Archive for the ‘intellectual laziness’ Category

Persuasion

I was at a family do this past weekend when the topic of climate change deniers came up with a relative who works in the field of climate change and food security. My question was “so, are you going to beat up on the likes of “Lord” Monckton and Sammy Wilson?” Her response surprised me, but made loads of sense.

“Why? the people who know that climate change is real are the people I am going to be dealing with. It would be a waste of time to try to persuade that type of person when I can be putting my efforts into getting something done.”

Point taken. No matter how much you try to logically disucss a topic with someone who is totally illogical, they will refuse to see reason. Your argument can be in big, bold letters, yet they will disagree for whatever reason they choose–no matter how silly that reason may be to the educated observer. These people will believe discredited studies and sources.

But those aren’t the people I want to spend my time on. I want to get the people who can use my information for good purposes. I want to link up with others who can work with me to achieve my goals. I know those people are out there, but I need to connect to them.

The other people will continue in their echo chamber, but I prefer to connect with people who are willing to go forward to change the world for the better. I don’t have the time to deal with the astroturfers.

Something I read on another blog reminded me of this…

Monty Python’s “The Idiot in Society”:

Someplace such as the Faculty of Idiocy at the University of East Anglia is the only place I can imagine this person receiving an education. Of course, the village idiot is a part of the old village system, and as such has a vital role to play in a modern rural society, because there is this very real need in society for someone whom almost anyone can look down on and ridicule. And this is the role that this person and members of his family have fulfilled in his village for the past four hundred years.

Unfortunately, I can’t see this person having lucid moments: he’s a full time idiot. Although the post that provoked this one had me thinking of this idiot being a lecturer in idiocy: something he’s well qualified.

It’s nice to know that after three years of study this idiot received a diploma of idiocy, a handful of mud and a kick on the head.

He is still a glutton for punishment which is why he enjoys making idiotic comments on people’s blogs.

MikeW gets tossed from another blog…

For being a fuckwit…again.

Rumour has it that Mike W. was the inspiration for Viz Comics’ Character Terry Fuckwit (“He’s got shit for brains”).

MikeyW. Shows his ignorance again!

Mikey, what part of “you are a dumbfuck” don’t you understand?

Mikey: #10 by mike w. at January 21st, 2010

From Justice Breyer’s dissent, which also came to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

But hey, you anti-gun folks can continue to deny obvious truths. It’s not surprising you deny facts when they destroy your entire belief system.

Mikey, Mikey, it really helps when you make an argument to use something that supports your assertion. You make a piss poor argument when what you quote shows that you don’t know what you are talking about. You are so fucking thick that you miss that Breyers says “I take as a starting point the following four propositions“. You go on to only quote one, the one that says “individual right” and neglect the other three.

Is that because they completely contradict what you are asserting and you know that? or are you just dumb and lazy? “yep, there are the words “individual right”–that looks like a good quote to use”.

Either you didn’t really read what you were quoting, didn’t understand what you read, dishonest, or are just a plain off dumbfuck. I go with complete and total dumbfuck. You couldn’t be clever enough to be dishonest.

Which gets to my reply:

#11 by Laci the Dog at January 21st, 2010
Mikey, once again you prove you are lazy and didn’t read what you quote:

“I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.”
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939); see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897); ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).”

Stop wasting my time.

The only thing you prove is that you are an ignorant time waster.

So, I will ignore you. Bye-Bye!

Mikey, of course, didn’t read the opinion. At least he got through the first couple of sentences of Justice Stevens Opinion. But that had taxed his brain.

He didn’t even bother with reading Breyer’s opinion, which starts:

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.
The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

Mikey just sees the words “individual right” and it makes him salavate. He doesn’t bother with trying to understand what he is reading. Otherwise, he wouldn’t go off and show the world what a dumbfuck he is.

It’s not bigotry, Mikey, you really are a complete and total dumbfuck. Which is why I don’t really care what you lot think of me.

