Jeff, "Thank you for your always unique perspective" is shorthand for:
You've yet again engaged in the same-old, same-old weird semantics you engage in when backed against a wall. You oppose illegal immigration yet have no problem with American citizens fleeing into Mexico to avoid prosecution for illegal actions. You've tried to make a quaint distinction between "persecution" and "prosecution" in an attempt to make it seem like fleeing the US for breaking the law is somehow okay in your book as long as there is a religious impetus, even though those who fled never asked for asylum but rather just left to avoid legal ramifications, but that's par for the course.
Also, you've shown how disgusted you are by people's focus on Romney's religion and family background but I don't recall such OMG OUTRAGE when the Tea Party and other assorted libertarians freaked the hell out over Obama's potential and completely unproven religious associations and the fact that his father was Kenyan. Again, it's strange that you have made such a stand but then again, you're very concerned about the historical abuse against Mormons. So maybe that explains the logical inconsistency. But wait, it sort of makes no sense when you've given virtually no care at all to other, similarly stigmatized religious group. But we all know there will be some extreme uber-rational gymnastic wherein you show how utterly logical your completely inconsistent stance is.
Even better, bringing these things up with you will bring no real resolution. There will be no introspection wherein you wonder if there maybe, just maybe, is a problem in how you address liberal versus conservative ideas. It will just be the same thing I experience every time I interact with you, and only you specifically.
So to sum up: Jeff says A, which makes no sense when one considers how he thinks about B and C. When confronted, Jeff makes a specious conflation as to how he is making sense, and perhaps it does make sense in a twisted, letter of the law sort of way, but violates the spirit of the law and leaves everyone involved feeling something akin to existential despair because engaging in such bad faith over and over again with people tends to make them think that perhaps putting effort into such dishonest debate is a waste of their time, given that the same thing happens over and over and over and over again.
So, in closing, if you get to say and do the same thing over and over again, why can't I engage in a bit of shorthand to make the ennui experienced from the sheer, unthinking repetition of it all a bit easier to swallow?
Just a thought. And I hope this contribution is real enough.
no subject
You've yet again engaged in the same-old, same-old weird semantics you engage in when backed against a wall. You oppose illegal immigration yet have no problem with American citizens fleeing into Mexico to avoid prosecution for illegal actions. You've tried to make a quaint distinction between "persecution" and "prosecution" in an attempt to make it seem like fleeing the US for breaking the law is somehow okay in your book as long as there is a religious impetus, even though those who fled never asked for asylum but rather just left to avoid legal ramifications, but that's par for the course.
Also, you've shown how disgusted you are by people's focus on Romney's religion and family background but I don't recall such OMG OUTRAGE when the Tea Party and other assorted libertarians freaked the hell out over Obama's potential and completely unproven religious associations and the fact that his father was Kenyan. Again, it's strange that you have made such a stand but then again, you're very concerned about the historical abuse against Mormons. So maybe that explains the logical inconsistency. But wait, it sort of makes no sense when you've given virtually no care at all to other, similarly stigmatized religious group. But we all know there will be some extreme uber-rational gymnastic wherein you show how utterly logical your completely inconsistent stance is.
Even better, bringing these things up with you will bring no real resolution. There will be no introspection wherein you wonder if there maybe, just maybe, is a problem in how you address liberal versus conservative ideas. It will just be the same thing I experience every time I interact with you, and only you specifically.
So to sum up: Jeff says A, which makes no sense when one considers how he thinks about B and C. When confronted, Jeff makes a specious conflation as to how he is making sense, and perhaps it does make sense in a twisted, letter of the law sort of way, but violates the spirit of the law and leaves everyone involved feeling something akin to existential despair because engaging in such bad faith over and over again with people tends to make them think that perhaps putting effort into such dishonest debate is a waste of their time, given that the same thing happens over and over and over and over again.
So, in closing, if you get to say and do the same thing over and over again, why can't I engage in a bit of shorthand to make the ennui experienced from the sheer, unthinking repetition of it all a bit easier to swallow?
Just a thought. And I hope this contribution is real enough.