False. Jay advocates murder, and when he is called on it, he tries to cover his actions by claiming that he is only joking. This is a common tactic amongst the wingnuts of the right. See this recent post for further discussion.

This whole post is built on this outrageous lie and purposeful misinterpretation—not a fact. Jay did not “advocate the murder” of ACLU lawyers, nor anything even close to it. He posted a photo-shopped picture of “rope+tree+ACLU lawyer = pinata” written on a blackboard, apparently by Einstein. Most people can reasonably assume that Eistein never was photographed writing that on a chalkboard (that makes it more funny). However, even people who don’t know about photoshop do know that tying a lawyer to a tree and beating him with sticks until he splits open will NOT result in candy pouring out onto the ground. So, he’s not really a pinata, he’s only like a pinata. That makes it funny, too.

Oh, goodness. Did I just advocate something terrible myself? Please don’t vilify me and point out my logical fallacies!! Woe is me!

Odd that you cannot supply any examples. Accusations are easy. Factual support for your claims seems to be beyond your abilities.

“This gives them a veneer of intelligence unsupported by substance…”

An ad hominem attack can be dismissed as obviously fallacious.

Got any real arguments? Didn’t think so.

You might also try a few classes in rhetoric, logic, and didactics. Your arguments are actually fairly weak in spite of your passion, which you allow to overwhelm your purpose. The problem you face (in your presumed search for credibility) is that you draw to your blog supporters (again like bv) who are even less articulate than you, but who know a lot of words they can’t use properly in sentences. This gives them a veneer of intelligence unsupported by substance—they’re two feet wide by a half inch deep. The fact is, some people really are educated way beyond their intelligence, and I’d say it’s mirror time around here.

But just to end on a positive note, I would guess you have real potential as a Peace Corps middle school teacher in the Amazon somewhere (that’s in South America) or if that’s not good for you, maybe as a research analyst for the ACLU, which seems to have the same problems you do knowing what really matters.

BTW, thanks for giving me something easy to write about—like swatting a fly stuck in syrup.

What a maroon.

Kender is himself fond of eliminationist rhetoric, and is known to make death threats against those who disagree with him.

He is, of course, incorrect about his comments being blocked. Kender’s comments are always welcome here, for they serve a useful purpose.

If so I may seriously reconsider my stance on the comedic value of that ‘toon.

I am going to go ahead and say, since you have blocked my comments so it probably wont get past your moderation, but at least you can see it, that you are one of the most pathetic bloggers I have ever seen.

Most of your posts attack one of the members of TWA or STACLU, and those that don’t get very little commentary on them.

You are more pathetic as a human than the hardcore socialist tiwts I have sparred with from france, and THAT is really stating something.

Why don’t you learn to write something besides hollow attack pieces on your betters, son, and leave the thinking to the grownups?

I doubt seriously that any argument from me will make a person suddently see an obvious concept if they have a character flaw the size and strength of a black hole in their head.

No argument from you can be taken seriously so long as you base your arguments on fallacies like this ad hominem abusive. Stop using fallacious arguments, and maybe you’ll have more success.

So, let me think aloud here….if I were an newspaper publisher, TV network, or even a memeber of Congress, and I get up one morning I say to myself, ‘shall I support America’s enemies and pander for press, votes, honorable mention from Hamas, Iran, Cuba, Eurotrash, Democrats eventhough it will hurt the war effort, or shall I try to do my part to win the progragand war, and help save lives?’

And here we have the popular straw man fallacy. There is no one in the classes of people you’ve named who actually make that argument, to themselves or otherwise. Try finding out what the actual arguments about the war are, and then construct valid counterarguments. All you are doing here is arguing against your own fantasies.

May I recommend Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life as a useful sourcebook for understanding the fallacies you have fallen into using?

On the other hand, I doubt seriously that any argument from me will make a person suddently see an obvious concept if they have a character flaw the size and strength of a black hole in their head. As far as, say, traditional family values – a fequent target of ACLU, my work with foster children, observing effective and stable familes has provided the laboratory from which I make my observations.

What a contrast in human selfishness, pro abortion people (will you grant me that this is a ACLU issue?), idealogically ready to kill any featus, in the same room with my family and foster kids. Thats when reality of character choices hit home. I would imagine that its easy to retreat from that here. Those featuses dont have internet access.

I also doubt that any amount of facts about the threat of Iraq and Saddam will actually motivate anyone who has made up their mind that they will not protect anyone under any circumstances.

Its an interesting war we’re in. (Well, you may not even consider yourself in it, or care, but the US is at war with a nasty enemy). Its actually a propaganda war, for the most part.

So, let me think aloud here….if I were an newspaper publisher, TV network, or even a memeber of Congress, and I get up one morning I say to myself, ‘shall I support America’s enemies and pander for press, votes, honorable mention from Hamas, Iran, Cuba, Eurotrash, Democrats eventhough it will hurt the war effort, or shall I try to do my part to win the progragand war, and help save lives?’

For some people this is not a hard decision, but for others, its more a computation. The actual decision process is found in the third paragraph. Like I said, its a study in selfishness, whether you are talking about saving babies or soldiers.

Well, my friend, I think you are safe here. I will visit you from time to time. Reality is harsh, dont step outside of the blog. That first step is a “dusey.”

Kappy

This is because Leftist (i.e. all modern Democrats and their surogate legal group, the ACLU) essentially attack humanity’s basic values.

Cite examples. You make numerous accusations without a single supporting fact. And the rest of your comment consists solely of ad hominem attacks.

Pretending that people who disagree with you are somehow inferior is a popular pastime amongst the ultra right, but it certainly cannot be called a rational argument. Come back when you have one.