

Nuthead's next point, if you can call it that, was an outright lie:

C-Nut's Wife: Perry is just plain nuts and probably has a man-crush on Chris Daughtry.

So how best to defend your manhood in the face of such an affront? Well, Perry insisted that he was “quite straight” but in fact his real man-crush was on Taylor Hicks. Thanks for clearing that up Perry.

Besides the fact that his wife is delusional (I'm a bit metrosexual but perfectly straight), note that I never said any such thing. But, that's lost on a liar like him.

By the same token, I wonder about the paternity of Nuthead's wife's new baby. We must wonder who the real father is, since, after all, Nuthead himself is clearly gay, based on the same Freud-ish psychobabble he spews. He probably has a man-crush on me, since he likes to point so much to my picture. (There was a homosexual on forums I used to post on, and it was creepy to learn he used hostility to disguise his crush on me.) Thanks for clearing that up, Nutty.

Also, I wouldn’t characterize my debates as “flamewars” if I was trying to defend my virility. But that's just me (and the rest of the self-conscious world).

Only self-aggrandizing ignoramuses think of something as a "debate" when it's merely a flamewar. I admit this is just a flamewar. The rest of you know it's a flamewar. When will reality bitch-slap Nuthead and tell him, "Hey yo, this was never a debate!"

Nuthead's third point includes the absurdity that I made a "socialist argument" by pointing out that Arthur Andersen audited Enron. There is, in fact, nothing socialist about what I said. Any thinking person can see that I merely alluded to the time-honored phrase, "Who watches the watchers?" What's so "socialist" about pointing out that big business can be corrupt? Any of you who read my blog know that I'm one of the most ardent capitalists on the planet, yet I don't deny the facts about human nature.

Nuthead is apparently light of brain when it comes to reading comprehension, but I think those of you who read the original flamewar understood that I accused him of using "socialist" the way others use "Nazi." So I didn't "lump" him with those who cry "Nazi," but I did compare him to those that overuse a term to describe anyone who disagrees with them.

Now, when I said the following,

Actually there are many fascist (i.e. Nazi) elements to our present government, from the Patriot Act to the NSA's long-time infiltration of people's private, lawful communications.

to which he replied

Who’s throwing “Nazi” around now?

How do you decry someone for doing something they actually didn’t do, and then turn around and do it yourself?

it was actually a statement of pure fact. Leave it to Nuthead to quote it out of context, particularly when he's a deer caught in the headlights. Once I called him onto the carpet to defend his trite use of "socialist," he was proven lacking:

By his “logic”, despite the presence of red-blooded Commi’s in their unions, nothing about General Motors or Ford could be deemed socialist – because strictly speaking, both management and the workers entered the contracts voluntarily.

Actually, there's a great deal of socialism there because of government, and only because of government. Were there no government to coerce the automakers (via laws to "strengthen" collective bargaining at the expense of automakers' private property rights), it could be Hugo Chavez himself leading the UAW, and it would still be purely free enterprise.

The big flaw in Nuthead's argument is going by an obviously subjective Wikipedia entry. If the entry said, "The pedophile blogging at captiousnut.blogspot.com is a socialist," would he believe that? I like Wikipedia for general reference, but as with all things that can be edited by anyone, take it with a grain of salt. There is a world of difference between a "common" definition and one that has no inherent credibility. I personally have corrected errors, from minor to major, in dozens of entries on a variety of topics.

But oh, what part did Nuthead forget to quote?

As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production, so as to fulfill the role of taking care of the citizens. This control, according to socialists, may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

So am I really going by my own definition? How about Merriam-Webster?

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

And if you've studied your political theory, you'll know that Marxism's transitional stage is overseen by a "dictatorship of the proletariat," i.e. government. And that's what socialism requires: government coercion.

It may be a new or ludicrous concept to those who don't truly understand free markets, but as "socialist" as they claim the NBA is, it's still based on voluntary, contractual participation. If you don't like certain policies like alleged "wealth redistribution," then you have the choice to leave the league and establish your own. You don't have that freedom in socialism.

I will admit that I erred, however. I should have known better and clarified for Nuthead that "redistribution of wealth" implies government force. My apologies for assuming he'd understand that little...nuance.

Precise definitions are important. My best friend at work no longer tries to discuss economics with me, because I refuse to let conversations progress unless we have defined things carefully. "Force" is an especially important concept that progressives and interventionists (like my friend) tend to misuse. Now, if he and I presented our arguments based on different definitions and assumptions, then how could we be logical?

Nuthead even engages in a strawman, when he more than likely knows I've assailed the Kelo decision as just plain wrong:

I’d say that when interacting with society, a good general rule of thumb would be to adhere to shared definitions (i.e. Wiki) over personal ones. Intelligent debate needs at least some standards in order to proceed. What would Perry say to a homeowner who’s property is forcibly seized by eminent domain and redistributed to the government?

Would Perry chide the displaced with, “Well, nobody forced you to live in America...You voluntarily agreed to live by the laws of the country...You could have sold your house and moved after the Kelo ruling. This isn’t SOCIALISM.”???

What happened to Kelo and the others is nothing less than pure tyranny. Now, the difference between New London and the NBA is that in the Connecticut and the other several States collectively known as the United States, you have (or at least used to) a right to buy, own and use land, with the expectation that you can't be bullied into selling it.