My advice, Mikey, use a dictionary for those words of more than a couple syllables that are hard for you to understand.

Learning to read also helps.

Thanks to Microdot

Yeah, the argument style of the teabagger/guncretin: simplify, use emotional language, and not think.

It distracts people from realising that you don’t have an idea of what you are saying.

Case in point: MikeyW trying to show me that Justice Stevens’ dissent support an “individual right”

Mikey
Also, Justice Stevens dissenting opinion states in the very 1st sentence.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

#49 by Laci the Dog at January 20th, 2010

of course, you tell half truths and didn’t understand the dissent.

or didn’t read it.

Otherwise you wouldn’t misquote it.

“The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

” Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

It seems you’re wrong again, Mikey!

Next time try harder and actually read and understand what you quote.

Mikey then went on to say that Miller was all about the Shotgun. Wrongo Mikey. Mikey didn’t really understand this from Miller:

OK, to use my post with the complete quotation and additional material from Stevens’ dissent in Heller, I’ve already shown that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Likewise, I will ask you what to tell me what was the holding in US v. Miller? It is actually quite surprising. (ed. The Holding was that the Court reversed the lower Court’s decision that the Firearm WAS covered under the Second Amendment and remanded the case for reconsideration: “We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.”)

I will actually give you some bits of dicta that prove you are wrong:

“Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.”

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

Sounds pretty similar to what Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent.

Of course, Stevens’ dissent supported an individual right, whatever that means.

Holocaust denial

Mike W. plays into the hands of the holocaust deniers as being all that effective: he’s still around.

Or maybe his family was part of the crowd in the US that failed to help European Jews.

Anyway, I bet he gets a warm feeling seeing all that Nazi shit at gun shows (as well as Bob Levy).

The only thing MikeW is able to persuade me about is that he is an ignorant, time wasting wanker.

For Zerro,

What the fuck is your problem, asshole? And that goes for the lot of you fucktard guncretins.

You get uptight about my comment about prying the gun from your cold dead fingers? Then, Zero you make a total asshole of yourself by saying bring it on.

Do you realise how fucked up that is? Do you realise that you just showed yourself up for being a total wimp?

You can’t have it both ways, asshole, playing the tough guy, but crying like a girl when someone takes you up on the challenge.

But leave my dog out of it, motherfucker.

The only thing you lot are proving is that you are immature assholes who shouldn’t even be allowed to think about firearms let alone actually possess them. In other words, you only confirm my belief in strong gun control measures by acting as you do.

And your opinions aren’t worth using for wiping my ass.

Posted after reading Zerro’s response.
You dickheads have a lot of nerve talking about “bigotry” and getting upset about my comments about Meleanie Hain or “prying the gun from your cold, dead fingers”.

You people are complete and total asswipes. You contribute dick to society.

And quite frankly, Society is indeed better off when you assholes shoot yourself.

If those statements don’t pass through your bullet-proof skulls in a way that you understand– that’s your tough shit. I can get on my high horse all I want since you haven’t shown yourselves to be worthy of anything but contempt.

Don’t use words such as bigotry that you don’t understand. It isn’t bigotry that you are dealing with, assholes, but contempt for your being a worthless lot of losers. You’re going to be treated like the worthless pieces of shit you are as long as you act like dickheads.
Grow up and live with it and stop acting like babies.

More ignorance of gun owners.

For some reason, MikeB decided to post my That’s Laci the Dog post about how ignorant gun owners are.

I made a comment that it was illegal to kill people’s pets. Fatheaded White Moron said:

“That depends on where you are.”

I guess it does since it’s a felony to do that in Ohio, where Fatheaded White Moron lives. Although, this is a fairly new law and Fatheaded White Moron is an ignorant bastard. I doubt he reads newspapers or he would have seen this:

An Ohio man is believed to be the first person convicted under the state’s felony killing a cat or dog law, officials said.

