Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Can't pinpoint where the joke was missed here

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 10 months ago

User Journal 25

Satanists Distance Themselves From Pro-Abortion “Hail Satan” Chants
Typically, if someone isn't getting the joke, it's the sanctimonious one.
But the Twitter account itself could be a total troll.Satanists Distance Themselves From Pro-Abortion âoeHail Satanâ Chants
Typically, if someone isn't getting the joke, it's the sanctimonious one.
But the Twitter account itself could be a total troll.

cancel ×

25 comments

Funny, because ... (0)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#44903669)

Just last night I started calling Democrats "Satanists." If Reid calls Republicans "anarchists" and Pelosi calls them "terrorists," I figure it's acceptable now to call people terrible names that are not based in any facts or reason. But, then, I am being unfair to Satanists.

Re:Funny, because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44904249)

I think it's adorable that you let how Reid and Pelosi behave affect you so personally, so as to even affect the way you speak. It shows you care :)

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#44904935)

Sorry, did you have a point? I don't see one.

Re:Funny, because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44906203)

Reid calls Republicans "anarchists"

Anarchist: a person who believes that government and laws are not necessary (source [merriam-webster.com] )

Pelosi calls them "terrorists,"

Terrorism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal (source [merriam-webster.com] )

It is really not hard to place the recent tea party catalyzed actions of the house republicans under those definitions using facts. However:

I started calling Democrats "Satanists"

Satanism: worship of the Devil (source [merriam-webster.com] )

Doesn't really have any factual support.

Re:Funny, because ... (0)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#44906431)

Reid calls Republicans "anarchists"

Anarchist: a person who believes that government and laws are not necessary (source [merriam-webster.com] )

Right. He clearly lied.

Pelosi calls them "terrorists,"

Terrorism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal (source [merriam-webster.com] )

Right. She clearly lied.

It is really not hard to place the recent tea party catalyzed actions of the house republicans under those definitions using facts.

You're lying, you Satanist pedophile. Please stop being a total ass by pretending that they made any sense. Thanks!

Re:Funny, because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909423)

Reid calls Republicans "anarchists"

Anarchist: a person who believes that government and laws are not necessary (source [merriam-webster.com])

Right. He clearly lied.

No, he did not. He simply pointed out that the republicans view government as unnecessary. Furthermore they are willing to discard the rule of law to impose the wishes and beliefs of a minorty upon the people. The willingness to shut down the entire government shows a disregard for the rule of law.

In other words, the label of anarchist is accurate.

Pelosi calls them "terrorists,"

Terrorism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal (source [merriam-webster.com])

Right. She clearly lied.

The republicans showed they are not at all hesitant to use violence to threatten the people into their belief structure.

In other words, the label of terrorist is accurate.
 
 

It is really not hard to place the recent tea party catalyzed actions of the house republicans under those definitions using facts.

You're lying

You haven't shown that in the slightest. Indeed, I have shown how my arguments are backed up by facts. Perhpas you are getting frustrated?
 
 

you Satanist pedophile

The fact that you just lowered yourself to name calling supports the notion that you are getting frustrated. Perhaps your pride is injured since you have a four digit UID and you just got your ass handed to you by an AC. It is understandable that such a thing might hurt your pride, but name calling won't help you look better.
 
 

Please stop being a total ass

Wow, more name calling. You don't seem to be very good at this.
 
 

pretending that they made any sense

There is no pretending required. I used definitions from one of a major dictionaries of the English language and demonstrated how they fit. For some reason you replied by imposing your fantasy world and then calling me names.
 
 

Thanks!

I'm always happy to help show facts to people who are lost such as yourself.

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#44909965)

The republicans showed they are not at all hesitant to use violence to threatten the people into their belief structure.

You're a liar.

Come back when you reject the practice of lying to advance your agenda.

Re:Funny, because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44911321)

The republicans showed they are not at all hesitant to use violence to threatten the people into their belief structure.

You're a liar.

Your argument is invalid. Shutting down the government is an act of violence, and the republicans are willing to shut down the government to push their minority agenda through.
 
 

Come back when you reject the practice of lying to advance your agenda.

Are you talking to yourself? You just lied about lying. I have used facts to show how the original argument is valid and you have responded by calling me names and using arguments that I have clearly demonstrated to be invalid.

How fitting that the captcha for this submission is the word "ability" - as in this discussion seems to be well beyond your ability to participate in.

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#44912005)

Shutting down the government is an act of violence

You're a liar.

the republicans are willing to shut down the government to push their minority agenda through.

You're a liar. Republicans passed a bill to keep the government running. If the Democrats refuse to act on it, literally and explicitly and intentionally they are the ones shutting down government.

Re:Funny, because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44913025)

Shutting down the government is an act of violence

You're a liar.

Don't go trying to make shit up just because reality is uncomforting to you. Shutting down the federal government is a very violent act.
 
 

the republicans are willing to shut down the government to push their minority agenda through.

