I have found a stellar example of the poor reasoning skills and blatant dishonesty exhibited by so many of the religious right. Her name is Renee Aste, and boy, does she have problems with the simple task of answering straightforward questions.
Renee is one of several contributors to the group blog “The Opine Editiorials”, whose contributors all agree that gay marriage is a bad, icky thing and therefore no one should do it. This bunch loves to throw around the term “neutered marriage”, as in “The agenda of neutered marriage has little to do with anything regarding creating family”. Their general (if [deliberately?] vague) argument is that legitimizing gay marriage will be bad for all marriages.
This, of course, gives rise to the simple question: If letting gays marry will somehow damage heterosexual marriages, what will that damage look like? I’ve tried more than once to get an answer to questions of that sort out of this crowd, and they have yet to provide one. The latest example prompted a spectacular meltdown from the aforementioned Renee Aste.
A few days ago, I issued a simple and straightforward challenge to ‘mjf’, one of Renee’s co-bloggers:
Show me an actual marriage that has been neutered.
Renee quickly answered that challenge, claiming that her own marriage had been neutered. (‘mjf’ never did answer my question.) Yikes… sounds like things are bad in Renee’s marriage. But what exactly does it mean for her marriage to be ‘neutered’? In the course of a long and rambling reply to my challenge, she made a few other claims as well. I did the logical thing: I challenged her to back up those claims with facts:
“Mine.”
Explain. Just exactly how has your relationship with your husband been weakened? What exactly is the mechanism by which the marriage of two other people has some deleterious effect on your own marriage?
“Without the immediate family there can’t be an extended…”
Are you actually claiming that no one in Massachusetts has an immediate family? If so, provide empirical evidence for this claim.
“If something doesn’t change by mere population shift will have the whole state’s [referring to Massachusetts — mb] economy in collapse. And it is collapsing!”
Provide empirical evidence for the claim that Massachusetts’ economy is collapsing.
“But as you say meat brain, you just don’t care because marriage has nothing to do about familes like my own or the other contributors on this blog.”
Cite the exact post or comment in which I have said this.
Simple, yes? Well, no… not for Renee. She goes into overdrive to avoid answering these four simple challenges. She starts yammering about population shifts, congressional seats, DNA, Alex Haley, the Bible, and cooties (no, really!). She tries to derail the discussion by asking me about my relationship with my family. She insists that she has shown me “why marriage is good”, as if that had anything to do with her earlier claims. And — note carefully — Renee never actually supplies any facts to support her claims.
Her buddies jump in, of course, with the usual mix of inanities. Finally, one of them, in a desperate attempt to give Renee some cover, writes a post entitled “Countering sophomoric plea’s of “Prove It!!”“, which seems to put forth the proposition that they shouldn’t have to provide evidence for any claim they make. I kid you not.
Well, after a few more exchanges in the comments thread of that post, Renee decides that it’s time to go for the big lie:
Why do you harass and threaten the mother of three small children, that I’m bigot and my husband’s and my duty to our family is so valueless it doesn’t desrve a word of it’s own.
I’ve been very merciful in my posts, but you pick on the vunerable; mothers and children. I think it time to have you removed from the discussion.
And it seems that her fellow goobers agree. I immediately suggested that Renee might want to supply somne evidence of the “threat” I supposedly made… and the comment (mirrored here) was immediately deleted:
“Why do you harass and threaten the mother of three small children…”
Oops. Another wild-eyed accusation with no basis in reality. In exactly which comment did I threaten you, Renee?
Is that the best you can do, Renee? Make false accusations in a pathetic attempt to paint yourself as a victim? Yes, a real paragon of virtue is our Renee. What was that I read in some book, about not bearing false witness?
So, what have we learned here?
- There is a breed of right-wing blogger out there that sees nothing wrong with making claims that s/he cannot back up with facts.
- Not only that, the same sort of blogger is utterly incapable of understanding why it is necessary to back up claims with facts.
- On top of which, this variety of blogger sees nothing wrong with making totally false accusations against anyone who dares suggest that s/he should provide facts in support of claims.
Renee Aste believes that she should be able to make any claim at all, and that no one has any right to question those claims. If her claims are so fragile that they cannot withstand any questioning, then her claims and the arguments that depend upon them are completely worthless, and can be dismissed without further discussion. I’m sure that Renee believes fervently in what she is saying, but fervent belief isn’t enough. We do know that Renee believes in lying about what someone else has said.
Renee cannot be bothered to put forward an intellectually honest, fact-based argument, and in fact does not see the need for honest discussion. Unfortunately, as a cursory tour through the right side of the blogosphere quickly reveals, she is far from alone in this belief.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Proudly Hosted By
48 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://thinkingmeat.net/2007/04/07/dont-ask-renee/trackback/
April 7, 2007 at 12:20 pm
On Lawn
Yes…
Folks I love the opportunity to display Meatbrain’s lying and deciept for everyone to see.
First, Meatbrain’s comments have been deleted in the past for problems with his language—he can’t express himself without using profanity. He was warned, and couldn’t help himself. Its just the kind of intellect he is, I suppose.
The other problem, is more serious though. He’s a documented, demonstrated, and proven liar. I’ve been waiting for one of his usual hyper-ventilated and dishonest pieces to be turned on Opine to show this…
For instance, he quotes himself as asking…
But did he admit to changing the question midstream? No, but he did show exactly where he did it. Note what the question morphs into—after Renee answers his question…
The halfwit changed the question. That’s meabrain for you.
Theres other just as glaring errors in his post that I’ll be happy to point out later.
Honestly, Meatbrain is synonomous with dishonesty on our site. And he proves why once again here.
April 7, 2007 at 12:49 pm
meatbrain
“Meatbrain’s comments have been deleted in the past for problems with his language—he can’t express himself without using profanity.”
Show us the profanity in the comment that was deleted.
... SFX: crickets …
There is none. That excuse goes down in flames. The comment was deleted because it challenged Renee to provide factual evidence for her accusation that I had threatened her. There is none, and the contributors to your blog knew this, On Lawn. So one of you deleted the comment in order to pretend that the challenge had never been issued to her. That’s pure intellectual dishonesty.
“But did he admit to changing the question midstream?”
No admission is necessary, because no question was changed, moron. I asked a question, and when Renee answered it, I asked another question. My second question is what is called a “follow-up”. This is a concept I see you are unfamiliar with. Renee claimed that her marriage has been “neutered”, and I asked her to explain exactly what changes this had wrought in her marriage. I was, in short, asking her to provide evidence for her claim — another concept with which you are unfamiliar.
Renee lied when she accused me of threatening her. No amount of tap-dancing and phony excuses on your part is going to change that fact, imbecile.
April 7, 2007 at 2:03 pm
The Rev. Jenner J. Hull
“I asked a question, and when Renee answered it, I asked another question. My second question is what is called a ‘follow-up.’”
Which is exactly how I took it. MB asked for an example of a “neutered marriage,” Renee gave him one, and he asked for an explanation as to how the marriage was “neutered.” This is only “changing the question” if you have no skills or experience in human conversation or interaction.
By the way, what the fuck does “neutered marriage” mean? Allowing gays to marry will remove the testicles of heterosexual married men? It’s probably the most ridiculous, useless phrase I’ve ever heard.
April 7, 2007 at 2:23 pm
meatbrain
“This is only “changing the question” if you have no skills or experience in human conversation or interaction.”
Or if you want to pretend to not understand the nature of such a line of questioning, so that you can make a false accusation that your opponent “changed the question”.
