Breaking: New Offical Democrat Party Logo

[_Droopy]

As much as I had fun with the logo I posted in the OP, what really makes satire work is the degree to which it incorporates a degree of truth in its poking of fun. Hence, you can't do better here than the classic representation:

[_Darth J]

Oh, God, Loran. I get dumber...

Is this even possible? I read this and that old Kiss song, "you got, got nothin' to lose" started running through my head.

Go back to that 6th Circuit thread and explain in your own words how stare decisis subverts the rule of law.

every time I read this f*****g b***s*** you post.

That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me, Darth.

No, see, Droopy, the thing is that a lot of the time, your parroting talking points and using the English language as a mastubatory tool instead of a method of communication is entertaining. As Chap once said of Simon Belmont, your consistent self-parody is weirdly enjoyable performance art. You're much funnier than a sitcom, because you're not pretending. But every now and then, your unintentional comedy gets sidetracked by assertions that are so fractally wrong that the pain of reading them outweighs the hilarity that you don't realize you bring to the table.

The failure to impose religious right value judgments on society is not nihilism.

Don't go there, Darth. You're in the deep end now.

It isn't nihilism to say, for example, that I think prostitution is wrong, but I think consenting adults should have the right to decide for themselves whether to participate in it. It's not nihilism to say that I have no interest in smoking marijuana, but I am opposed to a paternalistic government dictating what grown-ups put into their bodies. And all you ever do is regurgitate talking points that other people have told you to believe. So you telling me about the deep end is like a 12 year-old boy with the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue telling me what sex is like.

It's not really that hard to conceptualize the difference between the legal right to do something and the moral choice about whether and how to exercise that right.

So all things legal are not moral, but let's ask the question: should all immoral things be legal, or are there limits and boundaries past which legalization of certain immoral culturally acidic things become a threat to the very open, liberty maximizing political/social order that allows and protects those extensions of legal right?

No, "all things legal are not moral" means that if something is legal, it is not moral. Consenting adults doing things in private that don't affect you does not threaten social order. This sophomoric question that you apparently believe to be profound implies that you don't think your personal value judgments can withstand the "free marketplace of ideas."

And as long as you're mentioning Korihor, go ahead and throw in Darth Vader or Voldemort or the Wicked Witch of the West.

Korihor's a far more interesting character.

I'm glad to know that you find a one-dimensional straw man caricature of an atheist to be so interesting.

[_Darth J]

So, so far over your head, but to the wicked, as Paul tells us, the gospel, or any one or body of its truths, are "foolishness."

As Joseph said, "The devil has great power to deceive; he will so transform things as to make one gape at those who are doing the will of God.”

Oh, look. The lawn boy with a high school diploma is telling me that I am in over my head.

Joseph Smith has got me beat, though. The number of teenage girls I have convinced to marry me so her family will go to heaven currently stands at zero.

[_Droopy]

Go back to that 6th Circuit thread and explain in your own words how stare decisis subverts the rule of law.

Given the degree to which law and legalism bores me insensate and the impossibility of having a rational, intellectually honest airing of opposing views with you, no thanks. Unfortunately, because law has, to such a degree, displaced principle and serious, critical thought in the managing of society's many quandaries, some knowledge of it is, indeed necessary.

You well represent law and the legal profession's worst and darkest aspects

[_Darth J]

Go back to that 6th Circuit thread and explain in your own words how stare decisis subverts the rule of law.

Given the degree to which law and legalism bores me insensate and the impossibility of having a rational, intellectually honest airing of opposing views with you, no thanks. Unfortunately, because law has, to such a degree, displaced principle and serious, critical thought in the managing of society's many quandaries, some knowledge of it is, indeed necessary.

You well represent law and the legal profession's worst and darkest aspects

No, Droopy, please educate me. You make a lot of emphatic, conclusory assertions about law and the court system. That must mean that you know what you're talking about. I wouldn't want any lurkers to be left with the impression that you are just parroting talking points you don't understand.

[_Droopy]

No, Droopy, please educate me. You make a lot of emphatic, conclusory assertions about law and the court system. That must mean that you know what you're talking about. I wouldn't want any lurkers to be left with the impression that you are just parroting talking points you don't understand.

The higher mysteries of Trul Khor give me all the insight I need.

That, and the power of Grayskull, which I only deploy as a last resort...

[_beastie]

This place is really bizarro-world sometimes. The republican party was absolutely whipped this last election. Yeah, they held onto to the house, but that was only due to redistricting. The Democrats actually won the popular vote there, too. Yet bcspace and droopy act like the Democrats are the whining losers.

[_Darth J]

No, Droopy, please educate me. You make a lot of emphatic, conclusory assertions about law and the court system. That must mean that you know what you're talking about. I wouldn't want any lurkers to be left with the impression that you are just parroting talking points you don't understand.

