Comments by pk

Previous | Page 3 of 72 | Next

Posted on May 20 at 2:46 p.m.

Jarvis. You call people liars, then flee when challenged on your evidence. You make things up to suit your prejudices and ignore requests to back up your claims with facts.

You also like to deny that you're responsible for things that appear in your posts, so when you write, "Never trust and atheist, I always say. You need to have a system of sin, if you really want the whole truth," we're supposed to believe that the phrase "the whole truth" isn't really there.

What I've already learned in life is that Mary McCarthy's line covers you pretty well: "Every word [he] writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'."

On Students Stage Sit-In at Cheadle Hall

Posted on May 20 at 1:59 p.m.

Interesting to see Jarvis using the phrase "the whole truth" -- he likes to accuse other people of lying and being dishonest, and then when he's asked to defend his claims, he disappears.

On Students Stage Sit-In at Cheadle Hall

Posted on May 20 at 11:45 a.m.

A perfect example of how Jarvis operates. He accuses someone of lying or being dishonest. He's asked for evidence. He disappears.

On The Judiciary

Posted on May 20 at 7:18 a.m.

OK, so you can't read. We know that already.

lucas is the one who wrote, "I agree with JJ that the legal issue is not one of the ethical morality of homosexuality, but the interwinement of federal (and also state) laws with marital status."

He also schooled you on your lie that Obama lied about that Martin Luther King quote.

I'm the one who wrote, "What is a lie is Jarvis' earlier statement that the President claims the original Parker quote without attribution as his own. In fact, as noted, what the President cites is the KIng quote, and since Jarvis presents no evidence that Obama has ever claimed it as his own, it's best to assume that he has none, because lying is something else whose repetition seems to offer Jarvis self-relief. It's an unfortunate aspect of his disorder that he's so uncontrollably driven to keep doing this in public."

I'm also the one who referred to "your tediously dishonest crap about the President's 'real, legal' name.

OK, now that we've cleared that up, you can clear up just who you were accusing of intentionally misquoting you and provide the evidence that this is in fact the case.

On The Judiciary

Posted on May 19 at 11:20 p.m.

Read what I wrote, Jarvis. First, let me know when you get to the part where you think I said that the Supreme Court should or will rule based on issues of "romance and marriage." Then explain why you think that because the word "marriage" doesn't appear in the Constitution, marriage will be irrelevant in deciding an issue relating to marriage.

You can also explain where I supposedly intentionally misquoted you.

On The Judiciary

Posted on May 19 at 10:59 p.m.


Here's exactly what you wrote:
"We" don't need to decide anything about marriage. We only need to be equitable dispensing government benefits on the basis of an arbitrarily defined relationship-status.

Here's what I quoted:
So marriage is about the "equitable dispensing [of] government benefits on the basis of an arbitrarily defined relationship-status."

Which part of this is an intentional misquote? A Google search reports,

No results found for "We only need to be equitable dispensing government benefits on the basis of an arbitrarily defined relationship-status".

Since you didn't provide the source, and Google can't find one, I assumed that these words, floating in a post that was free of any other context to explain who was supposed to be saying what, were yours. If they are, then I didn't misquote you. If they aren't, I think any reasonable person (which, I know, rules you out) would find the mistake in thinking they are your words to be a perfectly natural way of reading what your post says.

Whether the Court wants to set aside issues of romantic love and morality in considering the legality of same-sex marriage is up to it, but in the broader social conversation -- which, after all, is what the rest of us are engaged in here -- on whether marriage should be restricted based on gender preference, they're highly relevant.

On The Judiciary

Posted on May 19 at 8:07 p.m.


I think I've given a good sample of how poor Lewis' arguments are. I've read other things by him, and nothing I've seen contradicts my judgement. He's a terrible guide.

In fact, your conclusion is another good example of how he typically proceeds. When people seem to be violating their own code, there isn't just one "very next thing" that they necessarily do. Sometimes they admit their weakness, sometimes they deny that they in fact violated their code, sometimes they cite extenuating circumstances for which they believe their code makes legitimate allowance. As usual, Lewis tries to put the argument into a straitjacket that allows only one possible explanation -- the one that supports his point. He writes as if his conclusion is simply what any reasonable person would come to, but his "reasonable" person always turns out to be a person who thinks like CS Lewis.

On The Judiciary

Posted on May 19 at 5:23 p.m.

So marriage is about the "equitable dispensing [of] government benefits on the basis of an arbitrarily defined relationship-status." How romantic. On what frigid planet does this guy live?


CS Lewis says that the "differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another... are not really very great." Well, some people have supported while others have opposed slavery, or abortion, or capital punishment, or the right to divorce and remarry, to name but a handful of the things that make his' statement ridiculous.

Next, "We all do believe that some moralities are better than others. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, ... comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think."

A person who says that some moralities are better than others means that he prefers ones that are closest to his, not that he has an objective "Real Morality" outside his personal preferences by which to measure competing views. If that person really believed there was an objective "Real Morality," he would adopt it rather than his own.

Lewis' "same law running through" all times and cultures presumably includes the medieval Church, which burned heretics alive; slaveholding societies; cultures that condoned infanticide; cultures that encouraged the rape and murder of their enemies; etc. What he calls "the Rule of Decent Behaviour" really does mean "whatever each nation happens to approve."

Lewis is a disastrously poor guide in this area.

On The Judiciary

Posted on May 19 at 3:24 p.m.

Making something "legal" does not make it "right." So, the question is, what does make something "right"? In particular, as I noted earlier, if different people make conflicting claims about what is supposedly the absolute and objective benchmark against which to judge all moral claims, and in fact use that benchmark to reach conflicting conclusions, on what basis is one to decide who, if anyone, has the real objective benchmark and the right to declare which moral imperatives are absolutely and universally obligatory?

It isn't enough to say that I've thought about this a lot and, based on my reading, thinking, and experience, I've decided that my standards are the ones that are really absolute. After all, relying on your reading, your thinking, your experience, and your understanding of various traditions as filtered though your membership in a particular culture and community simply nests a collection of subjective impressions inside one another, and one major difference between someone who thinks that such a process leads to an objectively and absolutely valid point of view and a relativist is that the latter knows that he's one and the former doesn't.

On The Judiciary

Posted on May 19 at 2:48 p.m.


Actually, nativeson has said nothing about the Bible. I mentioned it only as an illustration of how even people who agree on a broad framework for their values can disagree on what specific, supposedly absolute lessons about moral conduct they should draw from it.

By the way, you seem to contradict yourself when you say that there is no way to reason our way to Absolute Truth but in the next paragraph say what the salient requirement of such Truth supposedly is. How does one know this?

On The Judiciary

Previous | Page 3 of 72 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: