This is getting boring (see previous clips) and monotonous! (see Curly from the Stooges) so here’s an idea…I’m gonna see if the DDOS attack – designed to prevent people from accessing my site – generates over 10,000 hits today.
My point in doing this would be to display the logic of Crusading Antitheism. Because, OF COURSE, the point of this DDOS attack is purely logical.
They simply want to achieve a desired result.
There is NO emotion behind it whatsoever. It is an utterly and completely logical, emotionless tactical maneuver.
Total Hits: 8,850 (My GOD this is gonna be close!!!)
Again, to emphasize…ABSOLUTELY no emotion or illogic…ABSOLUTELY none…and when I say “none”, well…see as follows:
No, No, I SWEAR! This is NOT orchestrated to get hits! There REALLY ARE people trying to DDOS my site! You can’t blame me for their incompetence.
Quick Note: Now, *I* cannot claim the same purity of logic as the DDOS attackers. You see, they are purely logical, unemotional beings…whereas *I* am laughing my a$$ off. My weakness, I admit.
Ok, so, I’d just like to say hello to all the completely logical, unemotional CA/A’s who couldn’t care less about my views…and, I want to say something else…and I don’t want you to take this the wrong way…but you’re not very GOOD DDOS attackers, are you?
If you’re gonna try to talk to me – and I don’t know you – allow me to display how *I* feel about BS and propaganda.
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Very good scene from a great movie. Displays what I consider an admirable attitude toward BS.
Message: If you have something to say, say it. If you BS/prop, it’s not gonna have ANY better chance of a positive outcome for you; at best, it will have no influence whatsoever so you’re just being a colossal moron by wasting your time (and mine).
“Mr. Ambassador, you have nearly a hundred naval vessels operating in the North Atlantic right now. Your aircraft has dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet. Now, shall we dispense with the bull?”
If the BEST that climate change deniers can do is to point out in
“See??? Nyah nyah nyah!” fashion that 97 percent is not the PRECISE number for scientists that (insert level of belief in climate change, man’s role in climate change, available proof of man’s role in climate change, etc…) believe…please – you’re giving me deja vu to the days when cigarettes weren’t “absolutely proven” to be bad for you.
We – along with scientists and cigarette companies – knew cigarettes were bad for you LONG BEFORE it was “proven”. Come on…gimme a break.
The only thing the “proof” delay proved is that scientists are humans, and like getting huge piles of cash from X to say/not say something.
One of my favorite bits of antitheist nonsense is the antitheist’s version of the religious refrain that “the only people who are truly saved are X” where X = a specific religion, as supplied by resident antitheist truth-teller (well, sort of) Penn Jillette:
“The only people with true morality are us, the atheists.”
What you mean “us”, illusionist?
As for 97 percent not being the precise number for “scientists who believe climate change is happening and is significantly influenced by man”, perhaps…
But that’s only because some scientists:
– Haven’t stated such a belief and/or
– Are the same “See, it’s fine!” minority (and no matter WHAT stats you look at, they ARE in FACT a minority) that cigarette companies were able to pay enough to get away with poisoning peoples’ lungs DECADES after they KNEW they were doing so.
Why do these new Durex dancing tights go baggy at the…errr…nevermind.
Here’s a good question: So, anything mentioning or referencing Nazi Germany in any way is automatically a logical fallacy…ummm…righhhtttt…
Here’s the thing: The reason mentioning Nazi Germany during an argument or debate, EVEN IF the reference is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND PRECISE, is a logical fallacy (supposedly) is:
It sheds an unfair or inappropriate light on X or Y, where X and Y are two sides to a debate or argument.
So, basically, this is saying “You cannot use propaganda to influence the outcome of a debate/discussion/etc.”
Which is a nice, cute little thought.
But think about it. Give it THE SLIGHTEST amount of thought.
A reference to Nazi Germany/Hitler/etc is an INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS prop move – even if it’s not meant that way.
So…you CANNOT use incredibly obvious propaganda, or it’s a logical fallacy (even if your point is, in fact, true)…BUT…
If you’re smart/manipulative enough to use NON-obvious propaganda to influence thought/outcome/etc…that’s fine?
Propaganda is propaganda. The “best” (that is to say, most effective) propaganda is NOT RECOGNIZABLE AS PROPAGANDA. It comes across as “fair” when it is, in fact, simply well-disguised propaganda.