On the other hand, the organization known as the NBA is private property. You do not have any rights there, no more than you have a right to your next-door neighbor's house. Entrance is by voluntary acceptance of terms set by contract; take it or leave it.

So why then did he stay up all night writing a retaliatory post? On planet Earth, staying up to 2:29am writing a blog response seems a most odd way to express apathy – especially for someone claiming to be “too busy”. Again, if he had an iota of self-awareness, he’d at least have fudged the timestamp on the post.

My, my, someone gives himself far too much credit, especially when responding to him requires more time for getting the links to old entries than actually refuting his nonsense. The reason I "stayed up" until 2:29 a.m. is because I am busy and don't get around to blogging until very, very late.

Someone once marveled how I typically blog "well after midnight" during the week. Some of you may have noticed the hours have progressed later and later, like our friend Josh, who once joked about my being the latest blogger in the LLP community. On weeknights, assuming I don't have social events, work or shopping and get home at a decent hour, there's so much to do: talking to friends on the phone and online, doing various things around the house, and preparing clothes for work the next day. I'll wander back to my computer to check ICQ and e-mail, but my only serious computer time comes very late. A consequence is that I can no longer read blogs like I used to.

Laundry last night took longer than expected, and I also decided to relax and watch "I, Robot" for the first time (great film, enjoyed it). When all was said and done, I still had to polish the shoes that I planned for today, so I couldn't devote more than several minutes to blogging (hence a light entry). It was 2:38, I think, when I finally hit the sack. That's been pretty typical, and some nights I'll be up past 3. However, it's rarely to write the 1000-, 2000-word entries that I've been known for. I'm not sure how long this entry will be, but I've been writing it during the All-Star Game's commercials.

I wonder, is Nutty so dishonest that he advocates putting a false timestamp on posts? I'm sure some of you notice when I occasionally forget to switch p.m. to a.m., which occurs when I start a post in the evening when I read the day's major news. That way I won't forget to blog about something I deem important, when I can sit uninterrupted at my computer some hours later. But I'm not going to lie and claim I wrote something at 9 p.m. instead of 1 a.m. Why should I? What would I gain from it?

Now I may have a face “made for radio”, but at least I am aware of it and spare my blog readers from seeing my mug each day. Look at this pic of himself Perry has displayed on his blog.

Once I showed that to my wife she scoffed, saying that it explained everything about him and admonished me to leave the poor guy alone.

It's a true indicator of Nuthead's intellectual inadequacy that he must resort to disparaging someone's looks. I won't dignify his absurdity by making the easy and obvious contradiction, but I'll point out that were this an actual debate like he claims, he'd have just lost by that inane remark alone.

Then he went fishing, trying to insult me for my valid criticism of the NYPD. You can read the followups here, here and hereOnce again. By the way, they still haven't been handing out tickets since those two days, and in fact I've hailed cabs in front of them. Gee, they're really enforcing the law now, aren't they? Like I said, they enforce the laws selectively, and it's not like the citizenry can really count on the police to protect them.

Nuthead used to live in New York City. Now he lives in Massachusetts, which, considering his apparent love of authority, suits him. That state has virtually forgotten its history as where those damned freedom-loving colonials first resisted George III's police state.

Now, Nuthead again created a strawman, specifically, putting words into my mouth. I never claimed to be a "Christian vanguard of civility." At times I have discussed my Christian faith, and as I stated several times already, I only ask that commenters keep things civil. Now, when Paul and his fellow pigs started leaving the most profanity-laden crap that made my own mild word usage seem like Ivory soap, as I explained, you're damn right I deleted them without a second thought, instituting comment moderation to stop their horseshit. Wouldn't any of you with blogs want to spare your readers from pure filth? Nuthead would have seen my explanation, were he not worse than the "morons" he claims others to be. Maybe I need to run a children's "Dick and Jane" version of my blog for his sake?

Now, I had written:

It's cops like Paul claims to be that make me wonder now how many future innocent victims are saved anytime a uniform is killed or left work-disabled.

To which Nuthead replied,

That's right, not only are all cops "pigs", Perry just said that cops kill innocent victims.

Only a complete idiot, a true moron, would think cops don't kill innocent people. I don't even want to imagine how big his mouth must be, since he's obviously fitting in a lot of pig cocks simultaneously. Or maybe it's his other orifice.

I, on the other hand, am a free man. Unlike the boot-licking Nuthead, I bow down for no man -- in any direction. Some people claim that they're slaves to their bosses, but aren't they free to quit? I've walked out on jobs before, as could most Americans, so employment is hardly slavery. Unless you're talking about armed revolution against a tyrant, there are few feelings of freedom comparable to walking to your boss' desk, plopping down your ID card, telling him off, then walking out the front door while he realizes, "Oh crap, I just lost another good tech."

Nuthead may wish that cops do something to me, but you know what, let them try. There are few things I will swear before Almighty God, and this is one: woe, and by God I promise woe, to any "officer of the law" who tries something on me or my family. Frankly, considering the attitude of these thugs masquerading as law enforcement, I'd like nothing better than returning righteous force for unrighteous force against the pigs. In the words of our friend Billy Beck, after he linked to more outrageous incidents that Radley Balko noted, "Good fucking morning. Hope it doesn't happen to you." I like the dual interpretations there, how Billy well-wishes the rest of us while also saying we should hope nothing like that happens to us.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" - Samuel Adams