Monday, May 9, 2011

You... You... You Autoretard, You!!!

Am I wrong to miss being able to just call people 'retards' with no political fallout?

I mean, I don't ever want to disparage the mentally handicapped. Truth is, the last person that I'd ever call or even think of as a 'retard' would be someone that is actually mentally handicapped. I don't even go there in my head, not ever...

I'd also hate myself if I ever hurt the feelings of some poor innocent mentally challenged person by calling some random republican or christian (or perhaps more properly 'christorepublican?) a retard. I'm not 'that guy.' I can't stand people that are that ignorant.

However I can't stop using the word. Can't a word evolve beyond the connotations of its origins? The way that I think of it, it tells the recepient 'you are acting as if you have a physical/developmental cause for your lack of reasoning ability as do some unfortunate individuals in our world, *however* you do not have such a cause. Instead, you chose it. You've chosen to be ignorant. They have no choice; you do.'

It's still insulting to the mentally handicapped, though, isn't it? No getting around it.

Damn. Great and satisfying potential new usage possibilities for a word ruined by the undeniable offensiveness of its origins.




I'll create a new word!



So then, why oh why are most christians in our society so incredibly autoretarded? Discuss...

(I feel so liberated!)


  1. Incidentally this is mostly a joke post, however here in RI we still have a 'MHRH,' which stands for Mental Health and Retardation Hospital.'
    Words evolve I guess, but the original meaning of the word wasn't what was so offensive. It was no more offensive than 'mentally handicapped' is today. It was the subsequent usage of the word as a slur against the mentally handicapped that ruined it for future usage.

  2. Bri, I chided you for using the word, then had an interesting experience at Pliny's with his usage of the word 'crazy.'

    I took umbrage at the choice of words, but he made me do a 180. He was so respectful in how he responded it made me think, "Am I being an oversensitive douche bag?" I concluded I was.

    "I'm not 'that guy.' I can't stand people that are that ignorant."

    And that's precisely it. Neither you nor Pliny are 'that guy.' Once I got over myself :) I put the usage into the context of how you both have represented yourselves and your beliefs. You're genuine and thoughtful, if I had remained offended, I would have been projecting some kind of mal-intent antithetical to both of your characters.

    Imho, if you're using 'retard' (and any permutations) because you can't think of a more articulate way to say what you want to, then don't use it. If you're using it deliberately to make a point however, that's a mitzvah. Satire is a social necessity.

    May Saint Lenny the Bruce and Apostle George the Carlin guide you and keep you.

  3. Autoretard sounds like somone who drives the wrong way up one way streets all the time.

  4. Yeah. I thought of the shorter version 'autard' but then I'd run into a whole rash of shit from the autism people.

    Ya can't win, I tells ya...

    How about 'autotard' then?

    I could live with it.

  5. Wow, how about the Bushies trying to take credit for finding Bin Laden!

    Apparently water-boarding someone in 2003 can make the victim see into the future, somehow know where Bin Ladin would be in 2006!

    Wonder how they'd do on Lotto numbers?

  6. Wow, how about the Bushies trying to take credit for finding Bin Laden!

    They sound pretty desperate to me. Their party is imploding and they are getting desperate. I think they are over estimating the peoples willingness to buy their BS, and instead of understanding they just lay it on the more. Instead of owning the truth, they run from it. Obama gets stronger, they get weaker. It is hard to believe how stupid some people act when they get desperate.

  7. Hey, peeb...

    what's the name of Tim and lydia McGrew's blog?

  8. This whole fucking thread is retarded !

    I always thought "mentally retarded" meant just that - one's mental growth had been retarded. That's not so bad a thing, is it?

    Now, calling a handicapped person a retard does make one an asshole. But, I have no problem using it like you stated in the post. I take it to mean a willful ignorance, like you, B.

  9. This whole fucking thread is retarded !
    Hey, I resemble that remark!

  10. Wow, how about the Bushies trying to take credit for finding Bin Laden!
    They'd be having a lot less infliuence on the public discourse if they were in prison where they belong.
    That was to me Obama's Unforgivable Mistake. And he's still paying for it.
    Yo'd think a bunch of war criminals would at least lie low and try not to be noticed since they were let off the hook.
    But no, of course not, they're proud of their torture.
    I bet cheney whacks off to waterboarding tapes.
    And how about his sicko daughter, huh? A regular Klaus Barbie Doll.

  11. Think how they (the bushies) must be suffering, though!

    The black man did what they not only could not do but that which they gave up on even trying to do. Publically. They gave up the search, said he didn't matter, and disbanded the bin ladin unit altogether.

    Of course, having infinite balls and a vaccuum between their ears, this presents no problem for them today. Pretend it all away. Pretend that you never gave up the search, pretend that they were working on it all the time, pretend that they had a clue. And steal the credit.

    Except, it's not working, is it? I think they have not only over-reached on their healthcare plan but also in this matter.

    The party does seem to be imploding. Lets hope. It's always a good thing when evil falls on its face in public.