On Lawn and his ilk choose to engage in distortion and lies, rather than honest debate.
April 7, 2007 at 6:18 pm
argotnaut
So if marriage is for “creating family,” does that mean that those of us who are heterosexual but don’t plan to have children should not be allowed to marry?
Personally, I think we should just let the fundies have marriage, since they want so badly to keep us from tainting their vision of its purity. The rest of us can move on to something else that’s available to everyone and provides the same societal and governmental benefits of marriage.
April 7, 2007 at 9:53 pm
mel
Oh god, that’s too much. Meatbrain, why do you chose to terrorize innocent women and children (wtf?) with demands for facts and honesty? Don’t you realize that when you have god a whisperin’ in your ear that “facts” are just the devil’s tool for confusing the message?
BTW MB, I haven’t been reading long enough to see you use that page archive trick until now. Very cool. I’d like to know more about how you do it.
Good work. I still can’t believe they come over here to call you a liar. What a fucking freakshow.
OT: hey, Rev. Hull! Thank for dropping by Æsahættr the other day. I dig your groove.
April 7, 2007 at 10:03 pm
meatbrain
Mel, I use a Firefox extension called Scrapbook to capture pages. Some wingnuts like to delete comments, alter what you’ve said in a comment, or alter their own posts once you point out the lies and/or distortions. So having a page capture can be a real handy thing, and help keep the record straight.
Scrapbook saves page elements into a folder, and it’s easy enough to upload that to my host and link to it.
April 8, 2007 at 12:31 am
On Lawn
That excuse goes down in flames.
What an imagination you have. Its like instead of a debate based on logic and reason, we get an a wannabe Arnold and his own action movie theatrics.
The comment was deleted because it challenged Renee to provide factual evidence for her accusation that I had threatened her.
Really? I’m the one who deleted the comment, meatbrain. And your powers of mind reading is as bland as your action-comic logic.
I’ll give you a little time to remember why I might have done something like that
So one of you deleted the comment in order to pretend that the challenge had never been issued to her. That’s pure intellectual dishonesty.
So, deleting a comment as if it were never there is intellectual dishonesty. Really? I have your word on that? Are you going to sign off on that, finally?
Your own words, Meatbrain. Its what you said just now…
No admission is necessary, because no question was changed, moron.
In meatbrain universe, “Show me an actual marriage that has been neutered” is the same as, “Just exactly how has your relationship with your husband been weakened?”
I’m sorry, who here in this echo-chamber of non-sense is going to stoop so low as to corroborate that Meatbrain is right on that. Just how far are you willing to go to deny reality in defense of this lunatic? I’m curious. Anyone?
And folks, another Meatbrain lie…
He said I never replied to his question. He tried to say at one point that Renee didn’t answer his question either. He was simply lying again (and then repeated the lie in the next comment).
So who is going to defend Meatbrain here? Sure you can pat him on the back, and send his foolhardy hide to get eviscerated with real facts and reason (not his pretended versions of the same), but could you actually stand with him and defend his stupidity?
Anyone?
Truth is, he’s also a hypocrite who gives claims all the time that he can’t back up with facts or evidence. He was caught lying, re-writing, selectively quoting, and yes being hypocritical about the only thing he thinks is worthy of a debate—providing facts and evidence to back up claims. Somehow Meatbrain thinks he’s above facts and evidence—even above having to make a point at all—and said so on our site.
And I assume that is why you love him so much, he’s able to support what you want to hear because he doesn’t care about the facts just whining.
Not very smart, not very honest, but he’s who you want to listen to.
Which leaves me with this question, what does Meatbrain and Juan Cole have in common?
April 8, 2007 at 12:42 am
On Lawn
Rev Jenner:
and he asked for an explanation as to how the marriage was “neutered.”
Nice quote, only if the quote is from the second question it is inaccurate. You can’t get around that Meatbrain was trying to play a post-hoc game of re-defining the question. He did that before on different occasions. He was dutifully pointed out to his error and he ran away.
But here’s the deal.
Marriage refers to an institution as well as to the individual relationships that comprise the institution. Its as if “tree” meant both “forest” and “tree”. Why? I don’t know but that is the facts.
What Meatbrain attempted was a carefully crafted amphibology on that double meaning. Because we say the institution of marriage is neutered, he asks “which one”? Well, the institution of course, but he’s not quite understood what that means yet. I hope you are better are comprehension than Meatbrain is on that point.
What is neutered? Our understanding of it, our legal reference to it, our definition of it. Where we have “a relationship between a man and a woman” we simply have a relationship between two people. Lack of gender if you look in the dictionary, is “neuter”. It is a grammatical term to describe language. Don’t they teach that in the fourth grade still? To remove gender reference is to neuter something, in this case to remove the gender reference in marriage creates a new institution called neutered marriage.
In that way, everyone’s marriage is neutered in the eyes of the state. Renee’s and everyone else who asks that state to recognize their relationship.
The harm that brings is something we discuss on Opine all the time. You are welcome to listen in. But I thought I’d explain since Meatbrain’s ill-conceived commentary simply hopes that you all remain in ignorance of just what the term is used to describe.
April 8, 2007 at 12:45 am
On Lawn
Argotnaut,
So if marriage is for “creating family,” does that mean that those of us who are heterosexual but don’t plan to have children should not be allowed to marry?
Why should we do that? People plan not to have children all the time, but wind up doing so anyway. So even if the law did presume to enforce that some couples should not have kids and some should (by virtue of who is or who isn’t married), it wouldn’t be able to by your prescribed method.
And marriage is for creating a family, just as Terrance of RepublicofT.
April 8, 2007 at 3:04 am
mel
Last I checked the definition of ‘neutered’ was “neither masculine nor feminine in gender” so that if applied to the word marriage (whether the trees or the forest) the outcome is the nonsensical: “marriage without gender”. Or perhaps they mean to say “non-sexual marriage”—though I doubt it.
It’s clear what folks like On Lawn mean to say: that extending marriage beyond the traditional male/female union would somehow make male/female marriage NOT male/female marriage. That it would castrate it. That it would make marriage impotent. It’s clear that this is what they mean to say, but the meaning of what they are saying is extremely convoluted. And really, you have to wonder what exactly makes them feel like their marriages are vulnerable in this way.
PS to On Lawn: your arguments about what is and is not dishonest are completely fucking ridiculous. That you cannot see this makes me cringe which embarrassment for you. I suggest that you get crystal clear on the real reasons why you believe what you believe about marriage before you embark on any more missions to teach other folks about honesty.
No surprise about the covoluted thinking part, as these ideas stem from such convoluted premises as “god instituted marriage as being between a man and a woman”—says who? Where’s your proof?
Oh, that’s right, I forgot. There is no proof, only faith.
April 8, 2007 at 4:58 am
meatbrain
“I’m the one who deleted the comment, meatbrain.”
Then On Lawn knows that there was no profanity in the comment. Therefore it could not have been deleted because it contained profanity.
“So, deleting a comment as if it were never there is intellectual dishonesty. Really?”
Deleting a comment to avoid the necessity of providing factual support for a claim is intellectual dishonesty. And since On Lawn deleted the comment in order to protect Renee’s lie that I had threatened her, the deletion was an act of intellectual dishonesty.
“In meatbrain universe, “Show me an actual marriage that has been neutered” is the same as, “Just exactly how has your relationship with your husband been weakened?”
No. Those are two diferent questions. On Lawn is being intellectually dishonest again. He is pretending that he does not understand the concept of a follow-up question.