You're a liar. Republicans passed a bill to keep the government running

I'm not sure you even understand the concept of lying, but that is aside from the fact that the republicans just insisted on a measure that would shut down the government. The republicans have been unwilling to negotiate with the democrats and have authored a bill that they know the democrats will not support. Furthermore the republicans have shown that they are fine with the government shutting down as a result of this bill and that they have zero interest in negotiating any other kind of bill.

Think (clearly not easy for you, but try) of it this way (yeah, OK not likely to ever happen): if the democrats had control of the house and the republicans had the rest, and the democrats wrote a bill that would have set a single uniform tax rate for all forms of income - wages, interest, investments, dividends, social security, welfare, inheritance, off shore banking, etc - and attached it similarly to a bill, the republicans would have delcared that to be a poison pill that they would have refused. If the bill in question was a key point in keeping the government operating, the republicans would have declared the democrats to be terrorists. The only difference here is that since the republicans have declared a monopoly on all things "American" the label doesn't stick when they apply it. Here the republicans are explicitly shutting down the government but in your world view the blame belongs to someone else.
 
 

If the Democrats refuse to act on it, literally and explicitly and intentionally they are the ones shutting down government.

You are only setting yourself up to move the goal posts there. Here you say if they refuse to act on it. If they vote on it and vote it down, you will then say that they are shutting down the government by not passing it. The republicans have refused to negotiate on the matter. Of course, you are likely not at all uncomfortable with moving the goal posts if it makes it more difficult for the democrats to score points - I would wager your scoreboard reads something like 3,598,378 : -37 GOP : democrats.

And the captcha provides another well suited term, this time "shiftily". Almost as if the captcha is reading your posts before I begin my reply.

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44913067)

After finding this [ssrn.com] , I made a JE about people like him.. His schtick was cute many years ago, but sooner or later it becomes tiresome.. The truth just makes him dig in and 'stand his ground'...

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44914297)

From your article, which I skimmed only briefly:

These normal and normally reliable processes of knowledge transmission break down when risk or like facts are transformed (whether through strategic calculation or misadventure and accident) into divisive symbols of cultural identity. The solution to this problem is not—or certainly not necessarily!—to divest citizens of the power to contribute to the formation of public policy. It is to adopt measures that effectively shield decision-relevant science from the influences that generate this reason-disabling state (Kahan et al. 2006).

For a quick glance, this is some solid research.
Best wishes on restoring "decision-relevant" research to any status. For example, anything to do with the EPA I assert is biased in favor of the anthropogenic global warming/sustainable growth mafia, until thoroughly proven otherwise. Too much malarky afoot.
I'd like to see some research that ventures into the realm of source, as opposed to the topic, of the information. For example, if the NRA comes out with a study that shows MOAR LAWS reduces gun violence, I'd give that a far different reading than similar output from, say, the Brady bunch.
Wikipedia is good for apolitical topics like inorganic chemistry. But I don't rely on it much for history or social topics, as those pages are rife with cooties.
To truncate the NAACP: "A mind is a terrible thing."

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44918825)

I'd like to see some research that ventures into the realm of source, as opposed to the topic, of the information.

See? You obliterate the message with obsession over the messenger. And the study does cover that, through 'framing'. This study is just one of many on the same subject. It's all old stuff, and can be boiled down to conditioning and how it subjugates human reasoning to produce a desired result. Pavlov and Skinner showed how it's done in much simpler and direct terms.

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44919351)

You obliterate the message with obsession over the messenger.

How does asking for a full read of the 5Ws in any away do other than substantiate valid inputs?
Just because you can show

conditioning and how it subjugates human reasoning to produce a desired result

does not obviate the truth that the Information Age is awash in W.C. Fields types, at all levels, and, sadly, in the halls of "science".

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#44921585)

Don't go trying to make shit up

I didn't. I pointed out the fact that you were lying when you said lawfully and peacefully shutting down a manmade organization is an act of violence.

Shutting down the federal government is a very violent act.

You're a liar.

the republicans just insisted on a measure that would shut down the government

You're a liar. In fact, they passed -- not insisted on -- a measure TO FULLY FUND government, except for one particular measure they were, in large part, elected to prevent from being implemented.

The republicans have been unwilling to negotiate with the democrats

You're a liar. It's Harry Reid and Barack Obama who have rejected any debate on the subject. They've said many many times that the subject is "off the table" etc.

and have authored a bill that they know the democrats will not support

So? That happens all the time. That is how it was designed to work: you make a proposal, the other side makes a proposal, you go to conference and hash it out. Except Reid has refused to even consider going to conference to hash it out. He is literally the one that would be shutting down government, if he keeps his word.

Further -- also, again, by explicit design -- the Republicans have the upper hand here, because you need both sides to agree on any spending. If only one side wants it, then the Constitution says it doesn't get funded. So literally, Reid and Obama are threatening to shut down government if the Republicans don't turn over their authority to the will of the Democrats. It's idiotic and insane.