  12. I'm wondering why the main news sources and cable media immediately put a bunch of bushie torturholics on tv all week to tell us how wrong Obama was and how they are the actual ones that deserve the credit.

    What the fuck? Why are they even involved in this? It's as if the media itself decided that Obama getting Bin Ladin was just too good to be true so they'd better show us the 'other side of the argument...'

    Huh??? To me that's not even patriotic. There is no other side of this. They're making one up.

  13. Incidentally when I say that republicans have infinite balls, its not a compliment. They are craven cowards in the real world, but they have infinite balls when it comes to what they are willing to do to others politically, what they are willing to try to get away with. They cheat, lie, and steal for their cause with no regrets and no conscience.
    Maybe they wouldn't personally kill and eat a baby, but in the abstract they'd have no problem marketing select prime cuts of 'long piglet' canned in china to us and pocketing the profit, if they could only change the pesky laws preventing cannibalism.
    Oh, and there'd be melamine in it, too.

  14. I think mainstream news should be doing what msnbc is doing now.
    Its not partisan to show the contrast between the two administrations *when it is real and demonstrable.*
    The bush administration gave up the chase. It was just too hard.
    And then Obama did it for them.
    And now they're trying to steal the credit.
    That's the story here about the bushies, if there is one.
    Not that they were ever right.
    That they are so very very wrong now, too.

  15. This is what we get when the profit motive is the main regulating influence in our society:
    Meat Glue

  16. I heard recently that psychiatry is giving up on defining 'narcissistic personality disorder' because (get this!) nowadays being narcissistic is fairly normal.


    Only in christian/republican circles...

    What else can you call this behavior of trying to grab credit for the raid? They seem to actually BELIEVE that they deserve it! Classic narcissism.

  17. Narcissistic Personality Disorder as it applies to Donald Trump.

    Read the description of the disorder.

    To me the description is identical to and indistinguishable from the baseline republican christian behavior pattern in general, and not confined solely to the Donald.

    It's the party of narcissism, pure and simple. That's why he's doing so well with it. His open narcissism resonates to those voters who are also narcissistic.

  18. Meat glue = trickle down ethics

  19. By that article it sounds like Trump rivals the pope. I still give the pope the edge by about a mile and a half

  20. It occurs to me that a 'mental health disorder' is always a definition of an affected minority by the (non-affected) majority.

    So now it's not a disorder to be a narcissist. It's normal.

    What does that mean, then?

    It means that apparently I am a 'victim' now of 'non-narcissistic personality disorder.' I am not 'normal' in that I feel the pain of others and do not consider myself the center of the universe.

    Woe is me.

    How does one even seek help for that? In a business school?

    Yeah, I bet that'd work.

    If not, maybe they can surgically remove the part of my brain that loves others.

    I'm sure they're working on it.

  21. Meat glue = trickle down ethics

    I think the phrase 'trickle-down economics' is incredibly appropriate, don't you?

    Here's the conjured image:

    A bunch of filthy rich people pissing on the poor.

    So well named.

  22. By that article it sounds like Trump rivals the pope. I still give the pope the edge by about a mile and a half
    Well of course. After all, he's the apex, the head, of a two-thousand-year-old cult of narcissism. He has the edge. He's come a long way since his nazi youth.

    The Donald is 'nouveau narcissisme...' Small fry.

  23. The end of the world is nigh!


    More nutbags.

    MI, Observant, are you wrong and these people right, or are they wrong and you right? Which is it? Or can it be that third option, that all of you are nucking futs?

    I choose 'c.'

  24. Incidentally, I think the immorality of a nazi youth and follower of adolph hitler is an excellent pre-requisite for becoming pope.

    At least he had his empathy excised at an early age.

  25. I didn't like to hear about Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore's take on the bin Laden thing.

    If I were President of the United States I'd have had bin Laden shot on sight, and that would be that.

    No matter how much I hate Bush, if he had been President at the time this happened, I would say the same thing.

  26. Yes pboy, they are giving liberals a bad name.

    And the other side loves it.

    And they seem to not mind that as much as they should.

    I like Michael Moore a lot, generally.

    Rosie, I can't stand and never could. She reminds me of someone that doesn't bother to wash or wear clean underwear. She skeeves me out. More to the point, she's consistantly annoying and shrill and hasn't got a brain in her head.

  27. Maybe you can avoid the stereotyping associated with retardation, Ste B - instead we can just say -"what a Rosie O'Donnell' or just 'what a Rosie!' No one will be offended that anyone cares about...

  28. What a rosie?

    She's horrible, but not on the level of a palin or a bachmann.

    What a palin.

    She's more deserving of the title 'retard' than rosie is by far, so a better choice for it's alternate name.

  29. Is it hyperbolic-sounding to call republicans or christians (or christorepublicans) evil?

    I don't mean it in the supernatural sense.

    But to me, they are actively seeking the destruction of others for their own gain and have no moral sense whatsoever, are organized and absolutely ruthless.


