Comments on: The Democratization Of Intellectual Dementia http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/ Summum nec metuas diem, nec optes - Marcus Valerius Martialis Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:00:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Dan http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26718 Dan Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:04:55 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26718 "I thought the Defense of Marriage act was meant to define marriage, not ban gays. Under the definition of marriage (a union between a man and a woman) I do not know one American who has been banned from marriage. For example, McGreevey was allowed to marry twice so how can it be stated that gays cannot marry?" This is far and away the stupidest thing I've ever read. I'm hoping this is your just a poor attempt at sarcasm and literal humor. “I thought the Defense of Marriage act was meant to define marriage, not ban gays. Under the definition of marriage (a union between a man and a woman) I do not know one American who has been banned from marriage. For example, McGreevey was allowed to marry twice so how can it be stated that gays cannot marry?”

This is far and away the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. I’m hoping this is your just a poor attempt at sarcasm and literal humor.

]]> By: syn http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26506 syn Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:03:31 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26506 I thought the Defense of Marriage act was meant to define marriage, not ban gays. Under the definition of marriage (a union between a man and a woman) I do not know one American who has been banned from marriage. For example, McGreevey was allowed to marry twice so how can it be stated that gays cannot marry? I thought the Defense of Marriage act was meant to define marriage, not ban gays. Under the definition of marriage (a union between a man and a woman) I do not know one American who has been banned from marriage. For example, McGreevey was allowed to marry twice so how can it be stated that gays cannot marry?

]]> By: syn http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26504 syn Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:56:43 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26504 Dan That is right, Roe vs Wade was not judicated by faith so why then do you keep bring up Christians? I wasn't aware that gays need to appear gay however I am aware identity politics demands such appearance. What does a gay look like anyway? Dan
That is right, Roe vs Wade was not judicated by faith so why then do you keep bring up Christians?

I wasn’t aware that gays need to appear gay however I am aware identity politics demands such appearance. What does a gay look like anyway?

]]> By: The Scratching Post http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26503 The Scratching Post Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:55:26 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26503 <strong>The Time of the Rapture Draws Ever Closer...</strong> The fools! They will know not when the hour draws nigh. They have put their faith in worthless things such as politics, money and pet lizards... The Time of the Rapture Draws Ever Closer…

The fools! They will know not when the hour draws nigh. They have put their faith in worthless things such as politics, money and pet lizards…

]]> By: Black Jack http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26489 Black Jack Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:02:20 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26489 It's an unbeatable combination of technology and human behavior. Technology advances to the point where we have the ability to record and playback a self reinforcing loop, that combines with the most powerful theory for predicting human behavior: monkey see, monkey do. There you have it. It’s an unbeatable combination of technology and human behavior. Technology advances to the point where we have the ability to record and playback a self reinforcing loop, that combines with the most powerful theory for predicting human behavior: monkey see, monkey do.

There you have it.

]]> By: Dan http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26471 Dan Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:40:53 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26471 Yes, I know what the ammendment was for. I don't think I've twisted anything around. The ban started on the Christian right. I've never voted for Hillary Clinton so i don't really see your point. Are you saying that Democrats can be as bigoted as Republicans? Fine. "Idiots, yes." Well I guess all's fair. I call you an idiot at least twice a day... Yes, I know what the ammendment was for. I don’t think I’ve twisted anything around. The ban started on the Christian right. I’ve never voted for Hillary Clinton so i don’t really see your point. Are you saying that Democrats can be as bigoted as Republicans? Fine.

“Idiots, yes.”

Well I guess all’s fair. I call you an idiot at least twice a day…

]]> By: Gaius http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26466 Gaius Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:22:46 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26466 Dan, The attempt to amend the US constitution was to ban gay marriage - which I called a bad idea at the time. It was also championed by Hillary Clinton. Let's not twist that arond, shall we? Nor do I label people as traitors. Idiots, yes. Dan, The attempt to amend the US constitution was to ban gay marriage – which I called a bad idea at the time. It was also championed by Hillary Clinton. Let’s not twist that arond, shall we? Nor do I label people as traitors. Idiots, yes.

]]> By: K T Cat http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26462 K T Cat Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:15:24 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26462 Ha! Let them think that and worry about threats that don't exist. The fools! All the time the Feline Theocracy grows larger right under their very noses. Soon it will be too late. We shall be too strong to stop as we rise up and demand tuna! Ha! Let them think that and worry about threats that don’t exist. The fools! All the time the Feline Theocracy grows larger right under their very noses. Soon it will be too late. We shall be too strong to stop as we rise up and demand tuna!