Sorry, but most jurisdictions penalise the killing of a companion animal under animal cruelty statutes. I wouldn’t expect someone like Fatheaded White Moron to know that though. That’s Baldwin’s Ohio Revised Code Annotated. Title IX. Agriculture–Animals–Fences. Chapter 959. Offenses Relating to Domestic Animals and the relevant Sections are 959-02, 959-13, and 959-131

As I said, most jurisctions make it a crime to kill a companion animal which can be verified here.

Some advice:

Fatheaded White Moron (and Weer’d Beard), it’s a bad idea to cross busy motorways (interstate highways) or busy streets when traffic is coming.

And while we’re at it.

RuffRidr proves even more ignorance. This cretin has picked Theodore Roosevelt as his avatar. Although, I wouldn’t expect someone who uses an avatar of someone who became president because of an assassination and survivor of an assassination attempt to be able to grasp his ignorance.

If anything, RuffRidr, literally shoots himself in the foot by picking someone who blustered about using a firearm to prevent any assassination attempt against himself after the McKinley assassination, yet somehow didn’t have a gun on him when that time came. Even though TR survived, the assassin’s bullet effectively killed TR’s political career.

We can argue whether actually having a handgun at the time of the assassination attempt would have been beneficial for TR, but somehow, I don’t think it would. The fact that TR was a blow hard and the bullet was stopped by one of his speeches was more beneficial.

If anything, TR was great at using myth for self-promotion. In this case, the cowboy frontiersman, as a loner true to his own code of honor. The real TR couldn’t have been farther from that image.

Roosevelt’s own cowboy-soldier life testified to that, but first he had to create a persona that he most surely was not born with. He entered the New York state assembly in 1881 at age twenty-three, having overcome poor health just like his idol Abraham Lincoln. He still appeared unmanly, and newspapers and his fellow assemblymen ridiculed his “squeaky” voice and dandified clothing, referring to him as “Jane-Dandy,” “Punkin-Lily,” and “our own Oscar Wilde.” The New York World proclaimed him “chief of the dudes.” Duly insulted, he began to construct a new physical image around appropriately virile Western decorations and settings, foregrounding the bodily attributes of a robust outdoorsman that were becoming new features in the nation’s political iconography
from Rough Rider in the White House: Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Desire by Sarah Watts

.
As I keep telling RuffRidr: the only thing that would show him up for being more of a dickhead than he is already would be to use JFK as his avatar. Also, I don’t know if RuffRidr’s ignorance goes to the extent that he is unaware that TR was a progressive! That would put TR on the left side of the political spectrum. Quite possibly even further to the left of Barack Obama!

Of course, RuffRidr, and Zero are making total wankers of themselves. As I said in the original post–they are ignorant of their ignorance. These rugged individuals need help (and in more than one way) and the cavalry of gun cretins has arrived to back them up. Never mind their all just spouting shit and not addressing the issues that they need to address.

Someone needs to kleep these morons in line. Maybe some military training would do them good.

It’s really funny at how upset they are at my comments about Meleanie Hain. I am sorry, but I don’t see her as much of a loss. Meleanie happened to be a buddhist and perhaps she realises that it was her karma to be killed by being a moron. It’s too bad that the rest of you are too stupid to learn from her lesson.

But, I am hopeful that someday you all will prove to be useful examples like Meleanie was.

Unfortunately, the rest of them haven’t quite gotten the picture that the stories at Ohh Shoot might indeed be more common than their mythical DGUs.

Kind of like how having a gun helped TR stop that assassination attempt.

By the way, please stop making generalisations about people who support gun control from my comments. Especially you, MikeW., Or is it OK to make generalisations about groups, such as the Jews?

If ignorance is bliss, then Americans should be the happiest people in the World (Universe?)

I have to admit a desire to want to take comments, but I really don’t want to hear from the ignorentia.

Case in point, I have been trying to explain extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction and how that relates to Article VI (international treaties) of the US Constitution to someone (Fatheaded White Moron). He says I wasted my time in law school if I believe these things exist. Well, sorry, Fatheaded White Moron, but they do exist: especially in the era of the internet where you aren’t just dealing with a person around the corner, but you are broadcasting to the entire world (e.g., my current IP address places me in North London, but I could be anywhere in the world).

The thing is that I don’t really want to persuade anyone of anything. While I don’t mind being informative: I can’t teach the unteachable. It’s a waste of time trying to explain the concept of jurisdiction to a moron.

But, I shouldn’t be surprised. When I was young and into short wave, we heard the Voice of America “special English” program (one with limited vocabulary for people learning English) and it sounded like US mainstream news. I’ve also noticed that the Beeb dumbs down its news programmes for the US audience. In fact, BBC America was an extreme disappointment when I saw it in all manners (commercials, programming, etc.).

Of course, I am not alone in noticing that the citizens of the United States dislike and distrust intellectuals. There are books by Chris Hedges, Charles F. Pierce, Farhad Manjoo, Michael Specter, and Richard Hofstadter to name just a few. Hofstadter is the most insigtful of the lot. His book The Paranoid Style in American Politics goes a long way to explain some of the thinking we see in the blogosphere and the tea party movement.


People who think are a threat to society. Hence people like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, George Bush (either one), and so on become the leaders. There is a reason that Bill Clinton became US president and it wasn’t that he was a great mind. Obama has always been more smoke and mirrors than anything else, which is why I am not disappointed in his performance as president. He was annointed to be president the moment he took the podium at the 2004 democratic convention. Oprah Winfrey, another media creation, helped catapult him to become the first black celebrity president.

I have been curious as to why people don’t want to limit electioneering rather than term limits (other than term limits is one of those concepts that is easy for small minds to grasp and accept). The US election process isn’t set up to be democratic as the Ron Paul and Howard Dean campaigns show, but is meant to be run by people with money. It costs money to run for office in the States. This is where we have the golden rule: “Those with the Gold: Rule”.

So whether it is a right wing idiot like Sarah Palin or a left wing idiot like Brack Obama, the puppet is elected. The weapons of mass distraction media (thank you, il principe) can confuse the small minded. Or worse, the NPR listening fools who think because it is “public” radio it is any less controlled by commercial interests. As I said before, underwriting is just a slightly less obnoxious commercial.

Of course, where this is all going is that there is a world out there which means that you don’t need to be limited to the weapons of mass distraction media in the states. You have the BBC, Radio Nederland, Al Jazeera and a host of other sources out there for alternative viewpoints. Although, that comment is superfluous since most of the closed minds don’t want to listen to alternative viewpoints. If they do it will be in a derisory manner, as did Fatheaded White Moron when I tried to explain the concept of jurisdiction.

So after that rambling rant, I long for intellectual discourse, but find it difficult to have. the internet does provide one with others who can be good company, but it is also filled with those who are not as stimulating. I find the less intelligent and closed minded people to be quite tiresome.

Posted 19/12/2009 by lacithedog in comments, Culture, intellectual laziness, NPR

Wikipedia

I have to agree with Matthew White about Wikipedia in that it is intelllectual laziness to cite to it.

To use his comments about Wikipedia:

the McDonalds/Microsoft/Walmart of information. It provides reliably mediocre information at a low, low cost. This drives competitors out of business, reduces diversity, and lowers the standards all across the board. Just as McDonald’s is where you go when you’re hungry but don’t really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you’re curious but don’t really care about the quality of your knowledge.

Everyone knows this already. “Checking Wikipedia” has become the information equivalent of “stopping at McDonald’s”. It reeks of apathy and superficiality.

On the other hand, I will point out that any compilation can be superficial. As I mentioned the last time I mentioned Matthew’s comments on this The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions’s Section on the Second Amendment is written by a “Second Amendment Scholar” (I think its Stephen Halbrook, but it could be Robert Cottrol). Can we bang on The Oxford University Press for “intellectual laziness”? Or is it that the people who use encyclopedias and compilations as their main source of info without investigating further are the real suffers of intellectual laziness?