“He tried to say at one point that Renee didn’t answer his question either.”
Renee made a claim that her marriage has been “neutered”, but has failed to provide any evidence that anything in her marriage has changed. That’s only one of several questions about her claims that that Renee has failed to answer. On Lawn knows this, but chooses to pretend that he does not. This is intellectual dishonesty, his favorite tactic.
April 8, 2007 at 6:40 am
meatbrain
“Because we say the institution of marriage is neutered, he asks “which one”? Well, the institution of course, but he’s not quite understood what that means yet.”
Wrong. Renee clearly claimed that her individual marriage has been neutered. I asked her to explain what that meant, and she has thus far failed to do so.
April 8, 2007 at 8:33 am
On Lawn
Mel attempts to help Meatbrain by going on a tangent:
Last I checked the definition of ‘neutered’ was “neither masculine nor feminine in gender”
Just as an exercise in fairness, cite your reference please. You should back up your claims with facts.
(whether the trees or the forest)
Plants are not neuter. They have both sexes, or one or the other. But not neither.
the outcome is the nonsensical: “marriage without gender”.
I can agree, marriage without any regard to the gender constitution is nonsensical.
extending marriage beyond the traditional male/female union would somehow make male/female marriage NOT male/female marriage.
Correct, actually—to the way the state treats them. To the way the state treats everything unique to a heterosexual couple that homosexual couples are incapable of.
That it would make marriage impotent.
False. It makes every marriage potent, which occurs only by treating procreation as a commercial enterprise (which is neuter). Where do you think Mary Cheney got her child from? She payed someone to have a child with her—and then abandon their role as father so that she could pretend her relationship was potent.
On Lawn: your arguments about what is and is not dishonest are completely [...] ridiculous.
You keep telling yourself that. Go cry in the corner, close your ears and keep chanting that to yourself until you feel better.
Poor Mel.
When you actually want to disprove what I’ve said, you know where to find me. But so far all I see is you working very hard to act as if you did. Keep it up, someone might even believe your act.
Can’t anyone help Meatbrain with the claims he made? Or are you just going to try to divert attention from them?
April 8, 2007 at 9:13 am
On Lawn
Meatbrain seeing that he isn’t getting help from others, dispite their trying:
Then On Lawn knows that there was no profanity in the comment. Therefore it could not have been deleted because it contained profanity.
Correct. But then where did I say I deleted that comment due to profanity? That comment specifically. You can’t do it, can you. Come on Meatbrain, back up your claims with quotes and facts.
Deleting a comment to avoid the necessity of providing factual support for a claim is intellectual dishonesty.
So let me get this very clear … are you really saying unequivocally that deleting a comment to avoid having to deal with the objections raised in that comment is intellectually dishonest?
And since On Lawn deleted the comment in order to protect Renee’s lie that I had threatened her
Wow! Look at this. Meatbrain claims he can read minds, even better than I can read my own. What an act Meatbrain, what entertainment this is. He’s trying to make a claim with out any proof whatsoever about my reasons.
Anyone else going to show us their mind-reading powers and make the same claim?
Seems your cadre here isn’t too secure when taken out of their role of just patting you on the back for your wild and unsupported accusations.
He is pretending that he does not understand the concept of a follow-up question.
Again with the mind-reading? Prove I’m pretending to not understand the concept of a follow-up question, Meatbrain.
I’m saying you post-hoc changed the question. If she says her marriage is neutered, it is up to her to explain why. And she did. Which is why you got frustrated and changed the question. You made the requirement that to prove her marriage was neutered, she had to show how ”[her] relationship with [her] husband been weakened”.
You changed what is meant by “neutered marriage” with your own interpretation, and that is dishonest. The evidence is there for you to see, and to call that a follow up question instead of the post-hoc mess that it really is just tells me how gullible you think your readership is.
And that dishonesty is on display now for your readership to see
Thats enough for me.
By the way, you haven’t figured out the real reason I deleted the quote yet, or are you just trying to avoid it? I think you realized you just proved something I said about you a long time ago and are trying to desperately avoid it. I think you know what that is. So I’ll tell you that you are wrong in claiming I did it to protect Renee. I don’t think she needs it. So can you think of any other reason yet?
The real question is, do you want to tell your readership why I might have deleted a comment from you? Do you want to tell them why your acknowledgment of unfair deleting comments is important to me?
Go on tell them. It will be better they hear it from you. You’ll be able to give it that special spin that you rely on so much. Why could I possibly have deleted that comment, Meatbrain?
> “Renee clearly claimed that her individual marriage has been neutered.”
How does that contradict what I wrote, Meatbrain?
hint:
> “I asked her to explain what that meant, and she has thus far failed to do so.”
Oh so now all you wanted was just an explanation? You keep changing the story on me. Before you required a specific hoop be jumped through. Now you say she didn’t explain at all?
What a liar you are.
Hence they neutered her marriage and everyone else that the state recognizes as “married”.
So where is your “down in flames” commentary? Where is the pomp and bravado that you keep substituting for actually making a point?
Who here is going to help Meatbrain out? The Reverand patted him on the back, and even attempted to support Meatbrain a bit (by sweeping the change under the rug, but it at least was a try).
Who here is going to argue that Meatbrain didn’t change the question? Are you going to leave him flailing like this? How about just saying that you think his post-hoc exchange was accurate, or even an honest mistake. Who is going to show that the premise he wrote this whole post on is anything but based on a big lie?
Anyone?
April 8, 2007 at 9:39 am
meatbrain
“But then where did I say I deleted that comment due to profanity?”
The only explanation for deletion of my comments that On Lawn has given has been “profanity”. There was no profanity in the deleted comment.
The comment did contain a challenge to Renee to provide facts to back up her claim that I had threatened her. No such threat was made. Renee was lying, and On Lawn knew this. Therefore, he deleted the comment in order to spare Renee the need to explain her lie.
”...are you really saying unequivocally that deleting a comment to avoid having to deal with the objections raised in that comment is intellectually dishonest?”
Yes. It is intellectual dishonesty, and intellectual cowardice.
Restore the comment, coward. Let Renee defend her claim that I threatened her.
“He’s trying to make a claim with out any proof whatsoever about my reasons.”
I’m stating the obvious, idiot. I caught Renee in a lie, and you deleted the comment in order to spare her the need to explain her lie. No further explanation from you is needed. Any other excuse you give will be a lie.
“I’m saying you post-hoc changed the question.”
And I’m calling you a liar. I asked a follow-up. You pretend not to know what that is. Please keep lying.
“If she says her marriage is neutered, it is up to her to explain why. And she did.
False. Renee has provided no details regarding the specific changes in her individual marriage. Please keep lying.
“You made the requirement that to prove her marriage was neutered, she had to show how ”[her] relationship with [her] husband been weakened”.”
Yup. If her relationship to her husband is unchanged, compared to what it was before Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, then no harm can possibly have been done to that relationship. I frankly don’t give a damn about Renee’s fantasies regarding how “the state” sees her marriage, or her blathering about DNA. Show me harm to the actual husband-wife relationship. Can’t do that? Then someone else’s same-sex marriage hasn’t changed your marriage in the least.
“By the way, you haven’t figured out the real reason I deleted the quote yet…”
False. I caught Renee in a lie, and you deleted the comment in order to spare her the need to explain her lie.
“Why could I possibly have deleted that comment, Meatbrain?”
I caught Renee in a lie, and you deleted the comment in order to spare her the need to explain her lie.