]]> By: Dan http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26461 Dan Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:15:19 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26461 No one's faith was judicated in Roe v. Wade. That's the point. No one is saying, you have to have an abortion, regardless of your religious belief. On the flip-side, the Christian GOP is ALWAYS willing to legislate their faith without EVER considering the fact that not everyone is Christian. "Liberalism was destroyed by Collectivist conformity." You mean the kind of Collectivist conformity that would ammend the US Constitution to make sure no one can ever appear gay? That kind of conformity? Or maybe the one where anyone who doesn't agree with the war or the pretexts for it is a traitor? Syn, it's becoming increasingly difficult to take you even a little bit seriously. No one’s faith was judicated in Roe v. Wade. That’s the point. No one is saying, you have to have an abortion, regardless of your religious belief. On the flip-side, the Christian GOP is ALWAYS willing to legislate their faith without EVER considering the fact that not everyone is Christian.

“Liberalism was destroyed by Collectivist conformity.”

You mean the kind of Collectivist conformity that would ammend the US Constitution to make sure no one can ever appear gay? That kind of conformity? Or maybe the one where anyone who doesn’t agree with the war or the pretexts for it is a traitor?

Syn, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to take you even a little bit seriously.

]]> By: syn http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26451 syn Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:39:36 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26451 How come liberals use the word 'right to choice' instead of calling it what it is: abortion? That said, how can a liberal believe in the Dred Scott decision or rather the idea that females have the right to own another human being? Whose faith was judicated under Roe vs. Wade? As an aside, from a scientific point of view with the advances made in technology it is becoming increasingly difficult to state scientifically that a fetus is not a human being. However, commonsense will state that when the baby exits the birth canal never has one come out a sheep dog. What about people who argue against abortion with non-religious arguments? Most likely answer to the above questions is that liberals have been conned by Marx Statist with words and actions that do not exist under Liberalism. Frankly, Liberalism died the day JFK was shot dead. Liberalism was destroyed by Collectivist conformity. In any case, it is difficult for me to believe in this bizarre Christocrat fear since the majority of Americans are basically forbidden to mention the 'Christ' word in the public arena. How come liberals use the word ‘right to choice’ instead of calling it what it is: abortion?

That said, how can a liberal believe in the Dred Scott decision or rather the idea that females have the right to own another human being?

Whose faith was judicated under Roe vs. Wade?

As an aside, from a scientific point of view with the advances made in technology it is becoming increasingly difficult to state scientifically that a fetus is not a human being. However, commonsense will state that when the baby exits the birth canal never has one come out a sheep dog.

What about people who argue against abortion with non-religious arguments?

Most likely answer to the above questions is that liberals have been conned by Marx Statist with words and actions that do not exist under Liberalism. Frankly, Liberalism died the day JFK was shot dead. Liberalism was destroyed by Collectivist conformity.

In any case, it is difficult for me to believe in this bizarre Christocrat fear since the majority of Americans are basically forbidden to mention the ‘Christ’ word in the public arena.

]]> By: Dan http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26444 Dan Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:57:30 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26444 "True believers dismiss facts and rely instead on factoids analyzed endlessly until they become mammoth structures. That the structures are constructed on a foundation of sand and completely out of playing cards fazes them not at all." Sounds a lot like conservative thought on the justification for the Iraq war. Keep in mind I'm still not explaining my stance on the war before you tell me I'm giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. Your (repetitive) hypocrisy aside, I find it pretty ammusing that you don't think that ultra-Christianism is running rampant through the Republican party. I'm not a Christiaphobe. Far from it. I completely respect everybody else's right to believe in whatever God they want. I take issue with ultra-Christian's desire to legislate the aspects of their faith into federal government, which effectively infringes on my own right to believe in whatever. If you don't believe that is happening, you are a victim of the factoid-mentality you so eagerly criticize. “True believers dismiss facts and rely instead on factoids analyzed endlessly until they become mammoth structures. That the structures are constructed on a foundation of sand and completely out of playing cards fazes them not at all.”

Sounds a lot like conservative thought on the justification for the Iraq war. Keep in mind I’m still not explaining my stance on the war before you tell me I’m giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.

Your (repetitive) hypocrisy aside, I find it pretty ammusing that you don’t think that ultra-Christianism is running rampant through the Republican party. I’m not a Christiaphobe. Far from it. I completely respect everybody else’s right to believe in whatever God they want. I take issue with ultra-Christian’s desire to legislate the aspects of their faith into federal government, which effectively infringes on my own right to believe in whatever. If you don’t believe that is happening, you are a victim of the factoid-mentality you so eagerly criticize.

]]> By: reddog http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/comment-page-1/#comment-26441 reddog Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:36:01 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/10/11/the-democratization-of-intellectual-dementia/#comment-26441 I commonly hear christians state that abortion is murder and that those that have them or perform them are murderers and should be treated as such. How should a liberal with a deep belief in the right to chioce take that one. I commonly hear christians state that abortion is murder and that those that have them or perform them are murderers and should be treated as such. How should a liberal with a deep belief in the right to chioce take that one.

]]>