Furthermore the republicans have shown that they are fine with the government shutting down as a result of this bill and that they have zero interest in negotiating any other kind of bill.

You're a liar on both counts. They have always said, from the beginning, they want the government to NOT be shut down, and their actions in passing a bill to fund government are proof. As to the latter, you're lying: they have been open to negotiating from the beginning of the year, but Obama and Reid have steadfastly refused.

if the democrats had control of the house and the republicans had the rest, and the democrats wrote a bill that would have set a single uniform tax rate for all forms of income - wages, interest, investments, dividends, social security, welfare, inheritance, off shore banking, etc - and attached it similarly to a bill

I don't know if you are lying or ignorant here. This isn't analogous at all. In the present case, the Democrats want action taken that the Republicans don't want. In your hypothetical scenario, the Democrats want action taken that the Republicans don't want!

There is this bizarre and obviously false notion that action and inaction are equivalent, simply opposite sides of the same coin, and that neither has any more proper standing than the other. But that is not remotely true. In our legislative system, the side that doesn't want action wins, by design. That is how the Congress works. That's what the Constitution says.

I mean, I get it: the Republicans generally want smaller government and you Satanist pedophiles want a bigger one, so therefore you want to act like you are on equal footing, or even in a superior position. But definitionally, you are in the inferior position. If either the House or the Senate -- or the President, unless there's enough to override a veto -- does not want a certain legislative action taken, then it doesn't get taken. Period, end of story.

The only proper way to get the funding for the Affordable Care Act is to convince both houses, and the President, that it should be funded. And to do that every year. Lying about obligations and pretending that the GOP is to blame only makes you look as pathetic and petty and desperate as you are.

If they vote on it and vote it down, you will then say that they are shutting down the government by not passing it.

No, I won't. Because then it will go to conference ... unless Reid refuses, in which case, yes, he is shutting down the government. But at the end of the day, yes, if neither side budges, it is the Democrats' fault of the government gets shut down, simply because the Senate has no right or authority or power to force the House to do any damned thing at all, and if the House won't fund something, then the Constitution says it doesn't get funded.

The republicans have refused to negotiate on the matter.

You're a liar.

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44946577)

Have a nice day [timesfreepress.com] :-)

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#44949477)

Exactly. THAT would be violence. But no one has done any such thing. Saying otherwise is idiotic.

There are three implicit, and obvious, lies in the claim that Republicans shutting down government is a violent act.

1. "The Republicans are shutting down government." No such action has been taken. At this point, if government shuts down, it would be the Democrats' fault, because the Republicans passed a bill to fund it and the Democrats haven't taken it up.

2. "The Congress has an obligation to fund government." It is absoultely within its power and authority and obligation, as a balance to the executive and the other house, to not fund the government.

3. "Shutting down the government causes violent harm." It's hard to even know how to respond to this, other than, "No, it doesn't." There's no evidence provided for this. But even if it were true, that's the fault of the socialists who have unconstitutionally extended the power of the federal government such that we are required to keep it going for fear of "violent harm."

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44951905)

If they were a bunch of hippies, they would be accused of inciting a riot.

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#44952169)

Not by me. Shrug.

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44953895)

I'm sorry... democrat hippies...

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#44954045)

You got the wrong guy, as usual.

Re:Funny, because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44959943)

indeed. pudge does not accuse, he simply declares and it becomes god's own truth.

Re:Funny, because ... (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 months ago | (#44960155)

You're lying. I have never once said, ever, that someone who is using their constitutional legislative powers is "inciting a riot" or anything similarly bad, simply for doing so. I might say they are terrible person based on the content of the bill they are trying to pass, but that isn't what's going on here: the GOP is being accused of rape, terror, arson, hostage-taking, and more just because they are exercising their explicit constitutional duty.

... a constitutional and infallible resource still remains with the larger States, by which they will be able at all times to accomplish their just purposes. The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

-- Federalist 58 [federali.st]

Oh right, but James Madison was a terrorist, too. He then goes on to point out that Senators will be less likely to shut down the government, and therefore, the House will win in such standoffs (as we saw in the 90s). Now, the weird thing, though, is that Madison said this would mean that a. we wouldn't shut down governmenrt and b. the House would succeed in curbing spending. What this means is that Madison was a bit off when he said, "Those who represent the dignity of their country in the eyes of other nations, will be particularly sensible to every prospect of public danger, or of dishonorable stagnation in public affairs." It seems the President and Senate Majority Leader are perfectly willing to go this route ... perhaps because they do not represent as much dignity as their station would normally imply?

Sanctimonious Satanists (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44906773)

That's got a nice ring to it. Good name for a metal band.

Also on the ironing board: Anti-abortionists are pro-life... Say whaaa?

Re:Sanctimonious Satanists (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#44909037)

I bought their "Smug" record, played it backwards, and out came Frank Sinatra. So you can't say they lack humor.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...