  30. Moreover they seem to actually derive pleasure from the pain of others. They seem to feel somehow more elevated when they are able to keep others down. They are completely id-motivated with no caring for anything but themselves.

  31. I was just wondering what goes through a republican's mind when they watch 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.'

    To them, it's a tragedy.

    The lesson learned: Never give in to your conscience no matter who you hurt. In fact, don't have a conscience. Look at what good it did for that silver fox senator guy. He's ruined. Pathetic. He should have stood strong in the face of evidence that he was destroying an innocent, just, and honest man. What a pussy.

  32. Evil is stronger than good, because good cannot resort to immoral options. Good cares, and that's its weakness. Evil doesn't give a shit who it hurts in the accomplishment of its ends. Good does.

    Good is smarter than evil however, and that is its only hope. That, and the truth. As evil uses lies and distortions, good has the truth on its side.

    I still give evil the edge. Stories like "Mr Smith" are true fantasies written as pap to make us feel good about how 'good always wins in the end.' That ending was totally unrealistic. In the real world, Silver Fox guy laughs inside as Mr. Smith collapses, and gives himself an inner fist pump and 'boo-yah!'

  33. Of course evil wins. It goes back to everything being appearances.

    The side which cares for the old, the sick and the poor assumes that the people know who they are, while the side which is, "I'm alright Jack!" is the one determined to appear to be the side which cares.

    They continue to reframe the lie that they care to the point that they don't realise they are lying.

    Just the few short videos we got to see of Ryan, of Ryan's budget fame, we could see that the man himself was mystified that the older people weren't going for it 'cos it would only affect people 55 and under, as if these old people would be more than happy to throw the younger members of their own family under the bus.

    The governor of Wisconsin, same thing. He's likely mystified that the police and firemen unions didn't cheer him on while he was throwing teachers under the bus.

    Right now he's drivelling on about 'fiscal house in order' when any savings he proposes for the government is instantly translated to tax cuts for the very wealthy.

  34. I do not think evolution would work if evil overcame good. In many instances evil will triumph in the short run but in the long run good will win.

  35. I do not think evolution would work if evil overcame good. In many instances evil will triumph in the short run but in the long run good will win.
    I disagree strongly. Evolution recognizes no morality. It doesn't 'see' good or evil. It only 'cares' about what survives the best. If that's the evil side, so be it.

    If being incredibly stupid and mean becomes a 'survival plus factor' as in, if really stupid, mean people are the ones producing the most surviving offspring, then smart people eventually GO EXTINCT.

    That's how it works.

    And the hardest thing for good to do is to be bad enough to fight evil effectively. Good has to sacrifice some of its goodness in order to fight back against evil. All evil has to do is be more evil. And evil 'knows' this and takes advantage of it at every opportunity.

  36. I mean Jerry, evolution produced the ebola virus. It doesn't trend toward 'good.' It trends toward 'survival.' If evil is better at it, evil wins every time. And look at nature, red in tooth and claw.... why, we few 'good' people are just about the only good thing in it! Everything else is more concerned with ripping and tearing and eating and excreting, than talking of world peace and harmony.

  37. You are saying that the single cell we evolved from is more good than the man that exists today. Sounds like the Christian argument about the fall of man. I disagree on both counts. Take Hitler for example. He was the exception not the rule. If evil was triumphing over good, Hitler's would have wiped out the human race eons ago. Take our own society, a small percentage of people are thieves, while the majority is honest. The amount of thievery shows this without doubt. We all possess the ability to embrace good or evil, and while most if not all people do both, good far out weights evil in the average person.

  38. Take Hitler for example. He was the exception not the rule. If evil was triumphing over good, Hitler's would have wiped out the human race eons ago.
    And constantine started a little religion in rome a while back...
    ...and it stunted the world for two millennia.

    Jerry, just because good can return after evil triumphs doesn't mean good has triumphed. It just resurfaces as long as evil's triumph is not complete and forever. In the past it was not possible for evil to absolutely win forever. Today, it most definitely is possible. We have atomic weapons now... and a really neat fusion of a religion and a powerful state. Just the thing.

    Hey, I want to hope. It's just that realistically it doesn't look good for us.

  39. You are saying that the single cell we evolved from is more good than the man that exists today.
    No. Actually, technically I'm saying the precise opposite. That what we are, as beings that actually can choose to be good in spite of the fact that nature does not require it, are 'the first good' that has ever been in this world, the first beings that can actually care for all life. So we are infinitely 'better' than that first cell, in that we can choose good over evil. No more primitive beings, including republicans, are capable of that choice.

