Monday, 16 May 2011

FAO Commenter "Readin"...

"You could learn something about tolerance from this parent."
Ha! Well I hope you have just learned something about Turton in his response to you. My take on Ms Nichols' letter is here, whilst my own letter which went unpublished in favour of hers is here. If you're going to challenge Turton further, the principle element on which to focus is the issue of force, to wit: why should some parents be forced by the likes of Turton, via the State, to have their children learn about "gender issues" at the tender age of ten? Turton's all about "using the force".


Turton writes: "...and it was progressives armed with empirical science who stopped all that [birth control, abortion and eugenics - ed]." Yet the progs were precisely the ones who needed "empirical evidence" to decide their view on a matter of moral principle - they were pragmatists, just like Turton.

Later still...

It's not a question of "respect", Turton, it's a question of tolerance. That being the case, it would be tolerant to allow parents and schools to make up their own minds about what is taught to their children instead of progressive pragmatists like you calling for the forcible engineering of children's minds.


  1. Please, It's Turton and the man is a bully. If it don't conform to his worldview it's either ridiculed in the cruelest sense or ignored. Within the first 6 posts he had labeled the woman a homophobe and republicans as fascists. Nice blog, shame about the blogger in charge.

    Turton would champion a govt program in Taiwan in one breath and in the next freely admit the govt would completely screw it up in the next. Here's a man who would believe a forecast for rain distribution for 60 years in the future when weather can't be accurately predicted out past 7 days and every climate model for climate change has been completely wrong or a fraud.

    When I was young, I had many painful lessons that truth is not an absolute defense and Taiwan taught me that truth is something people only wish to see if it pleases them and if it isn't pleasing then they make the truth up.

    I still remember the one poor bastard that taught me that lying, cheating and stealing are perfectly ok if that's what your boss expects to look good.

  2. haha. Okami, you can't even tell the difference between climate and weather. And I said the Republican PARTY had become an out and out fascist party while the centrist dems are moving in that direction -- look at Obama who is, on the fundamentals, Bush III. For individual republicans, your mileage may vary. Finally, 19th century progressives went in other directions, 20th century progressives have different roots. Don't be confused by labels.


  3. If it don't conform to his worldview it's either ridiculed in the cruelest sense or ignored.

    That's grossly unfair. You've posted on my blog many times with nary an insult. I don't have time to respond to every comment.

    There are two banned individuals, FOARP and Fagan, both for personal insults. I let them post if I mention them. I don't permit pro-China trolling, though pro-China types like FreeTaiwan post civilly and are welcome. I also don't permit legally actionable comments, death threats, etc. That's the extent of my limits. How this got blown up into "Turton is a bully" is beyond me.

  4. "There are two banned individuals, FOARP and Fagan, both for personal insults."


  5. Turton, look at what you wrote in the first paragraph of your first response: laughing at your opponent, name calling, and belittling. That's exactly what a bully does.

    You generally go with ignore. If something doesn't fit your worldview you take the approach of ignoring it. Simple fact: They can't predict weather out past 7 days, and every climate model has been wrong or fraudulent. Instead of refuting it, working past it or through it, you simply insult my intelligence.

    You're a bully Turton. A debate for you is which beer to drink or which restaurant to go to. In any other circumstance, you go to the default position of belittling your opponent and ignoring any counter points. I seriously doubt you could even state a republican position accurately or which part of the party it came from. We have enough similar views that I tend to avoid conflict just choosing to ignore your insults. I learned from Forumosa that there are one set of rules for liberals but a completely different one if you are a conservative.

    Obama is a Chicago Machine creature. Anyone expecting hope and change out of him had more than ample warning from Stanley Kurtz and others. I grew up in Illinois, understand the political culture and Obama has never won a straight election without cheating. To expect him to do what he says is a laughable statement that the right doesn't even bother to point out anymore that all Obama's promises come with an expiration date.

  6. This was the comment I would have made on Turton's thread were I not banned:


    "It's not about the sex."

    It's not about "respect" either Turton. The proper objects of respect are character, achievement and so forth. The notion of "respecting" someone's homosexuality is akin to respecting someone's hair or eye colour, and as such, involves just as superficial a judgement as those made by racists. And you know this.

    Properly understood, what is at issue here is the corruption of ethics by garbage epistemology. Government has never solved this problem because it cannot be solved by force.



Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.