The higher mysteries of Trul Khor give me all the insight I need.

That, and the power of Grayskull, which I only deploy as a last resort...

Here's why this is funny. You insisted that Trulkor did not exist. This was based on your illustrious martial arts career, which has consisted of taking a few classes during the disco era, looking at unverified trivia in some self-described "enyclopedia" of martial arts, and watching low-budget kung fu porn. Like everything else you pontificate about, you're not basing anything you say on personal knowledge or experience. Then you found out that there really is a martial art called Trulkor, just like I told you. And even when you found out that it's a real thing, you continue to insist that I just made it up. That's because the fantasy world in which you live is impervious to fact, and because you don't know what to do when spouting axioms and talking points that you don't even understand fails to impress anyone who knows what they're talking about.

So again, Droopy, please show me the trenchant insight and substantive understanding behind your comment that Dixon v. University of Toledo is another leftist victory over the rule of law. Explain to me exactly how this case demonstrates the triumph of form and procedure over principle in the American legal system.

Or you could just continue to concede by your deflections that you're incapable of forming an original thought, and you simply regurgitate religious and political dogma that you don't understand, but which other people have told you to believe.

[_Droopy]

quote="Droopy"

No, Droopy, please educate me. You make a lot of emphatic, conclusory assertions about law and the court system. That must mean that you know what you're talking about. I wouldn't want any lurkers to be left with the impression that you are just parroting talking points you don't understand.

The higher mysteries of Trul Khor give me all the insight I need.

That, and the power of Grayskull, which I only deploy as a last resort...

Here's why this is funny. You insisted that Trulkor did not exist.

No, actually that's not what I said. I had never heard of "Trul Khor," but upon doing a little Google search, I found that it was a form of Tibetan tantric magic. This was not the same as "Trulkor," however, which I then found was a very obscure martial art claimed by some to be an antecedent of Ninjutsu, but also found that this was purely speculative and was an open question among actual Ninjutsu practitioners.

This was based on your illustrious martial arts career, which has consisted of taking a few classes during the disco era, looking at unverified trivia in some self-described "enyclopedia" of martial arts, and watching low-budget kung fu porn.

You continue to deteriorate psychologically and intellectually, at ever increasing velocity, Darth, so I have no more interest in fielding your adolescent provocations.

[_Darth J]

No, actually that's not what I said. I had never heard of "Trul Khor," but upon doing a little Google search, I found that it was a form of Tibetan tantric magic. This was a different Trulkor, however, and I then found another with the same name that was a very obscure martial art claimed by some to be an antecedent of Ninjutsu, but also found that this was purely speculative and was an open question among actual Ninjutsu practitioners.

Nope. You did your little Wikipedia search, because like everything you pontificate on, you are relying on a superficial reading of trivia, rather than actual experience or knowledge. (And by the way, Droopy, you're begging the question here, since the issue was what "authentic ninjitsu" is. Maybe you could find an old Black Belt magazine or something to look that up, since you have no experience to draw upon.)

This is what you said.

Wikipedia defines Trulkor as:

Quote:
a Himalayan tantric discipline which includes breathwork (or pranayama), meditative contemplation (or dhyana) and precise dynamic movements (or Body work) to centre the practitioner and to engender the body-mind precision of a keened instrument.


Yup, that sounds like authentic Ninjitsu alright. I'm sure Stephen K Hays would agree. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25060&p=618648&hilit=trulkor#p618648

The obvious implication of your statement was that you are asserting that it did not exist, on the bases of (1) you had never heard of it, and (2) it wasn't on Wikipedia. But since your martial arts career has consisted of a few classes when Starsky and Hutch was on TV, and uncritically accepting what you have read in a book of unverified trivia, there is no reason to expect that you should have heard of anything particularly esoteric.

This was based on your illustrious martial arts career, which has consisted of taking a few classes during the disco era, looking at unverified trivia in some self-described "enyclopedia" of martial arts, and watching low-budget kung fu porn.

You continue to deteriorate psychologically and intellectually, at ever increasing velocity, Darth, so I have no more interest in fielding your adolescent provocations.

Maybe you could share with me your martial arts experience that is more in depth than that? In any case, why have you abandoned any interest in fleshing out your assertions about the ruling in Dixon v. University of Toledo, and the generalizations you seek to draw from it about the legal system? Why don't you give readers of this board a real treat and show that you have more to offer than rote recitation of talking points and uninformed babble?

Incidentally, I notice you believe that I am deteriorating psychologically. This is curious, since you have asserted that psychology is not a science. My undergraduate degree is in psychology, Droopy. Would you please enlighten me as to how psychology is not a science? Maybe you could start by telling me what your undergraduate degree is, so we know where we're staring from.