  40. The universe has evolved us to the point where it saw fit to give us the freedom to chose good over evil , and I do not think that would have happened if we were not ready to deal with it. I will agree that it will take time to work it out, (thousands of years or longer) and the path will be very rough at times, but the fact it is real points toward good getting the best of it. From my viewpoint there is little you, and I disagree on. I am not sure we really disagree on this point, but I think you are caught up in negative thinking , and if you were to quit thinking about the negative parts of our culture (for the most part) for a period of time, say several weeks, I think your experience would be that society is getting better. That is simply the way the human mind works. We have wonderfully flexible minds, but the down side is we get into areas that if embraced over time will lead us to believe ideas that are harmful to our well being. No one has shown evidence on this blog of understanding what I have been saying about the inherent power of thought, and the results. All thoughts that we embrace has equal power to do us good or be harmful. Thinking evil overcomes good is highly toxic. Like Observant, he probably was doing alright in life until he started buying into the type of thinking he does now, and now he seems totally lost into a world created by his mind. The old saying there is nothing as powerful as a thought whose time has come, rings for me, but each though we embrace has that kind of power over our lives.

  41. We seem to be evolving toward being good rather than evil, but evil is capable of stopping that now, is my point. And willing. Well, it's always been willing, but now it's able as well.

    Plus, even if, even if we are destined to evolve toward goodness and greatness, it'd be a shame if in order for that to happen most human life on the planet must first, die, due to stupidity, and then the rest of humanity form the basis for future evolution of the species. That would be sad.

  42. According to studies we are all capable of this kind of evil.

    Seems to me that once you go down that road you have already justified it to yourself, you've already transfered 'respect' itself from those who are suffering to yourself.

    Basically, "I respect myself so much that there is nothing I can do to disrespect others. I deserve all and they deserve nothing."

    I mean, seriously, we allow guys like Peter Popoff to go on television and ask poor old ill people for money in exchange for some supposed supernatural 'help'.

    We elect people who could not care any less for others, nor care more for themselves if they tried.

    Republicans won't stop giving oil companies billions because the oil companies are willing to give them some of that money to get them elected.

    Yet, Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich and them just tu quoque anyone who wants to see fairness.

    It's Obama who is the gangster for wanting to make the health care fair, it's you tax payers who are evil for wanting to stop donating to wealthy oil corporations, it's all 'secular socialism's' fault for not conceding that the rich are simply the winners whose job it is to pick the pockets of the poor.

    This gas price thing is just the next 'boom and bust' economy thing to scoop in all the dollars from people trying to invest in their future.

    Just the next rip off.

  43. According to studies we are all capable of this kind of evil.
    Oh, agreed. However, this kind of evil, the self-deception circular logic kind, is a hallmar of one thing. Belief. One believes one's self to be above reproach, and therefore never realize how evil one has become. One denies it to one's self.
    This is actually actively TAUGHT to christian children, and to adults. To just KNOW that you are saved. To just BELIEVE it. Have FAITH. No evidence required of course, or else it wouldn't be real faith, now would it?

    So again, I see that it occurs in all people, but even in the seccular ones it can be traced back to our immersion in christian pseudomorality even when we've given up the actual religion. And it most frequently occurs in the actively religious who still believe in all the dogma. Part of the dogma is that basically, 'you are not capable of being wrong if you just believe that you are right.'
    How conveeeeeeeenient!

  44. For example, in my earlier years I was an egomaniac.

    (Yeah, shaddup about how I still am...)

    What I mean is, I never thought to look at myself when I ran into problems in life. It was always definitely the 'other guy's' fault. My mom used to tell me things like 'Oh, they're just jealous' when someone teased or bullied me.

    No, they weren't. They thought I was a self-important know-it-all. And so I was. They were right. But it took me many years to be able to see that. Even today I battle with it. It's sneaky.

    I was adopted into a family of pretty-much, morons. I was moderately precocious. Therefore, they thought I was the next Einstein. Their early fascination with my intellect became problematic for me in later life. They filled my head with how smart I was. How handsome, even. I guess they thought that was how to build up a self-image in a child, but it was a very unrealistic one if so. Instead of gently teaching me that I wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, they decided to re-inforce the natural ego of a small boy with tall tales of how special he was.

    So, why were they like that? I might have never ever found out about myself at all, and so I'd still be like that today... what was the reason that my family literally taught me to *just believe* that I was superior to everyone else no matter what?

    My family are devout christians, that's why. It came naturally to them. It was how their silly and shallow hugely inflated image of themselves came to be as well.

    Say they weren't christians but were atheists, and still did the same. Some atheists do. It happens.
    How far back in their geneology though, would one have to go before one found that their family descended from all christian stock? One generation, two at the most?

    So, the conditioning is still there, still in their line, passed from parent to child even if the religion isn't. Thus even the secular can fall prey to their christian roots.

    The conditioning is all-pervasive and literally if you can't see it, you're affected by it.

    I do blame religion (mostly christianity and islam) for much of human stupidity. Even the stupidity of the nonreligious. Yes, I do. It's designed to cause and propagate stupidity, for it needs it in order to survive. It cannot afford the faithful ever 'waking up' to what they really are. It literally brainwashes the faithful to be morons. Self-imoortant egomaniacal morons who believe they poop hagen-dasz and believe that they are the center of the universe and all others pathetically (and evilly) wrong.

