Lord Mord

Members
  • Content count

    7,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord Mord

  • Rank
    And then there's Mord!
  • Birthday 09/05/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,032 profile views
  1. I'm still not clear, after watching this coverage for over an hour, just exactly who got hurt in this tumult. A lot ofpeople showed up, they were vociferous and Trump bolted. What am I not being told?
  2. US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

    Swordfish, The answer is still about the base. If you see the Devil coming, do you just dodge and feint his attacks? That's not a very heroic meme. Thinking about tactics isfor lily-livered appeasers and socialists. For the base, it's not enough to win by default -- you have to be seen winning, which means taking a stand.
  3. US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

    Nestor, I've heard it saidthat if the Republicans cave now and hold hearings or confirm a Justice that they will be torn to pieces, no matter how conservative the Justice. I have a hard time believing that most people are really paying that kind of attention, and there would be next to no consequences for going back on their pronouncement. What do you think?
  4. the archaeology of 'SJW'

    I had always thought that was largely assumed, in practice if not always explicitly in theory.
  5. Prunes, I appreciate your response and your candor. So, if the police are afraid to shut down this pedophilia ring due to PC reprisals, I presume it's not fear of the public directly which motivates them, but instead they fear reprisals from their employers. Their employers are, presumably, elected public officials who will need votes, and who fear a PC smear campaign in the next election. Have I got that all straight?
  6. Prunes, You also haven't answered my question. Indeed, respectfully, I don't see how it can have been considered an answer to my question at all. I was not interested in a specific incidence of political correctness, accurate or otherwise. I was asking if you were positing a definition for political correctness. Is political correctness by definition characterized by theinaccuracy of its criticisms?
  7. Prunes, Are you positing that the distinction between criticism and political correctness is that the former is always accurate and the latter is always in error?
  8. Prunes, Thank you. If you were to criticize a police department for racist conduct, why shouldn't everyone discount your complaint as mere political correctness?
  9. Prunes, I'm sorry, but this doesn't really answer any of my questions. My fault for bad phrasing and for trying to do too much at one go. I should break this down by individual questions, perhaps. Now, keep in mind, please, that at least some of these questions, including the very first one, I'm pretty sure I know the answer to. Yet, just to make sure I don't get ahead of myself again, I need to take it slowly. I appreciate your patience in bearing with me on this. First question: Do you believe that the people should criticize their police and other public officials if they have cause to believe the conduct of those officials is racially motivated?
  10. Prunes, I'm having a bit of difficulty here. You clearly aren't suggesting that police and politicians should be immune from public criticism when their practices are racist or bigoted, right? Aren't you concerned that if your worldview gained greater acceptance, then the police and politicians could deflect all criticism along those lines as political correctness? Why can't political correctness be that balance, between the apathy about racism that you are arguably projecting on the one hand, and the unthinking mob you are not completely accurately portraying on the other? Why can't you allow that political correctness can simply be anti-racist activism, good for purging the system, and not by definition a runaway train? Your caricature would, it seems to me, have to silence everyone into just accepting whatever the police do, even if it is to unfairly profile by skin color and religion. You are probably not particularly racist yourself, but whatever your intentions, you're giving the racists a billy club for smacking their wayback into their heyday and I just don't know why you would want to do that.
  11. Bloom County's Take on "Safe Spaces" (so far)

    The boy is perverting the notion of safe space and the father is abdicating his responsibility for drawing any distinctions. If the author's point is to make fun of the very idea of safe zones, then he's failing, because it reads to me as a critique of our failure to engage micro-aggressions seriously. What I read is that in this country, as observers of this phenomenon, we assume the role of the father, in that we're choosing to framethis as either/or. Either everybody can claim safety from some form of micro-aggression, to the point that we turn the very notion of responsibility itselfinto a micro-aggression, or else we have to disregard any talk ofzones andtrample on everyone's safety. Since the latter choice carries the greater opprobrium, the father chooses the former, when, of course, the truth is that we don't have to choose between these exaggerated concepts at all. If the author wants to actually tear down the very idea of safe zones, he'll have to be smarter about it.
  12. Religion vs Atheism Book 2

    Rorschach, If one is not subject to another's law, then one is subject to oneself alone, which is the definition of arbitrary.
  13. Religion vs Atheism Book 2

    Erik, Equally problematic is the fact that you never really know what God's morality is. If you go with your pastor, it's what your pastor says, not what God says. If you go from a book, it's what the publisher says, not what God says. If you go from what you feel inside after asking God about in deep and persistent prayer for weeks, then you're still just going from what you feel, like most of us. Sure, if we can ever identify the word of God, as such, then there's still big problems of either God's weakness or his arbitrariness. He's either relatively weak, because he's subject to a bigger universal law of what's good that he is powerless to change --or else he'sarbitrary,because he isn't. Yet,we'll never really get to that point of objectively identifying what his word is anyway, I think.
  14. Religion vs Atheism Book 2

    Stubby, Okay, this makes sense to me. I was reading the conflict as one of morality, and thereby assigning to you, as I now suppose, a position you probably do not hold. What I now believe you mean, is that religion offers certain remarks as "facts", which facts are contradicted by scientific evidence, and even by overwhelming consensus in many cases. If that's true, the only way to disprove you would be to offer all or nearly all of the facts which the various religions purport and show that science has upheld them, which of course is ludicrous. Anyway, thank you for being, in the main, patient, and at nearly all times, quite thorough. Also, sorry for missing the point for so long.
  15. Religion and Atheism

    Stubby, Where the viewpoint I'm providing would work in real life is like this: Suppose that instead of Jo, we were talking with a religious legislator, proposing the law which killed this woman. We object to its being based in religion. He says that science and religion needn't be opposed and says that his reasoning is entirely valid. Is he wrong? All other things equal, we can't know. For your position to be true and usable, for every instance of a religious argument, you have to find some invalid derivation, and given the infinite number of arguments possible, that is far from certain. If even one is logically derived from the assumptions, your position falls apart. My position, by contrast, makes everything simpler. "Valid?!" we cry. "Who gives a shit about valid? Ridiculously low bar to clear. Your conclusion is immoral on its face, as is at least one of your major assumptions." We shouldn't care if religion and science are compatible, because science is only an amoral tool. We should care if religious values are compatible with human rights and dignity, and where they aren't, reject them forcibly.