April 8, 2007 at 12:32 pm
On Lawn
I asked you to provide a quote to back up your claim:
You haven’t provided the quote. Instead you write:
The only explanation for deletion of my comments that On Lawn has given has been “profanity”.
Which is false. I specifically said there was another reason. Why are you not asking what the reason is? You know I have another reason, what have you to fear?
Come on, if you are really that ignorant as to the real reason I deleted your comment, then ask me. Don’t dance around, don’t squeal and squirm.
Therefore, he deleted the comment in order to spare Renee the need to explain her lie.
Is that your example of good logic? You say, “therefore” as if you are making a logical claim.
But you would have to show two things. 1) That I don’t have confidence in Renee’s ability to answer the question. And that isn’t true, Renee is a most capable and competent communicator. 2) I don’t have another reason to delete your comment.
So then just ask me, you are clearly to afraid to tell everyone why you really know I deleted the comment. Why not just ask me why I did that, instead of expecting everyone here to be so gullible as to assume you are a mind-reader.
And I’m calling you a liar.
Yes, you are.
And you are the one lying. Imagine that, you a well documented liar claiming someone else is lying.
I asked a follow-up. You pretend not to know what that is. Please keep lying.
So that is what makes you think I’m lying?
Okay, then quote where I pretend not to know what a follow-up question is?
Its the least to ask that you back up your claims Meatbrain. You were asked to provide a quote in my previous comment. You didn’t. Yet you made that claim, and this one, anyway.
Where’s the evidence Meatbrain? I’m asking for quotes, you give me zero.
I frankly don’t give a damn about Renee’s fantasies regarding how “the state” sees her marriage, or her blathering about DNA.
Awww, so its not that she didn’t answer the question. You just don’t care. Poor meatbrain, are the words just too much? I thought they taught about DNA in junior high. I thought they tought sex-ed in elementary school. What’s the matter, you haven’t graduated to junior high yet?
Why cover up your ignorance with accusing others of avoiding your questions? Thats a lie, and just another lie I’m continuing to document in your long line of documented lies.
I caught Renee in a lie, and you deleted the comment in order to spare her the need to explain her lie.
There you have it folks, Meatbrain and his “proof by cut and paste”. I guess he thinks since he says it over, and over again his mind-reading must be true.
Face it Meatbrain, you can’t run forever. Ask me why I deleted the comment, and say “I have no idea why you would delete the comment except for the reason I gave”. Just admit it and ask.
April 8, 2007 at 12:49 pm
mel
On Lawn, the sheer desperation in your attempts to frame this conversation in such a way as to … shall we say: “neuter” your adversaries is laughable. Cut it out would ya?
MB doesn’t need any help. He’s made your deceit abundantly clear.
I’m in it for my own reasons and the first was to further Rev. Hull’s point that your made-up term: “neutered marriage” is nonsensical. And you further the nonsense in your reply.
Your request that I cite my source for defining the word “neutered” is purely argumentative. But here you go … enjoy.
I think that one of the most glaring weaknesses in your argument for male/female-only marriage is that you confuse human sexuality with the much broader interests of marriage and even matrimony for that matter. Gay couples, being human, are fully capable of being mothers and fathers and often are. But marriage is much more than sexual reproduction as is evidenced by the fact that sexual reproduction goes merrily on throughout nature without the aid of marriage. As does nurturing and familial bonding and all the rest of the really important stuff.
Marriage is an extension of rights, and social benefits, and legal protections, plain and simple. All of which may be modified, extended, or even entirely removed and human sexuality, human gender roles, human nurturing, etc, etc, would go on with all the force of eons of accumulated vigor.
You say you’re certain that gay marriage will destroy the institution and you hint that it would even destroy the virtue of your individual marriage relationships. But this is just a deceitful obfuscation of the truth: that you believe that god condemns homosexuality and sanctifies heterosexual marriage. But this belief is most certainly the deification and worship of your own hateful ignorance.
April 8, 2007 at 1:35 pm
On Lawn
the sheer desperation in your attempts to frame this conversation in such a way as to … shall we say: “neuter” your adversaries is laughable.
Wow, you just said what I’m writing is trying to neuter Meatbrain and that I’m framing the conversation in some laughable and desperate way?
No really, there it is, you wrote it.
Your request that I cite my source for defining the word “neutered” is purely argumentative.
Oh my. Its important to Meatbrain that people support their claims with facts. But when its asked of you its just “argumentative”.
Either way, you did support your claim with a reference. Thats more than Meatbrain is doing for some of his own most outlandish claims.
He’s made your deceit abundantly clear.
You keep patting him on the back like that, someone might think you are some kind of groupie or something. But I didn’t say Meatbrain needed moral support and a pat on the back…
So which argument do you think is so compelling…
April 8, 2007 at 2:01 pm
mel
On Lawn, you have a gift for incoherent argumentation and you’re clearly not afraid to let your light so shine.
Argumentative because I was not making an “outlandish claim”.
And maybe I am a Meatbrain groupie. In this discussion at least there are benefits to taking sides. And your insistence that anyone found supporting MB is just a back-slapping groupie—this is another example of your desperate attempts to frame the discussion. Cut it out, would ya?
I haven’t seen a compelling argument from you yet.
April 8, 2007 at 2:17 pm
The Rev. Jenner J. Hull
On Lawn…
“Nice quote, only if the quote is from the second question it is inaccurate.”
I only put “neutered” in quotation marks to distinguish your definition of the word (what MB was saying by “weakened”) from the definition in the real-world.
“You can’t get around that Meatbrain was trying to play a post-hoc game of re-defining the question.”
Maybe an analogy is in order…
YOU
Otters are evil.
ME
Can you give me one example of an evil otter?
YOU
My pet otter.
ME
Now, how exactly is your otter evil?
Two different questions though, granted, the second question is directly related to the first. It’s just like saying, “Tell me what you think of ‘X,’” then when an answer is given, asking “Now, why do you think that?”
“Marriage refers to an institution as well as to the individual relationships that comprise the institution. Its as if “tree” meant both “forest” and “tree”. Why? I don’t know but that is the facts.”
So, you’re going to tell me the “facts” about marriage and you don’t even know “Why” they’re the “facts?”
And, if you’re gonna throw in a “fourth grade” dig and lecture me about grammar, it’d be best to do it in a post with no spelling or grammar errors; just FYI.
Mel…
Merci beaucoup.
MB…
Since somebody tagged me, I’m a-gonna tag you.
April 8, 2007 at 8:02 pm
On Lawn
I haven’t seen a compelling argument from you yet.
Awww, poor Mel.
You can’t point to a compelling argument that Meatbrain made, let alone conclusive. Yet you said, “He’s made your deceit abundantly clear.” Typical.
I only put “neutered” in quotation marks to distinguish your definition of the word (what MB was saying by “weakened”) from the definition in the real-world.
And just what is that difference?
Maybe an analogy is in order…
Your analogy is indistinguishable from sock-puppeting. Please stick to whats actually been written.
It’s just like saying, “Tell me what you think of ‘X,’” then when an answer is given, asking “Now, why do you think that?”
That would have been preferable to what Meatbrain did. Also much easier. If he left the comment at “Explain”, he would have done what you said. If he simply asked what the harm was, that would have matched your example also.
But he took an extra step. His follow up changed the question entirely. It is up to Renee to explain what she means by saying her marriage is neutered, and she did that. It is disingenuous for Meatbrain to say that the only way she can explain herself is to show how her relationship to her husband was harmed. Thats tantamount to putting words in her mouth as to what she means by her marriage being neutered. You can disagree about if the terminology should be accepted or is useful, but it is dishonest to tell people what they mean by the words they use.
