
...BUT, I Live for Moments like THIS!
First, I would humbly ask all who like me (yes, BOTH of you) to please indulge me this particular vice of mine. Secondly, this post was delayed a couple of days, due to a good friend and former professor requesting that I re-consider “humiliating” another blogger “merely for disagreeing with me.”
I did that (carefully considered this action) and I’ve decided to go forward with it because (1) I am not doing this to “humiliate” or embarrass anyone, and I’m not taking this extraordinary step merely because another person “merely disagreed with me,” (2) I DO NOT believe, as my friend offered, that this other person may be a juvenile or perhaps even “someone with some clinical emotional issues,” the blogger in question has been online since at least 2000, so I surmise they are at least in their late 20s and even IF he did suffer from some emotional issues, I don’t believe that requires that such views not be confronted and finally (3) during the time I was re-considering this action, that blogger chose, instead of deleting my comments to edit them instead...that seemed to invite and even necessitate this response.
I love to exchanging views and opinions and so I routinely do so both here, also in a vigorous email exchange with various people and in numerous other venues around the worldwide web.
One of my favorite things is going around to various sites and challenging views that I see as naïve, wrong-headed, misguided...or even evil. I do that fairly often and I'm always very open to hearing why certain people believe the things they claim to, whether I agree or not.
As background to all this, on the day after the worst jihadist terror on American soil since 9-11-01, a “Kos Kid” (my less than affectionate nickname for the army of misfits that Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga has gathered over at the D-Kos) who goes by the name of BlueWind (BlueWind at Blue and White Blog:
http://blueandwhite96.blogspot.com/) blogged about a BBC report about a Muslim couple sentenced to death by stoning in
That wasn’t a mere oversight or affront, in my view, that was pure and unadulterated America-hatred demonstrated by a reflexive disdain for the
BlueWind’s (BW) entry went like this;
From the BBC link above:
"Islamists in southern
and then the article continues:
"Abas Hussein Abdirahman, 33, was killed in front of a crowd of some 300 people in the port town of
"He was screaming and blood was pouring from his head during the stoning. After seven minutes he stopped moving," an eyewitness told the BBC.
That is an example of how horrendous and criminal theocratic beliefs can be. The criminals who killed this man probably believe they were acting in "gods will".
But where it gets even more scary and chilling, is this part:
"An official from the al-Shabab group said the woman would be killed after she has had her baby."
This is pure horror. An innocent woman is waiting to be killed after she delivers her baby, in the hands of a bizarre group of criminal theocrats. What is the civilized world doing to stop this? I hope that the United Nations and groups for civil liberties will do something to save this woman.
I also hope that the Obama administration and governments of other civilized parts of the world will try to interfere to stop the completion of that horrendous crime.
http://blueandwhite96.blogspot.com/2009/11/pure-horror.html
His previous blog entry was two days earlier on Wednesday when he commented about Tuesday, November 3rd’s Election Day results...nothing on Thursday or Friday about the terror attack at Fort Hood.
So, I responded like THIS;
“There’s an irony in your naïve ignorance BW.
“You deride these people for following their own moral dictates, their own strictly codified “morality,” such as it is, while you do the VERY SAME thing they do - “you assert that YOUR OWN “morality” (such as IT is) as “the only right one” ”.
“The fact is, ALL conventional moralities are arbitrary, capricious and ultimately, fictitious. The very concepts of “right and wrong” are religious concepts. With the West’s view rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Muslim world’s rooted in Islam’s Sharia (moral) laws.
“In ALL cases, however, as the great Robert Anton Wilson (RAW) so presciently said, “Reality is what you can get away with.”
“Since I’m not possessed of the lyrical gifts of RAW, I put it simply, “All morality is optional, as all morality is based on an arbitrary and capricious set of standards that serve those on top most of all.” And THAT works....for ALL of us!
“The Muslim world defends its moral strictures and its strict proscriptions against sexual indiscretions as serving to protect WOMEN.
“Their view is that an adulterer (male or female) puts their spouse/partner at risk for a myriad of STDs and other illnesses. Winking and nodding at such behaviors can be said to “weaken the familial bonds.”
“Whether we in the West accept that, or not, they ultimately, they have a right to interpret their morality as THEY see fit, just as you and I do ours.
“But you are really not all that different, at least not any less dogmatic and wrong-headed than they are, as you seem to believe inane things like, “violence never solves anything.”