When we add in the democratisation of Information then we get to the internet in general. The internet is a place where critical thinking and cite checking comes in handy. Of course, we have the democratic method on the internet where repeating the lie does make it true. Take for example the genocide figure out there that Matthew and I thoroughly trash as rubbish. Unfortunately, that one is up there and pasted all over the internet. Nevermind that it doesn’t stand scrutiny.

Not to mention the comments about Nazis and gun control have been discredited at Guncite, a pro-gun website. Guncite even discredits the bogus Hitler quote! Somehow the news didn’t get around and people still put Hitler’s face up with a comment about him supporting gun control. And anyone who checks will find that the Nazi Party as we knew it was just formed when Britain had its system of gun registration!

Yeah, I just cited to Wikipedia for some of that info.

But like anything else: One should the it as a summary of the info out there and use that as a jumping off point for further inquiry. One should never trust any information without double checking. You can easily confirm any facts with a minimum of research and some use of the old grey matter. I’m offering you my interpretations and opinions in this blog, but obviously you should study other interpretations before you make up your own mind.

I’m not out to convince you of anything here, so you don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to. I created this page for my own benefit. On the other hand, I do back up what I write, which is more than I can say for some people. The fact that they don’t bother following the links is their problem, not mine.

Anyway, there is the Foundation for Critical Thinking out there which I would strongly advise anyone to investigate. The have a model for critical thinking which is fairly useful. Although, I would also suggest learning about propaganda techniques when dealing with info on the internet.

In the meantime, there’s this highly useful source of information on the Internet: Chickipedia!

Chickipedia Vs Wikipedia – Watch more Funny Videos

You use too many words!!!

OMG, this really was a comment someone made about my posts.

Yes, and some of them are really big ones too!

I will try to make my sentences shorter and use simpler language, but that will be a struggle. Maybe I should add more pictures. Stupid people like picture books.

In fact, in countries with low literacy rates, they put the pictures of products. When Gerber started selling baby food in Africa, they used the same packaging as in the US, with the beautiful Caucasian baby on the label. Later they learned that in Africa, companies routinely put pictures on the label of what’s inside, since most people can’t read. the mostly uneducated consumers thought the jars contained ground-up babies. Needless to say, sales were terrible!

That puts this picture in a different light since perhaps this baby is showing fear at being ground up and stuck in a jar. More baby oil please!

I was told I was born speaking complete sentences. So, I said, “the task of discovering the meaning of my writing must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted” instead of saying “da-da”, “ma-ma”, or “doug-doug” when I was an infant. Although I do admit to regressing in speech patterns as I have aged.

I am truly overeducated with useless knowledge and the desire to learn has never left me. Like Chaucer’s Clerke of Oxenford “Gladly would he learn and gladly would he teach”. I also will read pretty much whatever is put in front of me.

Someone said he thought I wasn’t as smart as I thought I was. Sorry, but I don’t see myself as smart, although others tell me I am. In fact, that intended insult was more of a compliment and the person who made it lacked the smarts to realise that. I also find through dealings with others that I am a lot smarter than they are since it is amazing how people can find simple concepts difficult to grasp. In particular some moron who wants to put you down by telling you that you aren’t that smart and then showing that he has no idea of what you are talking about.

I’ve been told I have a genius IQ more than once (and seem even smarter after correcting that typo).

I don’t belong to MENSA but I do belong to DENSA.

Seriously, I try not to be a wanker about it, but it’s kind of hard.

Not to mention very lonely being over-educated and literate.

You can’t be that smart…

there was a typo (or mispelling) in your post.

Yeah, well take it up with my amanuensis and editor, jerk off.

I really hate how people don’t address issues, but prefer to use crappy critiques. It shows intellectual laziness, not knowledge of the issues.

Even more humorous is when someone comes in with a stupid comment such as Lott/Kleck/Tribe/John Doe says that doesn’t really address the issue.