In the post above (with all the links) is a link to a post where I caught Meatbrain doing that. He demanded his own interpretation on my words for his evidence. And his interpretation soon became strained, confused, and so altered from what I said that his ploy was completely exposed.
So, you’re going to tell me the “facts” about marriage and you don’t even know “Why” they’re the “facts?”
Interesting. Not only does one have to provide facts, but have a knowledge of why the facts are the way they are. Keep playing those games with your goalposts.
And no, I don’t expect people to proof read what they write to me in the comments (unless its really bad) nor do I proofread what I write for comments. Posts, or articles yes. Comments, well I’ll just say if something is garbled because of the grammar just ask me to clarify
April 8, 2007 at 9:44 pm
mel
Conversing with On Lawn is like trying to eat jello with a toothpick.
Dude, you’re the first person I’ve ever met who thinks that the expectation of knowing why a fact is a fact is equivalent to moving the goalposts. Unfortunately for us this is just another symptom of your conversational dementia.
April 9, 2007 at 4:08 am
The Rev. Jenner J. Hull
On Lawn…
“Interesting. Not only does one have to provide facts, but have a knowledge of why the facts are the way they are. Keep playing those games with your goalposts.”
My “goalposts” are planted. Need I remind you, you asked for facts several times in these very comments; in fact, you’re the one who told me, “Why? I don’t know but that is the facts.”
You explicitly claimed knowledge of “facts” without knowing “why” you know these “facts.” That’s telling…
The “facts” are that you can’t provide a single cogent argument as to why two people of the same sex shouldn’t get married, outside of your own personal distaste towards homosexuality, that is.
I read through the comments on the “Straining at Gnats and Swallowing Camels…” post. Not a single argument or valid statement was put forth as to how Renee’s marriage was “neutered,” “weakened,” or, in any way, adversely affected by any other people, be they hetero or homosexual, getting married.
I saw some random statistics and some crap about the workforce in Mass. decreasing and then… Flubbuhbwah? Nothing. Jack. At the very least, now Renee has to prove how homosexuality causes a decrease in the workforce.
I’d also ask another question. Would you say that the marriage ceremony I’m officiating in a few weeks is also illegitimate because I’m a dirty, filthy atheist? Are the man and woman I’m binding in some sort of legal matrimony better or worse than married homosexuals or heterosexuals? This isn’t “changing the question,” just an inquiry on the side.
“You can disagree about if the terminology should be accepted or is useful, but it is dishonest to tell people what they mean by the words they use.”
Yet you have no problem telling everyone else what you think marriage should be.
“Your analogy is indistinguishable from sock-puppeting.”
I was under the assumption that sock-puppetry entailed a single person using multiple accounts to drive home a single view. Since I’m not Meat Brain, or Mel, or, as far as I know, On Lawn, I don’t see how that’s remotely pertinent.
Now, let’s just be honest…
There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality and marriage is a state of mind, nothing more. You can define marriage in any way you choose, and you can rag on “gay marriage” all you want, but when it comes to two consenting adults, you have absolutely no say in the matter.
April 9, 2007 at 6:34 am
meatbrain
I stated that “The only explanation for deletion of my comments that On Lawn has given has been “profanity”.”, and On Lawn replied:
“Which is false. I specifically said there was another reason.”
Here we have a clear and unequivocal instance of On Lawn lying (again). Look back through this comment thread: the only explanation for deletion of my comments that On Lawn has given has been “profanity”. Yes, he claims that there is an alternative explanation — but he has not provided that explanation. Thus, the only explanation for deletion of my comments that On Lawn has given has been “profanity”.
Please keep lying, On Lawn. I cannot possibly do as good a job of discrediting you as you are doing yourself. I appreciate your assistance.
April 9, 2007 at 6:50 am
meatbrain
Here are the facts so far:
April 9, 2007 at 7:59 pm
On Lawn
you’re the first person I’ve ever met who thinks that the expectation of knowing why a fact is a fact is equivalent to moving the goalposts.
Your problem is that you are only giving half the quote.
The requirement to know why a fact exists is more than just presenting facts. Do you disagree? I’ve seen people ask for facts before, and this addition is something I’ve not seen in my correspondence with Meatbrain or the other comments here until the Reverend presented it as a requirement just now. In some ways the Reverend has shown to be much more deft than Meatbrain, but not in that attempt. When you provided the facts (the definition) I didn’t move the goalposts and require you to say why that definition existed.
By the way, from the m-w.com dictionary on institution:
From the definition of marriage:
Just to show dictionary reference to marriage the relationship and marriage the institution. While that doesn’t show why, it establishes my point well enough.
[...] trying to eat jello with a toothpick.
Use a spoon, or in this analogy the right tool is legitimate arguments, and you’ll see yourself going much further in the conversation. But as long as you try stunts like the above, you’ll find as successful and looking just as smart as someone who insists on eating jello with a toothpick.
And you still haven’t shown a compelling, let alone conclusive argument from Meatbrain’s verbosity in this thread yet.
April 9, 2007 at 8:05 pm
On Lawn
Reverend,
You explicitly claimed knowledge of “facts” without knowing “why” you know these “facts.” That’s telling…
Spoooky. What does that tell you, exactly.
Not a single argument or valid statement was put forth as to how Renee’s marriage was “neutered,” “weakened,” or, in any way, adversely affected by any other people, be they hetero or homosexual, getting married.
There Meatbrain. There is one of your posters who is perfectly willing to join you in your fallacy of if you can deny it happened, it didn’t happen!
Surely your ability to deny, misinterpret and confuse is your greatest weapon
Yet you have no problem telling everyone else what you think marriage should be.
Which is a different subject than basing your entire post on an argument where by mind-reading you claim to know what someone else meant, even when they clearly didn’t.
That is dishonest, and you know it.
I was under the assumption that sock-puppetry [...]
I’ve seen it mean that too.
April 9, 2007 at 8:36 pm
On Lawn
Meatbrain,
Always a pleasure. Your gradeschool antics are as much fun to exploit as shooting fish in a barrel.
the only explanation for deletion of my comments that On Lawn has given has been “profanity”. Yes, he claims that there is an alternative explanation [...]
Self-contradiction is something you accomplish with ease, Meatbrain. Apparently logical consistency is something you have no interest in maintaining even for adjoining sentences…
he has not provided that explanation
So just say, “On Lawn, I have no idea what that other explaination is, would you please tell me?”
Just say it, and your wish will be granted. Thats all you need to do. By not doing so, I’m getting convinced you don’t want me to tell everyone. I will, of course, anyway. But I’d hate for you to look bad for showing such fear of me telling your readership what that reason is. \
Is it fear? Why aren’t you asking me what that other reason is? Why are you telling me what that reason is instead of asking me what it is?
Come on Meatbrain, if you don’t admit you don’t have any idea then I’ll be forced to conclude you do know, and you just are playing avoidance and denial games again
Its up to you… You can’t say I wasn’t generous.
Please keep lying, On Lawn.
Oh my, so not telling you the reason is lying?
Folks, look what passes for reasoning here. I don’t tell him—so I’m lying. That must be so discrediting to me for you to claim silence is a lie.
Yes, I’m having a good laugh as I write this. Really Meatbrain, which of your readership do you think your flailing rhetoric actually persuades? Name one, name a specific reader you think buys the “Fact” that silence is a lie. That because I haven’t disclosed the reason, that I’m lying. Which one Meatbrain, are you going to say is that stupid?
