Thursday, June 04, 2009

Authoritarian fucktard

Besides his ridiculous attempts at philosophy we see in this comment* Nathan's fundamental authoritarianism:
Notice that I prefaced my comment with an acknowledgment that you wouldn’t like the argument - I know you don’t. That’s why I asked a question. Which you didn’t answer. Except perhaps to threaten to fight me if I threatened you. Since I’m fairly sure we won’t ever cross paths I’m pretty sure that’s a hollow threat - since I think you are referring to a threat from God - hypothetically - then I think you should fight it out with him.

If God is not hidden and the “priest, prophets, pundits” are his chosen messengers then you have every reason to believe me and/or them. Why would God personally reveal himself to you because your logic demands it? That doesn’t make any sense. When does a subject ever tell their ruler what to do in that manner?

You can run around shouting QED all you like - that doesn’t make it so, it just means you’ve made up your own mind. Please leave others the same space to do so. Rather than declaring “game over” and dancing on our philosophical graves.
Nathan is essentially demanding that I obey him (or his chosen priests & prophets) because he asserts that he speaks in the name of god, and he denies any obligation whatsoever to justify his authority. Fuck you. If you want me to do something, then make me. All "subjects" can demand their "ruler" coerce them. So coerce me.

*I have no idea if Nathan will alter the content of the comment; he doesn't strike me as being any more honest than he is intelligent. I've reproduced the accurately and in full, adding emphasis to the particularly fucktarded authoritarianism.


Nathan, if you want to be a good little German, that's your choice. If you want me to be a good little German, fuck you. But don't think that you have any right to escape criticism and condemnation for your slavish submission to authority or your demand that I submit to your authority.

10 comments:

  1. When I think "submission to authority," I think: http://technorati.com/tag/clergy-sexual-abuse

    Or am I just that paranoid? HA!

    So fine, if someone wants to believe and submit to something or someone "important" in lieu of evidence or logic, that's their business. But what about believing or submitting to something that has contradictory EVIDENCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

    ReplyDelete
  2. Plus, his arguments works just as well for every other religion/sect/denomination & cult. ("Who are you to question me? I speak for God", says Jim Jones)
    Kudos to Nathan for buttressing his argument by reinforcing the beliefs of the 3/4's of the world's population that he thinks are wrong.
    Thank God he's not arguing for atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But Larry, you haven't actually answered Nathan's question. "Why would God personally reveal himself to you because your logic demands it?"

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am loving how you are taking that fool to task in the comments section of his daft article.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dave: I haven't answered it because it's a stupid question. The question is: why should I believe Nathan when he claims to speak for a god?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Right, So my comment failed moderation standards because my defense was obviously contradictory to your position and correct?

    Are you going to acknowledge that I made the statement as a direct response to your question? And I wasn't claiming to speak for God - here's what you said:

    "Second, if a god were hidden, I have no reason to believe you personally, or any priest, prophet or pundit, has anything true, interesting or meaningful to about it. "

    I have no doubt you'll censor this comment too - which is odd, given your asterisked statement.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I rejected your comment because I thought it lacked interest and substance. Also, I don't like you personally, I think you're a fucking idiot, and I don't want to spend my time talking to you.

    Conditional assertions with a controversial antecedent are boring. Yes, if the moon were made of green cheese then we would have a great food-service opportunity, but the moon isn't made of green cheese.

    Likewise, if some god really existed and really was an arbitrary, authoritarian bastard, then I couldn't stop it, but so what? I have no reason to believe there is any god at all, much less a god as fucked up, evil and shit for brains stupid as you are, Nathan.

    Go fuck off and bother someone who cares.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you don't like me - why comment on my blog to begin with? That's really what started all this...

    I think your decision "not to like me personally" is odd - you don't know me. I wonder if this is the same standard you apply to all of your decisions. It's really just gut feeling being endlessly justified from that perspective. Pretty similar to the accusations you throw at theists.

    I'm nonplussed though. I don't need your affection.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You seemed ok at first, but the more you spoke the mo0re I came to dislike you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Seems fair enough. Feel free to continue not liking me.

    But if you link to me again in a similar manner, I'll respond, and this will be one of those never ending cycles of one person trying to get the last word on the other.

    Me, I didn't like you right from the beginning...

    ReplyDelete

Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.