“Worse yet, you naively seem to think most in the West share that view.
“I can assure you, they most certainly do NOT.
“As you probably already suspect, I don’t share that view at all.
“I KNOW that violence solves a myriad of problems.
“Our own moral conflict and
“I favor the latter, folks like yourself the former.
“The former (YOUR way... trying to “win hearts and minds” ALWAYS results ion failures like the one at
“See the difference?
“Much as I disdain your pseudo-morality, I accept your right to choose that (for YOURself)...not to foist it on others, of course, and NOT to even proselytize it to others. I accept that in the same vain that accept these Somali’s right to their own morality and moral dictates, as well as the Saudis, who recently sentenced a man to 50 lashes for merely “boasting about his sexual exploits in public,” and even more recently sentenced a pedophile to beheading, followed by his remains being crucified and put on display thereafter.
“That harsh, swift and merciless morality is simply, “their way,” just as your soft-jelly centered “let’s all just get along” morality is “your way.” Neither of you can be anything different than what you are.” (JMK)
<
<
“I would not expect any less idiotic comments from you JMK. You are doing fine in your classic tradition of total idiocy.” (BW)
<
<
I didn't just give you an opinion BW, I gave you a set of fundamental truths; the first is that morality ALL morality is rooted in religion....our Western concepts of "right" and "wrong" are rooted in the Biblical principles n which they are found.
There is NOTHING that anchors those concepts other than......religious traditions.
The second is that such traditions differ widely across cultures and yes, between INDIVIDUALS, as well.
No one should hold an opinion on human affairs, politics, economics, etc. without first understanding such a basic truth. Which is why I've said, nearly since I've known you, YOU should not be putting forth your views, they are too naive, too thoughtless, too devoid of reason and divorced from how the world operates to have any value.
That's not a criticism, it's an objective assessment. The fact that you have never been able to defend any of your views, indicates you haven't even really thought about them, let alone thought them through.
Suffice to say, the Muslim world's "morality," codified in its Sharia Laws IS the established "morality" for about 20% of this planet.
Just as we would not want Sharia Law foisted on the West, we have NO RIGHT to foist our own (and especially YOUR OWN...you hold to a pacifist morality that is a tiny minority within the Western tradition) moral dictates upon them.
Your "control freak" tendencies (your desire to control others who "have too much," don't act as you like," etc.) SHOULD BE incompatible with your professed affinity for freedom, but then again, you don't really understand that "freedom" is only SELF-OWNERSHIP, nothing more....so maybe that's part of the problem. (JMK)
<
<
"Self-ownership" is freedom? Do you really think you just made an intelligent point? You think you just had a unique idea? How does it feel being an idiot? Just curious.” (BW)
<
<
Again the main point isn't what you don't understand (that's virtually everything), but that you're sense of "We should STOP them from following their moral code," is the SAME view that THEY hold! You see, they want to "kill the infidel" precisely because we don't subscribe to their moral code.
That, in a nutshell, is what makes YOU and THEM the same.
In your case, your own "morality," such as it is, seems to be dependent on your whim at the moment.
After all, you didn't cry out that we should've stopped Saddam Hussein's regime when he was routinely putting people through plastic shredders, or filling mass graves with upwards of half a million bodies. No, then it was, "
And I agree that we had no right to stop practices we feel are barbaric, merely because we feel they are.
We DO have a right to protect our own interests, geo-political and economic, wherever those interests are, which is what we did later on, of course.
Almost typically, in the wake of the worst act of Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11/01 (Fort Hood) your sympathies go half a world away to two people who knowingly and willingly violated the moral precepts and laws (Sharia Law is the law of that country) in Somalia....NOT to the American service-people and their families impacted by this latest bout of Islamic terror. Perfectly "liberal," of you. (JMK)
<
<
JMK,
Keep up the idiotic comments. You may eventually brake the world record of idiocy (currently shared by your idol George W. Bush and by the woman of your dreams, Sarah Palin). (BW)
<
<
Yikes!
I guess you don't realize that it's always "the idiots" who can't defend what they believe in (hint: in this case, that would be YOU).
I've shown that morality is (1) fluid and continually open to change, (2) ALWAYS rooted in religious traditions and (3) relative, that is to say, differing widely across cultures and often between individuals as well.
Moreover, and this is the MOST ironic thing of all, YOUR assertion that We should go in there and stop these people from following their own moral dictates and their own moral code (Sharia law) is really functionally NO DIFFERENT than that which makes radicalized Islam so dangerous - their refusal to accept others following their own moral dictates.