Here are the facts so far: (as Meatbrain might say)
Renee has not claimed her personal relationship with her husband has been weakened in any way by the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. On Lawn continues to point out that Renee answered that question, because its not a premise she forwarded. [So much for your promulgating lie theory]. And Meatbrain can’t provide a quote where she said that in the first place, but that doesn’t stop him from pretending she did.
On Lawn continues to ignore the fact that I challenged Renee to answer three other questions regarding her claims really means much at all. Meatbrain has not answered any questions, either. And in fact when pressed Meabrain claims to be above any requirement to provide a point, or evidence for any point he makes. Saying things like, “I don’t have to provide you with sh__, liar.” Looking at his failed attempts here, I can see why.
On Lawn continues to point out that Meatbrain’s question to Renee regarding the weakening of her relationship with her husband was a dishonest followup to Renee’s claim, one that replaced what she meant with what Meatbrain wished she meant. When corrected, he used his pretended powers of mind reading and discernment (instead of facts) to support his dishonesty—saying what is going on in his mind is more accurate than reality. Meatbrain’s inability to show basic reading comprehension, courtesy, and honesty with his post-hoc interpretations shows he has other issues that need more immediate addressing.
On Lawn continues to accept the fact that when Meatbrain’s comment challenging Renee to produce evidence of the alleged threat was deleted, Renee had nothing to do with the deletion. Yet Meatbrain keeps his obsession, and continues to stalk with emails, and posts like a teenager too afraid to ask the head cheerleader on a date.
Am I missing any?
Seriously, for Meatbrain to even continue with his first fact, he has to show where Renee said her relationship was weakened. Anyone disagree with that?
April 9, 2007 at 9:20 pm
meatbrain
“On Lawn continues to point out that Renee answered that question…”
False. Renee has not provided any information that indicates that her marriage has in any way been weakened by the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. That was my question, and Renee hasn’t answered it. On Lawn continues to lie.
“And Meatbrain can’t provide a quote where she said that in the first place, but that doesn’t stop him from pretending she did.”
I have at no point claimed or implied that Renee said her marriage had been weakened. On Lawn continues to lie.
“On Lawn continues to point out that Meatbrain’s question to Renee regarding the weakening of her relationship with her husband was a dishonest followup to Renee’s claim…”
Whoops. On Lawn claimed before that it was an alteration of the original question — when obviously it was not. Now, suddenly, it is a followup, and On Lawn has invented, out of thin air, the category of “dishonest followup”. On Lawn changes his own claim here — exactly the tactic he has accused me of using. That’s the kind of dishonesty we have come to expect from this lying coward.
”...saying what is going on in his mind is more accurate than reality.”
I’ve made no such statement. On Lawn continues to lie.
“Renee had nothing to do with the deletion. “
Doesn’t matter. The challenge was deleted because someone — I don’t care who — wanted to protect Renee from the consequences of her own lie. On Lawn knows Renee was lying when she made that accusation.
“Yet Meatbrain keeps his obsession, and continues to stalk with emails…”
No such stalking has occurred. I sent Renee a copy of the original post, so that she would know that I had publicly exposed her lie. I have not emailed her since. One email isn’t stalking by any definition, and one email isn’t emails plural. On Lawn is lying — again.
April 9, 2007 at 10:44 pm
On Lawn
Renee has not provided any information that indicates that her marriage has in any way been weakened by the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. ... I have at no point claimed or implied that Renee said her marriage had been weakened.
Not even implied?
You pretended that in this very post, liar.
On Lawn claimed before that it was an alteration of the original question — when obviously it was not.
Meatbrain says he didn’t alter the original inquiry…
Fact: Meatrain said,
And then followed up with:
Since Meatbrain claims, (and get this, its in bold type):
She didn’t answer the question about harm to her marriage, thus he somehow feels he’s proven that she didn’t support her claim. If her relationship wasn’t claimed to be harmed, then which claim did she not support?
Point and match Meabrain. Its there for everyone to see.
So tell me, specifically and by name, which of your readership do you think was going to be so gullible and stupid as believe you?
April 9, 2007 at 11:06 pm
On Lawn
I’ve made no such statement. On Lawn continues to lie.
“Renee had nothing to do with the deletion. “
Doesn’t matter. The challenge was deleted because someone — I don’t care who — wanted to protect Renee from the consequences of her own lie. On Lawn knows Renee was lying when she made that accusation.
What a laugh.
Get this everyone, your Meatbrain claims he’s never implied that what is going on in his brain is more accurate than reality. Then in the next paragraph says the facts ”[d]oesn’t matter”, he just knows it was to cover a lie—well because he knows I know its a lie!
But oh, no. He’s showing my dishonesty because his mindreading is so powerful.
Come on Meatbrain, why are you avoiding asking me what the reason is? Is it because you know and are already flailing in denial? If you don’t know, why are you afraid to admit you have no idea what my reason for deleting your comment could be if not covering a lie?
You aren’t answering those questions. You are claiming the same thing over and over again—instead of answering the question.
Answer the questions, Meabrain. After all, that is what you are mad at Renee about. If answering the questions is so important then—answer the question. Hypocrite.
April 10, 2007 at 12:08 am
On Lawn
By the way folks, More on Meatbrain the documented liar (that is one I haven’t quoted yet, like I said he has a long, long line of lies that no one here seems to be questioning).
Now that it is more than clear Meatbrain has based his post on a lie (and most recently tried to weasel his way out of it with more lies) I might as well tell you whats up, why I deleted his comment.
But first lets address one point. So far he says it is to protect Renee from making a lie. But that isn’t true. Meatbrain was lying yet again. Because the claims can be supported.
He says he gave three additional things for Renee to give evidence of, and claimed she didn’t give evidence for them. I’m going to show you where she did…
1) “Are you actually claiming that no one in Massachusetts has an immediate family?”
Meatbrain constructed a partial quote. Here is the full quote:
Even Meatbrain was unsure that it meant, at first, there are no immediate families in Massachusetts. So why should Renee answer that? Yet she did…
Aghast! Meatbrain lied, she did answer the question! What could she mean? Well, she goes on to show exactly what she means…
Her qualm is that the state takes the place of the immediate family. The ability to have a family, a unit where you are immediately responsible for providing the best upbringing you can, is supplanted by a state who feels they should bring up your children the best way they can. She references a recent decision that I’m sure Meatbrain is aware of concerning David Parker and his ability to opt out of education about homosexuality. The court ruled that his place as a father is meaningless in directing the child’s personal exposure to sensitive content at school.
Do you disagree? Good. I hope you do. I hope you can tear that opinion to shreds, because that makes you better than Meatbrain, if you ask me. That makes you someone interested in discussion. But that isn’t Meatbrain, he was only interested in making false claims—specifically that “Renee has not answered those [referencing a link to the quoted question above] questions, either.”
The next question he claims she didn’t answer:
As I noted before, Meatbrain has a habit of asking for evidence after it was provided. I think it is his way of ignoring something because he can’t discuss facts, only make the same accusation in every discussion he gets in. I get that from when he says, “I’m not here to answer questions from anyone. I’m here watch you lying bigots run away from the questions I’ve asked.” But that is just my theory.
Do people come here to watch people run away from answering questions? If so, you’ve found the perfect example of that in Meatbrain. Because by his own words he’s not supposed to have to argue rationally.
Anyway, this one I dealt with directly...
In her words (the full quote that Meatbrain ignores)...