    And one needs only to look at MI and Observant if one needs an eloquent illustration of that.

  45. What kind of disingenuous debating tactic is Rand Paul pulling with his notion that having the right to healthcare is enslaving medical workers?

    What bullshit!

    I believe in free speech. Guess that means that I can order you to come and speak at my convenience, for FREE?

    I don't think so.

  46. I know! I just saw that!

    Him and his dad... idealists that can't see that their pet theory doesn't work in practice and cling to it in the BELIEF that it surely will, it just has to.

    For instance, just got done listening to Ron Paul explaining how if we allow say, restaurant owners to put up 'NO BLACKS' signs, that since we're so enlightened now, nobody would patronize it!

    Do I have to even explain?

    As Cenk Juger says "OF COOOOUUURRRSE THEY WILL!"

    It'd be a wild success, the model for the future... racists would fly across the country to even visit it... the KKK would be there in full regailia....
    And who exactly Mr. Paul would said owner evict the occassional black that decided to flaunt the sign? The police? So I have to pay taxes so that black people can be evicted from all-white restaurants now?

    These people are so smart... they're convinced of it! It must be true then...

    Ron Paul told Chris Matthews that civil rights days are 'ancient history' as if there were no more white racists anywhere.

    Unbelievable. If I debated the man, it would have to come to blows. I wouldn't be able to stop myself when he insisted that he was right and tried to explain it... wouldn't be able to NOT pop him in the mouth.

  47. Any person that calls the civil rights era 'ancient history' is a racist.

    I don't think either of the Pauls realize that they are racists though.

    I'm pretty sure they don't.

    The just believe that they are not racists, just like they believe that libertarianism and all that Ayn Rand crap could actually work. Why, they could never think that badly of themselves. They know better.

  48. Republicans pretend to go along with the 'too many laws we don't like' bullshit because they long for the 'good old days' but I don't think they'd be happy to give up all the corporate welfare and agriculture welfare and govt. payment for private schooling, whether voucher or student loans to 'for profit' "academic" institutions, Faith-based Initiatives(bribing people to associate with religious institutions) you know, stuff they feel that government is for.

    What really gets my 'goat' is that they vote in these shills who are then itching to send the U.S. Armed Forces out to make the World safer for global corporations and they want workers to pay for the whole thing.

    I honestly think that they feel that they are the 'ruling class' and that government is there to tax workers to pay them incentives for their land use, to keep their stock dividends as large as possible by any means possible and to pay for their war games and toys.

  49. Pboy, as to what gets your goat there, the vote in those shills because (here I go again) of the intentional fusion of fundamentalist christianity and republican politics.

    For centuries the church and its offshoots have been taking advantage of their system of programming which keeps people stupid and gullible (if you have the key words of course) so they've primed their followers to believe their authority figures and now the republicans have stepped in as at least some of those figures. The religion is a low hanging fruit that anybody can pick, an army of zombies standing at the ready. You don't have to be a pastor to take advantage of a flock. Those people are easily programmed and are kept that way generation after generation, so it's just almost too easy for a 'good moral christian man runnin' for office' to dupe them into being just as stupid for him as they are for god.

    Why to the sheeple, it's almost as if god himself is tellin' them to vote for that nice white guy there.

  50. I think that most of the what you 'all are calling evil results by this doing the acts are accurate, but I consider the people doing these acts, for the most part, are victims. The briefest I can put it is, the effect on the slave owners, vs the effect on the slaves, which I hope you 'all are familiar with. I am not trying to ignore or lesson the horrendous burden put upon the slaves, but I am trying to point out the justice the universe puts on the slave owners. The negative effects on the slave owner is the same as those that are committing so called evil acts of today. In most cases these acts would not happen if the perpetrators were not ignorant to the cost they are paying. Education (not necessarily academic) contains the answer, but that seems to be hard to understand for those involved.

    It is the same as the basic idea that Jesus put forth in what he said about it being hard for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven. In the case of Jesus trying to put across the idea of the kingdom being within falls upon deaf ears because the door that opens the way might as well be closed to those that are blind to its existence. If I was willing to screw over my fellow man, I would never know that door was there, let alone the door is open to all would care to enter. While I hardly consider Observant an evil person, the teachings he is trying to get others to buy into is very toxic, and could be called evil. The ideas he puts forth blinds people to the fact the kingdom of heaven Jesus spoke of is here and now. That, in my opinion, is one of the most evil ideas put forth by any man.

  51. Oh, they are victims, of religion. Absolutely. Kept too ignorant to realize it. Observant *wants* to be good always, I'm quite sure.
    The problem lies in how he's been taught to define 'good.'

