Lord Mord

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord Mord

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

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,434 profile views
  1. Lew, I don't know that anyone gets to claim a monopoly on honesty of interpretation. Certainly, I don't see the rationale for saying it. I had thought, though, that the whole purpose of writing the Constitution in such a spare, and sometimes vague manner was to set down the general shape of some of notions, knowing those shapes would be colored in somewhat differently in the following age, without destroying the document. That sounds to me like something that evolves, even without amendment. They wanted it to bend, so it wouldn't have to break. Indeed, if your description were accurate, then surely we could not assume that the First Amendment protects anything particularly which appears on the internet, nor that the Second Amendment should protect our rights to automatic weapons. Those things were not what was meant at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. Those rights, therefore, don't exist, because the document is strictly limited to what was intended at the time, right? Or, I suppose I must have missed something? Please help me understand.
  2. It has been a while. Nice to see some things nevertheless change. Of course it's a pun without the word "bitch", and of course it's misogynistic regardless of its being a pun, or brief, or whatever. There is no gender-associated word equivalent for referring to males, and if there were, we shouldn't use it. We ought not employ a person's gender against him or her, right?
  3. I'm still not clear, after watching this coverage for over an hour, just exactly who got hurt in this tumult. A lot of people showed up, they were vociferous and Trump bolted. What am I not being told?
  4. 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 is for 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.
  5. Nestor, I've heard it said that 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?
  6. I had always thought that was largely assumed, in practice if not always explicitly in theory.
  7. 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?
  8. 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 the inaccuracy of its criticisms?
  9. 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?
  10. 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?
  11. 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?
  12. 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 way back into their heyday and I just don't know why you would want to do that.
  13. 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 frame this 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 itself into a micro-aggression, or else we have to disregard any talk of zones and trample 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.
  14. Rorschach, If one is not subject to another's law, then one is subject to oneself alone, which is the definition of arbitrary.
  15. 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's arbitrary, because he isn't. Yet, we'll never really get to that point of objectively identifying what his word is anyway, I think.