And she does show evidence (that Meatbrain ignores)...
http://www.townonline.com/malden/opinion/x257130502
“Will the last worker to leave Massachusetts please turn out the lights?
That question is prompted by the latest study on the state’s labor force. While the workforce across the United States grew by 3.1 percent from 2003 to 2005, ours shrunk by 1.7 percent.
We’re losing population as well as workers, a net loss of 233,000 residents in the first half of this decade. Only New York has a higher level of out-migration than Massachusetts. [...]
And his last of those three questions:
She can’t. That one I did delete for profanity. But such greatest hits of Meatbrain are still preserved in my response to those posts. Such as, I do not give the least little ant fart about ‘society’, and one of my favorites: And yes, I am abusive. (and he wonders why Renee felt threatened).
And here is another (in a now long line) of questions Meatbrain won’t answer…
Come on, I asked for it before and you ran away. Are you going to run away again instead of admit you can’t?
Always fun meatbrain…
So, who here still believes that Renee should be faulted for not answering a claim she never met? If so, then what do you think about Meatbrain who can’t answer a question about why we should neuter the definition of marriage if no homosexual couple’s relationship is hurt without marriage?
Anyone?
Come, on. Anyone?
So now that his belief that her posts couldn’t be supported are now debunked, anyone curious why I deleted his post yet?
April 10, 2007 at 6:19 am
meatbrain
“Meatbrain says he didn’t alter the original inquiry…”
And On Lawn now agrees that my follow-up question was in fact a follow-up. Yet earlier he claimed that I had “chang[ed] the question midstream”. It seems that On Lawn actually employs the tactic that he accuses other of using: “playing… games with your goalposts”. This kind of projection is common among liars of his sort.
“Meatbrain lied, she did answer the question!”
False. Renee repeated her claim (“There is no immediate family in Massachusetts”), but failed to provide empirical evidence that no one in Massachusetts has an immediate family. Renee’s vague implication that some unnamed court case suddenly eliminated all mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and so on isn’t evidence.
“She provided statistics on the families moving out of Massachusetts because the cost of living is too great there.”
False. Renee provided no data that indicates that families are moving out of Massachusetts specifically because of the cost of living.
Renee also provided no statistics about the Massachusetts economy itself — no figures on the state GDP, no figures on business closings, nothing. She alleged that the figures she did give must mean that the economy of Massachusetts was collapsing — but an allegation is not evidence.
In fact, the economy of Massachusetts has been growing steadily for many years. US Department of Commerce figures released late last year indicate that the Gross Domestic Product of Massachusetts grew an average of 3.7% annually for the period 1997 through 2004, the 13th highest growth rate in the country.
Regarding Renee’s claim that I supposedly said that I “just don’t care because marriage has nothing to do about familes like my own or the other contributors on this blog”, On Lawn first states:
“He says he gave three additional things for Renee to give evidence of, and claimed she didn’t give evidence for them. I’m going to show you where she did…”
...yet later admits, with regard to Renee’s claim about this alleged statement of mine, that:
“She can’t.”
Clearly, On Lawn’s assertion that he would show us that Renee provided evidence for this claim was a lie. He also lies when he claims that he deleted the comment in which I made the statement that Renee attributed to me. No such comment was ever posted.
On Lawn has yet to address Renee’s lie that I had somehow “harass[ed] and threaten[ed]” her. On Lawn also lied when he claimed that I was “stalking” Renee in email. It is clear that lies are On Lawn’s chief — and perhaps only — tactic.
April 10, 2007 at 6:27 am
Op Ed.
meatbrain: I have at no point claimed or implied that Renee said her marriage had been weakened.
Earlier meatbrain: Yikes… sounds like things are bad in Renee’s marriage.
SNAP! Where are your backslapping groupies to bail you out now, meatbrain? How terribly stupid of you.
Jen: I only put “neutered” in quotation marks to distinguish your definition of the word (what MB was saying by “weakened”)
Speaking of backslapping groupies, looks like Jen, trying to rescue you from the post-hoc charge, already closed the “didn’t claim” door for you. Hey, meatbrain, making yourself look stupid through contradiction is one thing, but do you really have to do that to your groupies, too? C’mon. Haven’t they suffered enough already?
Stick a fork in him, he’s done.
mel: ...like trying to eat jello with a toothpick.
Oh, sorry about that, mel. Hey, until they let you have utensils again have someone explain the whole “fork” thing to you.
April 10, 2007 at 8:26 am
On Lawn
And On Lawn now agrees that my follow-up question was in fact a follow-up.
False, liar. There is nothing about it being a follow-up that 1) I ever denied and 2) excuses your post-hoc chicanery.
Renee repeated her claim (“There is no immediate family in Massachusetts”),
You are ignoring is what she said next, once again misrepresenting what she said. Liar.
Renee’s vague implication that some unnamed court case suddenly eliminated all mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and so on isn’t…
...what Meatbrain wanted to hear. But instead of disagreeing he keeps pretending that it wasn’t answered instead. When all Meatbrain has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I’ve seen smarter hammers, though.
Renee provided no data that indicates that families are moving out of Massachusetts specifically because of the cost of living.
False, lair. She quoted foreclosure rates rising, as well as the people moving out.
On Lawn first states:
“He says he gave three additional things for Renee to give evidence of, and claimed she didn’t give evidence for them. I’m going to show you where she did…”
...yet later admits, with regard to Renee’s claim about this alleged statement of mine, that:
“She can’t.”
What Meatbrain is ignoring is that I did show how much he didn’t care:
Lets run those quotes again, shall we? The full quote…
So, if she can’t, I can and did
Perhaps I should restore his comments where he admits to being abusive, and his general lack of concern for society. We can quote it even more fully, showing Meatbrain as the desperate, vulgar, incompetant liar—but at this point that would just be redundant. And since Meatbrain doesn’t deny he said that, end of story.
Meatbrain is just a documented liar, over and over again.
The more I point that out the more desperate he tries to claim other’s lie. He’s obviously more desperate than ever. Watching his lies exposed, in front of his whole readership, and his inability to prove any lie that was told to him…
Poor Meatbrain. But I have no problem exposing lies of self-admitted pathological and abusive personalities like him.
April 10, 2007 at 9:39 am
meatbrain
In response to my statement that “On Lawn now agrees that my follow-up question was in fact a follow-up”, On Lawn replies:
“False, liar.”
Yet he states in this comment that my question was in fact a follow-up. On Lawn is now reduced to lying about his own past statements.
Renee failed to provide empirical evidence that no one in Massachusetts has an immediate family. Renee’s vague implication that some unnamed court case suddenly eliminated all mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and so on isn’t evidence. On Lawn’s repeated insistence that Renee provided this evidence is a lie.
Renee provided no data that supports her specific assertion that the economy of the state of Massachusetts is “collapsing”. All she did was quote a few statistics regarding population, and implied that these were proof of the “collapse”. In fact, as already shown, the economy of the state of Massachusetts has grown steadily for several years. On Lawn ignores this completely, as it clearly shows that Renee was incorrect.
On Lawn’s assertion that he would show us that Renee provided evidence for her claim (that I supposedly said that I “just don’t care because marriage has nothing to do about familes like my own or the other contributors on this blog”) was a lie. He also lies when he claims that he deleted the comment in which I made the statement that Renee attributed to me. No such comment was ever posted.
On Lawn has yet to address Renee’s lie that I had somehow “harass[ed] and threaten[ed]” her. On Lawn also lied when he claimed that I was “stalking” Renee in email. It is clear that lies are On Lawn’s chief — and perhaps only — tactic.