    He's been taught a false definition that feels so good because it comes without effort or pain. It feels 'right' because it confirms his high opinion of himself and his faith, therefore it is pleasurable in the sense that being selfish feels good to the selfish. If it didn't feel good and right they wouldn't do it.
    But I still give them part of the blame, because after all, they can read, mostly. And they can see what jesus was like, from all the parables and stories. But instead of using their own eyes they choose to follow 'interpretations' that are often in direct conflict to the actual words in the book. They literally are talkked into doing the very opposite of 'wwjd.'

    That's lazy stupid, and I blame them for it, even if it's how they've been taught.

  52. I don't know how anyone can read that parable about the pharisee in the temple (for example) and not take it as a personal cautionary tale. Not look within themselves after reading it and asking of themselves if just possibly they might be slightly like that man in the temple.

    But of course, no.

  53. Interesting question though... is a person that is spreading evil but doesn't believe that they are, an evil person?

    If you remove ignorance from the equation, there are no evil people, when you really think about it. For isn't even a lack of empathy a form of ignroance, isn't self-centeredness a form of ignroance? And most importantly, does anyone do evil consciously? Does anyone really wake up in the morning and say to their reflection 'holy shit, I'm evil!' or can it be said even of a Hitler or Stalin that in their own minds, they are but spreading the highest good? Even, in Hitler's case, doing god's work?

    I think evil is not possible without an ignorance of it in one's self. It's when a person is convinced that they are absolutely definitely a good person and that their ideas are definitely good for everyone in the world, that real evil becomes possible.

    Even if it's just due to sheer greed, that is also an ignorance of sorts, a huge lack of maturity basically.

    So how can ignorance be an excuse for doing evil when it's a prerequisite for evil to even happen? Basically, everyone that is evil, isn't aware of the fact.

    So, forgive everyone?

  54. So, forgive everyone?

    To me that is a tough issue. I first dealt with that concerning god. I do not know if there is a god but going on what Jesus said about god became clear to me that forgiveness was completely out of the question, because he would have to have something against humanity in the first place, and that will not fly. That is the first great lie that religion teaches, that one needs to be forgiven. Now concerning me personally, I have never been in a situation that I had a personal experience where I felt anything against anyone. Not to say I have never been betrayed or screwed over by others, but when I was young, and full of myself I really did not care what others thought or did. When I got older I just think they are ignorant to say or do what ever. That is not to say I agree with what people do but I think ignorance or lack of maturity is the cause of mistaken behavior that can deserve the label of evil. I do not think there is a possibility of any human being evil, but doing evil and being evil is altogether different. I would like to think I could forgive anyone for any type of behavior did to me, but I have never been put to a real serious test so I am not sure how I would respond. Although I could easily understand people not being able to forgive certain deeds done to them or their loved ones, but the price of not forgiving is extremely high for those that cannot find forgiveness in their hearts. A great sadness to be sure.

  55. I do not think there is a possibility of any human being evil, but doing evil and being evil is altogether different.
    I suppose I'm splitting hairs with my definitions of evil, but to me a person can certainly be totally and virtually irredeemably evil. Once they're programmed to believe that they're absolutely right and good and just and chosen and special and important etc, they become capable of much evil, and there are many that will never, ever break that programming. In fact, they are happy in it; they love it. They revel in it. They're PROUD of it. It is become the main girder of their entire personality. And so of course they put forth much effort to spread it to others as well. And they're good at it. They do spread it. Because they're so darn psyched about how great it is to be saved or whatever, they are good at selling it...

    To discard the programming at this point would be more difficult than discarding a limb; many would even die for it.

    Such a person I consider evil. Such a person, in extreme cases, could strangle me with their bare hands and then go have lunch, secure in the 'knowledge' that god is smiling at him.

    But that's just me.

  56. The only part I disagree with is about a person being evil as opposed to doing evil. There seems no end to the evil people do, I agree with that. I also think either of us could be right or wrong. I do respect you opinion as I see you as a sincere truth seeker.

  57. Splitting hairs. You seem to be thinking of metaphysical evil. No such thing. So I refer to those who do evil, and can never stop, do not even want to stop because they are convinced that they are not doing evil but are instead doing good in the world, as evil themselves. To me that's the closest thing to a metaphysical or spiritual evil.

  58. I think that the truth is that these people believe in magic.

    As the article explained, they 'believe' that everything is opinion.

    Scientific facts are to be accepted or not depending on whether they agree with their ideology.

    And of COURSE the religious agree with them, of course they do. To truly believe that believing in God and Jesus and praying to them is enough to stop that cancer or heal your body in any tangible way, you have to dismiss the skill of the doctor any time he prescribes the right medicine or cuts out the bad parts and give the credit to Jesus.

    They even explain that in their jokes. God sent people to pick up the man stuck in a flood, it was the lack of buying a ticket that the Jew couldn't win that lottery, scientists can't find God 'cos HE's laughing at them while hiding behind that mountain, and so forth.

    As science cuts off any hope that there is a spiritual realm, the last thing to be done is deny the validity of science itself, and there are plenty of scientifically illiterate people to cheer you on.

    2+2 can indeed be 5, if enough people are willing to believe it can be.