In the end, BOTH YOU and the radical Islamists want to force your own morality on a group of unwilling others.
That's undeniable, given your initial statement "I also hope that the Obama administration and governments of other civilized parts of the world will try to interfere to stop the completion of that horrendous crime."
YOU want to enforce your own morality on these Sharia adherents, just as THEY want to enforce theirs on YOU and everyone else in the West.
I understand why you haven't made a single argument to defend your viewpoint....it's because you CAN'T. (JMK)
<
<
JMK,
I have been tolerating your incoherent rants, but I am getting tired of them. Next time I may ban you altogether. (BW)
<
<
Look, THIS is all I’ve wanted from the start, that you simply cede this argument and acknowledge that I’m right on this. Yes, you’d pretty much done that from the beginning by not defending what you claim to believe, but this is a much more clearer surrender.
I didn’t offer you an opinion here, BW, I explained some very basic facts, (1) that all morality is rooted in religious traditions, (2) that morality is fluid and differs widely across cultures, as well as between individuals within the same culture and (3) that people have a right to follow the moral precepts of their own innate culture.
On the day after the 2nd worst jihadist terror attack on U.S. soil, your heart goes out, not to America’s service-people gunned down by a jihadist in Fort Hood, but half a world away to two Muslims, who THEMSELVES adhere to the Muslim moral code, ensconced in Sharia Law, who are being punished, albeit in a most draconian way, to Western eyes, for violating their own culture’s moral precepts.
The irony in all this is that YOU then assert the SAME thing the jihadists do – that “All others should live by YOUR moral code.” The Islamists want the entire world ruled by Sharia and folks like you demand that the entire world live by your own version of Western morality.
You "think" of yourself as a caring person," but you're really a self-centered, mean-spirited control freak at heart. You don’t care about these victims of Sharia Law any more than you do the 13 dead soldiers at
The only odd thing about all this is that you don’t even get that irony. (JMK)
A day later, BW deleted all of my comments from his blog.
I took that as his surrender, at least his willingness to accept that he couldn’t defend what he claimed to believe (same thing).
In an email to my former teacher, I mentioned this and talked about blogging about this relatively minor “triumph” – getting a Leftist to openly admit, openly DEMONSTRATE that they don’t believe in dialogue or the free exchange of ideas and opinions, that they actually believe in stifling dissent and silencing all who disagree with them.
That friend suggested for a whole host of reasons (mostly concern for the other party) that I not do that and I DID very seriously consider that...UNTIL....BW subsequently edited my comments, which, in my view, as I said, both invited and necessitated some response.
Here are the edits BW left up;
Edited By Siteowner
![]()
I understand why you haven't made a single argument to defend your viewpoint....it's because you CAN'T. (JMK)
Edited By Siteowner
![]()
You "think" of yourself as a caring person," but you're really a self-centered, mean-spirited control freak at heart. (JMK)
Edited By Siteowner
JMK,
I have been tolerating your incoherent rants, but I am getting tired of them. Next time I may ban you altogether. (BW)
All I've wanted from the start was for you to throw in the towel and cede the discussion, which amounts to tacitly accepting that you acknowledge I'm right. You'd pretty much done that by failing to defend what you claim to believe, but I wanted more than
Edited By Siteowner
So, there it is!
I was able to get a far-Left “Kos Kid” to DEMONSTRATE his outright revulsion for the free exchange of ideas and opinions.
One of my friend’s rationales for not posting this was that BW’s views were “not Liberal ones at all,” but that’s untrue!
Sure, they aren’t traditional Liberal views, but they ARE very much in step with the bulk of those you'll find at the Daily Kos and the membership of organizations like MoveOn and MediaMatters. BW’s views are indeed VERY TYPICAL of today’s “far-Left.”
Bottom-line, I didn’t go out of my way to use BW as a weapon against illiberal Liberalism, he made HIMSELF one. I don't believe I've been at all unfair about this at all, though I'm open to any and all arguments to the contrary.
Moreover, I have no concerns about being challenged by BW or others of his ilk. I DO believe in the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions and of course, I CAN and WILL always defend what I believe in and confront that which I do not.
Come on! If BW didn’t confront me and defend his views on HIS site, he’s going to come here and find a voice to confront me on mine?
Hardly likely.