April 10, 2007 at 9:55 am
On Lawn
Op-Ed,
I hope you don’t mind, I’m going pile on with the quote Reverend was referencing when he/she explained the use of scare quotes around the word neutered…
Which is exactly how I took it. MB asked for an example of a “neutered marriage,” Renee gave him one, and he asked for an explanation as to how the marriage was “neutered.” This is only “changing the question” if you have no skills or experience in human conversation or interaction.
Poor Meabrain.
April 10, 2007 at 10:29 am
On Lawn
I see Meatbrain isn’t even going to deny he admits to being an abusive person who doesn’t care about society. I see Meatbrain isn’t going to deny that he did alter the question. I see Meatbrain isn’t going to deny the lies he’s said in the past at all. He’s going to concoct something new to talk about.
Previously, I challenged
Prove I’m pretending to not understand the concept of a follow-up question, Meatbrain.
He couldn’t because he was lying (as usual). Later he said…
On Lawn now agrees that my follow-up question was in fact a follow-up
If Meatbrain’s statement didn’t include the word “now”, implying that it is a change in my position, it would be correct. I never disagreed that it was a follow-up, or pretended not to know what a follow-up is.
Which is the part of the quote Meatbrain chooses to ignore:
If I’m lying then prove I ever denied it was a follow up, or pretended not to understand what a follow-up is.
Support your facts with evidence, Meatbrain. But you can’t because you are lying.
Sorry, Meatbrain, you are just digging yourself deeper trying ever more desperately to distract from your lies and abusive personality. And for that I pity you.
Renee failed to provide empirical evidence that no one in Massachusetts has an immediate family.
Already proven false, admit it liar. Pay attention and keep your facts straight, liar.
Renee showed verifiable evidence and you even reference it in the same paragraph.
But then knowing he is lying has never stopped Meatbrain from repeating a lie.
Renee’s vague implication that some unnamed court case
Meatbrain, the liar, pretends to not know what Renee was talking about. And without asking which case she meant, jumps to the conclusion she didn’t provide evidence. How typical, Meatbrain admits he doesn’t know what Renee is referring to, but that doesn’t stop him from making the same conclusions over and over again.
On Lawn’s repeated insistence that Renee provided this evidence is a lie.
False, liar. I gave the link to the very quote she provided the “unnamed court case”. You yourself said she provided it—then say I lied that she provided this evidence. You can’t keep your facts straight within the same paragraph, liar
All she did was quote a few statistics regarding population
False, liar. She showed people are moving out of Massachusetts, and a extremely high foreclosure rate. Get it right, liar.
In fact, as already shown, the economy of the state of Massachusetts has grown steadily for several years. On Lawn ignores this completely, as it clearly shows that Renee was incorrect.
You can’t disagree with something she didn’t submit. Obviously she did supply evidence (empirical evidence) when you previously claimed she didn’t. Get your facts straight, liar
Admit it, you are putting one set of numbers against hers, because she did provide them, liar.
You can’t have it both ways, liar.
He also lies when he claims that he deleted the comment in which I made the statement that Renee attributed to me.
Are you really denying that you said you were abusive? Are you really denying you said you don’t care about society? Are you really saying I didn’t delete that comment because of profanity? Be specific, answer the question, liar.
Its too easy folks. At this point its just fun to watch Meatbrain squeal like a stuck pig, flailing about with anything he can (no matter how petty and false).
Go ahead stuck pig, keep squealing and showing everyone what a liar you are.
On Lawn also lied when he claimed that I was “stalking” Renee in email.
False, I can reproduce the email where he pursues her on this same subject and same demands based on his proven lies that he posted on Opine, here, and on Opine again, then in email.
How is that not stalking and harrassment, Meatbrain—the repeatedly well documented and proven liar.
On Lawn has yet to address Renee’s lie that I had somehow “harass[ed] and threaten[ed]” her.
Except that I did, and even you admitted you are abusive. Which shows you don’t lie all the time, at least
April 10, 2007 at 11:28 am
Op Ed.
meatbrain: On Lawn is now reduced to lying about his own past statements.
This from the meathead who pulled this gaff.
April 10, 2007 at 11:56 am
meatbrain
“I never disagreed that it was a follow-up, or pretended not to know what a follow-up is.”
On Lawn’s original position was that I was “changing the question midstream”, and he in fact ridiculed the idea that it could be a follow-up question:
”...to call that a follow up question instead of the post-hoc mess that it really is just tells me how gullible you think your readership is.”
On Lawn is lying again.
“Renee showed verifiable evidence [that no one in Massachusetts has an immediate family]”
Here is Renee’s reply to that challenge:
“There is no immediate family in Massachusetts, tax payers and citizens have no right or influence in what is taught in the school systems. Parents can not opt out of anything that goes against their decision at what time to bring up certian subjects. Cases have been dismissed, because the state can have any reason to teach what it wants. Funny that southern states can now use the same case law to teach the Bible.”
This is merely a series of assertions. No verifiable facts are given. On Lawn is lying again.
“Are you really denying that you said you were abusive? Are you really denying you said you don’t care about society? Are you really saying I didn’t delete that comment because of profanity? Be specific, answer the question, liar.”
The specific statement in question was Renee’s assertion that I said that I “just don’t care because marriage has nothing to do about familes like my own or the other contributors on this blog”. On Lawn now pretends that we were discussing some other statement entirely. His dishonesty continues unabated.
“False, I can reproduce the email where he pursues her on this same subject and same demands based on his proven lies that he posted on Opine, here, and on Opine again, then in email.”
On Lawn’s specific claim was that I “continue[d] to stalk [Renee] with emails” (emphasis mine). Now the story changes: he claims to have only one email, and somehow this becomes “stalking”. On Lawn has discovered that lying creates a problem: he has to keep an awful lot of inconsistent stories straight.
On Lawn also fails to produce the slightest evidence that I have in any way “harass[ed] and threaten[ed]” Renee.
Ed Brayton is correct. On Lawn’s rhetoric is quite simply ridiculous.
April 10, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Op Ed.
meatbrain: On Lawn’s rhetoric is quite simply ridiculous.
This from the meathead who pulled this gaff.
April 14, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Chairm
Meatbrain, just ask straightforward questions based on what is actually written.
Here is an example of how you might have sought clarification through a line of follow-up questions.
1. What do you meant by neutered marriage?
2. Would that have a bad effect, i.e. weaken the state’s recogniton of the social insitution?
3. Would it effect existing relationships of husbands and wives?
4. If yes, could you give an example of the effect on a particular marital relationship?
5. Would it weaken a particular marital relationship? How?
6. Would it effect future relationships of husbands and wives? How? Example(s)?
... and so forth.
If your goal is really to slur and abuse, you’ve done enough of that without bothering to make the effort of an intellectually honest exchange questions and answers.
Declaring that you don’t care about society and admitting that you are abusive is not the way to encourage anyone to listen to you, let alone to accept that you sincerely wish to find answers to your questions.
Clear the deck. Ask for clarification rather than get yourself all worked up in making false accusations and then trying to defend your admittedly abusive and uncaring approach to the issue of marriage in this society.
Disagreement with you is not a signal for you to call someone a liar. If you don’t know what is meant by something, ask and read more carefully. Jumping to conclusions based on a reflexive hostility just make you look very foolish.
You can do better if you make the effort to act contrary to your admission of being abusive and anti-social. You don’t have to make the effort. None of your usual readers might even expect you to raise the bar. But the choice is yours anyway no matter what I or others might suggest for improvement.