  59. If I have the proper understanding of the definition of metaphysical I am not into that. My understanding from what I have read is that it only goes for the inner life and considers the outer life as an illusion. By the same token I understand many think only the outer life is real and the inner life is an illusion. I think it is the balance of the two viewpoints that produce reality. From what I understand atheist for the most part is in the latter viewpoint. I think I understand your saying it is splitting hairs, however it is certainly not that way for me. I consider the difference between a person not being evil, but be able to do evil vs people being evil as being extreme viewpoints. The way I look at the thoughts we think as an inverted pyramid. One thought on the base with two at the next level, and so on up to the surface level of thinking that has a wide rage of thoughts. If people can actually be evil that would be a very basic philosophical idea, and color every thought above it. So that would permeate all thoughts, and how we look at ourselves as well as how we see each other.

  60. If people can actually be evil that would be a very basic philosophical idea, and color every thought above it. So that would permeate all thoughts, and how we look at ourselves as well as how we see each other.
    Yup. That's how I see it. And it does. Permeates all thoughts because all thoughts are seen through the filter of self-aggrandizement and self-righteousness and narcissism and egotism etc. So even good deeds that may be done are done for the wrong reasons. The evil is literally in every thought and deed. Because all thoughts are warped by them not believing in reality. They are belief-based. It permeates everything they do and say and think.

    Oh, and by metaphysical, I mean it in the old sense of 'near physics' or near to reality (but not) as in, supernatural. The realm of the spirit. A spiritual evil. Like as in, the devil and hell and all that drivel. I don't buy into metaphysical evil. It's all psychological.

  61. Someone should club Newt Gingritch like a baby seal.

  62. Someone on the Chris Matthews show today said that the democrats stand to lose the senate too this election.

    Really? I'm fucking blown away by that. I was thining that people could see what was going on now, with their huge over-reaches. I was thinking that we'd win the house back, not lose the senate. I swear, if that happens, we deserve to die as a country, which is precisely what we'll be doing.

    On planet earth the extremely stupid get pruned off the bio-tree eventually, and now, that's us. We're the new dodo.

  63. If that happens it won't matter that obama wins the next election. It might as well be sarah palin. The house and senate will run us right into the fucking ground in about three months. They're DYING to! They can't wait!

  64. I'm starting to not care about if we increase the debt limit.

    I mean, fuck us. We suck. We deserve what will happen, and maybe, just maybe, it will open a few eyes. Maybe it could be the best thing that ever happened to us, to be demoted to second- or even third-world status overnight. To have no credit in the world. To be the world's crumb-bums. That suits us now. That more accurately reflects who we are, who we've become as a nation.

    It fits.

    In fact I'm finding that I wish it gets so bad that republicans are practically hunted down in the streets for it. They made us what we are; they deserve the eventual credit.

  65. I dunno Brian. I couldn't believe that the House was lost and what's with all the Republican governors?

    If people just wanted a change in the action, all they seemed to succed in doing is moving the action from the Senate to the House.

    Blather, blather, blather about the budget while mostly throwing up bills to do with pro-life and anti-gay and getting the church into government.

    It's so obvious to me the only thing they stand 'for' is less taxation for the very rich and the opposite of anything the Democrats want.

    But there's 'business' Democrats TOO???

    WTF? This means that even with a majority the Dems can't count on all the Dems.

    I think that the U.S.Government has always been run by the rich, and really, they won, but they had no idea what to do with it. This idea about disenfranchizing just EVERYBODY isn't going to make your country 'better'.

    Look at MI and Observant. They have 'nothing'. They have nothing better than, "We know what you want and we're not wanting to let you have that!"

  66. Yeah, FDR struck back and then they figured out how to not ever let that happen again...

  67. It's depressing to be bringing up a young son in this country.

    His future looks a lot bleaker than it did when he was born.

    He'll be two in june. Incidentally, he's huge. Over 37 inches tall, and in four-year-old size clothes. Huge feet too. Kid's a monster.

    My love for him makes me a lot more angry at the stupidity than I would have been if he wasn't around.

    It's hard for a person who doesn't want to be a hater, to not hate the christorepublicans and those 'blue dog' type democrats for what they're doing to the country and the world. They're like evil infants trying to run the world. And somehow, they're winning.

  68. This willful ignorance of things scientific, this 'you think you're so smart but you don't know everything' attitude, is, I think, the reason my mom died of lung cancer even though she didn't smoke.

    At the time I just felt bad for her and it wasn't until recently that I remembered finding DMSO in her bathroom and complaining to her that it could hurt her really bad.

    But someone, 'her kind of person' had told her it was good for her and she explained to me in no uncertain terms that it was none of MY business.

    Still, I remember getting through to her one time. We were getting ready to go vote and I asked her if she thought that her grand-daughter ought to be put in jail if the police found a joint in her purse.

    Normally my mom would have scoffed at the idea of the Marijuana Party, but I think, putting it in terms of possible consequences to someone she loved actually made a breakthrough.