So, it’s ok to use propaganda when it’s done subtly? If you can get away with a prop argument, it’s fine?
Bullsh1t. Write down all the “logical fallacy” descriptions, roll them up, throw them away, and just TALK…person to person, real to real.
Instead of making up all these rules, just stick with one, as paraphrased from Jim Carrey in ‘Liar Liar’:
(Exchange “breaking the law” with “trying to bullsh1t people”):
First, let me apologize in advance for these ad nauseum DPT’s.
I’ve finally figured it out.
When quasi-intellectuals insert obligatory Latin and/or obligatory semi-“scientific” terminology into their otherwise normal English speech (verbal or written), it’s done for three reasons.
1 – It allows them to retain an aura of superiority, whether anything they say has any validity or not. The second has no intrinsic connection to the first, of course.
2 – They’ve studied certain programmed, computerized responses to certain specific things to such a point where they have in fact BECOME “computerized” to an extent; in much the same way that Diane Chambers (and I love Diane Chambers, but it is what it is) inserts random French words and phrases into her speech for no adequately explored reason other than she feels superior and is “demonstrating” her superiority by showing her advanced intellect; in fact, while certain very common words and phrases are actually part of normal English vernacular for most people, *most* of her “improvements” are both amusing and actively counter-productive…often noone else has the slightest idea what she’s talking about, and so in terms of communication, she is behaving in a most illogical fashion. If her point is to display superiority for no other reason than to say “ha ha I’m smarter than you are”, she succeeds. Else she fails, since to intentionally use phrasing that you know will INHIBIT communication is DAMAGING to the act of communication, serving no useful purpose other than the ego-padding of the speaker.
5) Dick Dawk is a c@ck. I would say the same about Chris Hitchens, but at this point he’s probably more accurately described as a pile of decaying organic matter in some state of decomposition that cannot be PRECISELY defined, but which probably has lost the complete set of twigs and berries.
Anna never started off “writing” a song…she would play, and let it take her where it did. She would make notes, she would play repeatedly, slowly, every note touching her and judging each as just right/or not. These were the only two categories because all must eventually become the first, and she was in no hurry to do so.
And after playing it MANY, MANY times, she would take permanent “notes”…but these wouldn’t have (musical) notes in them, they would consist of indications, moods, instructions, echoes, pieces of her soul and herself. This would grow and be unreadable as music, silly and useless to anyone else. Scribblings. But that wouldn’t matter, because it didn’t have to mean anything to anyone else, ever.
All it ever had to do was mean something to her. To be a piece of her husband, of herself, of the spirit and love that connected the two and always would, of that which she could not and would not ever want to define – beyond and above words, more than a definition.
And every aspect, every hint of every piece of music she played and felt, in this way, was beyond description, a version in beauty of Cane/Cthulhu’s indescribable horror…things that exist that can not be adequately described, for the words do not exist. Beyond, above, past them. More than them.
Only in her music, it was love and devotion, not horror and insanity. And in this she was shrouded forever; comfortable and happy, content, in any circumstance…untouchable to the minor annoyances of the world outside of this place of magic. And in this haven, how could she possibly be sad?
John Heard gets his money and runs…i wonder if that was actually how he was paid, and if that was what he had to drink to agree to be in this?
Now, the main evil guy…was it in the script for him to lazily eat nuts on some guy’s office sofa or was it his “inspired” improv? “…hey! If I ate nuts on this guy’s sofa, I’d look really creepy and it’d be like, foreshadowing and stuff!”
Way too many eye and head adjustments, way too many (uninspired) voice adjustments.
When did they create a combo-clone of Buckwheat and Snoop Dogg?
Why did I have a feeling the quasi-goth chick would be the nastiest contestant?
Is anyone still reading this?
Was any of the … “philosophy” in this supposed to be actual, coherent philosophy? Acknowledging that everyone has a Light side and a Dark side, and accepting that as part of human nature…the truly Evil here, as in life, are those that initiate evil acts, not those who are forced to respond to them.
It’s a close call which is better written and acted; this, or the Chris Farley “Japanese Game Show” sketch from SNL.
And if you’re waiting for a “twist”…it ain’t worth it.
There’s a parade of IQ’s to choose from, but I think one of the best is “Undeniably suspenseful” from the front cover. I mean, they’ll admit that there’s a certain basic level of suspense, but they don’t sound too happy about it.
Inspirational Quote: “…gonna have to, take one for the team.”