    Trouble is that people who think like my mother are easily swayed by the story. They love an anecdote by which they can come to some conclusion that they always knew they knew, whether they had any thoughts on the subject before or not.

    All it would have taken for my mom to vote for the most 'law and order' candidate would have been a friend of my mom telling the horrible story of how her kid was robbing her blind to get dope.

    I believe that most people, working people, people getting through each day thinking that if they 'do good' then good will come back to them are easily swayed by anecdotes, basically gossip.

    How much easier is it for a person to be affronted that anyone could be related to a monkey than to actually think about what evolution is about?

  69. Although you understood what I said, you missed the point I was trying to make. Let me try again. You have a basic though people can be evil. That colors your thinking and the results are not to your liking. It is a belief, not a fact, if what you think, people can be evil, and it is a belief not a fact people are not evil but do evil deeds. The point that I am trying to make is what does holding the different beliefs result in. Since there is direct consequences for holding one belief as opposed to the other, I think it important to understand the results. The first, and most apparent result is blaming others for one's anger. Other people do not cause one to be anger, one causes oneself to be anger directly linked to the thought pattern one holds. In other words you are causing your own anger. If I blame another person for my anger I am giving the other person control over my feelings, if I own that I am causing my anger by thinking certain thoughts, then I am in control of my emotions, anger or whatever the feeling is. As example is how I see the pope. I can calmly think about the pope without any anger or I can get very angry depending on my thought patterns, and the pope has nothing to do with it, just my thoughts. The reason I use the pope is because I consider him the lowest form of human life on the planet. Much lower that bin Laden, or others of that ilk.

  70. Is Your Religion Your Financial Destiny?

    Interesting. I hope the fundies read this.

    What am I saying. As if they read.

  71. Well, calling me a believer would be like me calling you a dogfucker, but okay...

    So you're saying that I believe that people are evil. Hmm. As opposed to whether I only think they are evil. Hmmm.

    Nope. I think they're evil. In fact, it's not even that big a deal to me. You're forgetting how I define evil jerry. I'm using a word, not getting emotional here. I'm categorizing those who are redeemable as not-evil but deceived, and those who are beyond ever recovering from their delusion, those who are the 'lifetime-deceived' as evil since if you think of them that way you'll not run into so many problems. They will always disappoint you, is the point. They're evil. But not Evil. Get it? You're thinking of Evil. I'm saying evil.
    Now some of them are so bad it SEEMS that they are Evil, but that's only cause they try so hard.

  72. Interesting article. I wonder what the difference is between reform Judaism, and conservative Jews? Is that a different belief system? I did not know secularism is considered a religion.

    The most affluent of the major religions — including secularism — is Reform Judaism. Sixty-seven percent of Reform Jewish households made more than $75,000 a year at the time the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life collected the data, compared with only 31 percent of the population as a whole. Hindus were second, at 65 percent, and Conservative Jews were third, at 57 percent.

  73. I do not use the word evil normally so it is vague to me. I do not understand the difference between Evil, and evil.

  74. Easy!

    Evil vs evil:

    Uppercase Evil is the devil and demons and hell and temptation from the devil etc.

    Lower case 'evil' is people under delusions. No satan required.

    These are my definitions, remember. Not necessarily the dictionary ones. I find them convenient, much like my 'belief vs thought' arguments.

  75. Jerry, when you really think about it, the most affluent, most sucessful religion, reform judeaism, is that way simply because they tend to be the smartest and most educated people. They do not put their beliefs ahead of actual facts.

    Reform judeaism = the most modern, least observant of the jews. Orthodox is the MOST observant most religious of the jews. Kinda like comparing sunday catholics or even holidays only catholics, to say a fundie baptist or methodist or whatever stripe.

  76. Yea, that article says more about how people are passing their abilities on to their kids and I think the religion part just happens to tag along.

    Jewish doctors and lawyers have kids who turn into Jewish doctors and lawyers, you say?

    Well, you coulda knocked ME over with a feather!


  77. The article was good for the most part, but the author is behind the curve on the wolf. We are beginning to be over run with them in Idaho. Idaho had way to many elk, and deer when they reintroduced the wolf, and I listened to the arguments to do so. I was surprised by the lack of knowledge of the natural cycle that would happen. The wolfs had so many groceries they multiplied rapidly, and now have become to plentiful. So now its becoming cattle and sheep, and before long dogs and cats. I think the reintroduction was a good idea but the problems that Idaho is experiencing was predictable. They sure are not endangered in Idaho, and probably Montana, though I have little knowledge of Montana.

  78. Click here: Abuse Crisis Pits Church Honesty Against Lawyers' Caution

    Interesting how this church differs from the Vatican way of dealing.
    Would some one help me with how to post a link correctly?

  79. How to insert a link

    If I tried to just type the html code to you it would not appear correctly since it is code that affects what is shown when posted. So go to the above link and it'll tell you how to insert a link into text.


    And it's a real 'revelation!'