Sunday, November 29, 2009

Doggerel #216: "Why are You So Angry?"

Welcome back to "Doggerel," where I ramble on about words and phrases that are misused, abused, or just plain meaningless.

Many of us skeptics routinely have to deal with people who don't understand why we're angry or irritated. Sometimes I'm quite mystified as to how this failure to understand human emotion occurs. Anger is understandably considered a "negative" emotion, but it can do great good by motivating us to speak out against injustice.

First and foremost, "woo" is harmful. People die from alternative medicine. Religious fanatics can be driven to kill. The latest fad in positive thinking can make people waste money on books, lectures, sessions, and make them feel unnecessary guilt when bad things happen to them anyway: Blaming the victim for negative thoughts. There seems to be no shortage of ways that fallacious thinking can cause harm. We get angry because we don't like the idea of people getting hurt.

In other cases, many of us are veteran debaters. We've seen many fallacious arguments in our time, and quite often we're irritated to hear them repeated over and over. I created the Doggerel series to save some of that time and frustration: Instead of writing up a response to a logical fallacy employed by a supporter of the supernatural, my fellow skeptics could give a prepared answer to tired old cliches and defense mechanisms.

Often in cases of religious fundamentalism, there's a deep moral divide between us and the fundamentalist: I have had far too many arguments with people who believe torture, murder, slavery, discrimination, and deception are virtuous activities because their gods allegedly command them.

We have plenty of reasons to be angry. Our passion for justice and truth is not a weakness.

54 comments:

Yakaru said...

That's the woo response which pisses me off the most. Especially because if you continually insist that someone is angry, sooner or later they will become angry. And of course, if you're angry, you're not "in your center", so obviously you're not speaking from your divine nature, therefore your criticism is invalid.

Therefore, homeopathy works, and the baby died because of the reality it set up for itself in its past life, etc etc.

Akusai said...

What I think is the worst thing to come out of this doggerel is the way people will reject what you have to say if you say it while angry. I know it's knee-jerk; hell, it's an inclination we all get. Often when someone is saying something angrily people tend to get defensive and reject their words out of hand. But there are people out there take this implicit reaction and make an explicit rule out of it: "If you're angry, I don't have to listen to what you say."

It just makes me so damn angry.

So many doggerels take me back to Futurama. "Fry, you're only saying that because you're jealous."

"No, I'm not! Wait! Yes, I am, but my point remains valid!"

Dark Jaguar said...

What gets me about this one is the veiled suggestion that caring about things is wrong. I recently saw a commercial that was selling, I dunno, beer or something, which has this guy talking to some woman about "a cause". Nothing specified at all, it was making fun of the woman for HAVING a cause, with comments like "I love blogging" and so on. As though the "healthy" way to live life is just to party and go on dates and caring about things is "weird" and should be hated. Granted, it was just a commercial trying to be funny, but yeesh it really says something to say that just HAVING a cause is supposed to be inherantly hilarious.

Here's a doggeral related to this I recently heard from some members of my own family, and hear much more often in online debates about "combating woo". To put it in cliche form, "Why don't you just give up?". The basic argument I heard recently is just (paraphrasing) "These people are always going to be around. You're never going to put a stop to all of it, so don't bother wasting your time."

I honestly never expected to hear such nihilistic drivel outside of, say, Dracula's final speech in a Castlevania game. Much less did I expect to hear it from people in my family I respect. I never thought I'd actually find myself in a position where I had to refute something like that with, well, a "heroic speech" covering the basic points of how each individiual's life is worth fighting for even if some are lost, how I never actually believed I would be able to eliminate ALL this sort of thing but fighting what little I can is still worthwhile, how "giving up" won't accomplish anything and it's better to at least have made some attempt, and generally sounding like a naive plucky protagonist, albeit one with history and statistics demonstrating that, over the long haul, humanity's lot is getting better all the time. What really gets me is this wasn't about something "heady" that most people don't care about like bunk medicine, but about something I would have thought that just about everyone on the planet cared about, standing up against PHYSICAL ASSAULT. They were literally arguing that there is no point in bothering to report EVERY little murder you may think have occured because people "die all the time". I'm not talking about a goth cousin or some weird uncle, but my mom and my sister, normally extremely upbeat people. It concerned me to think this might be so wide spread.

Yakaru said...

Dark Jaguar,
Yes, I've also had that a lot too. Or when they can't find any fault with my argument, they say "ah, yes, you were always a campaigner for some cause" - as if, even if I'm right, I'm only right because I take it way too seriously. As if the woo in question doesn't take it seriously and should be given a free pass to spread stupidity.

Also, I started woo-baiting back in the 90s, when I was also quite spiritual, but found a lot of woo just too silly or unethical to tolerate. Even back then they were always asking "why are you so full of rage" - but at least I was standing in front of them telling them what I thought of them. I was stunned to find them trying it on the internet. How the fuck do they know I'm full of rage when they've only read one comment from me?

I enjoy it more on the internet, coz they always try and pull the same old tricks they developed in the pre-internet days. "But studies have proven that acupuncture works." At a party you can't really challenge them to provide it, so they can always get away with it. But on the internet you can. They still haven't realised that yet.

Jacqueline said...

"why are you so full of rage"


Guys, just tell them that you're PMSing, before you dismantle their flaccid excuses for their apathetic attitudes.




JS:)

Ergo Ratio said...

"'But studies have proven that acupuncture works.' At a party you can't really challenge them to provide it, so they can always get away with it"

Sure you can. Just reply, "Name one." :)

Bronze Dog said...

A good thing to always ask, though often there's always some recent news story about a bad paper.

Of course, that shouldn't discourage the response anyway, possibly followed by questions about how they performed the study and why you should find it convincing.

Anonymous said...

I noticed alot of people, children (even if the adults are what we whites define as "children" mentally, I mean children) play a game here that is called "Counter Strike".

They usually reer to the game by the initials CS, An American game not very surprising as we are the msot advaned nation on the planet, and with that comes productions such as games.

Anyway, this game is pretty simple, you kill people. Not anything to be proud of but nodoubt the players are.

Now I noticed that, and with assumption, the players are just as american white players, and this nodoubt you would use as an example to show they are "equal" (but ignore) any contradictory elements as societies, lack of production etc), and yeah, I would knd of agree.

The game seems to consist of running around shooting other people, thats the goal, to kill your enemy. Very simple, so why shouldn't spics get it? Sure, they cant create rockets, computers or a stable society, but they are equal in shooting and killing people in a game.....

MWchase said...

Two things, Gabe.

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Also, weren't you earlier decrying the lack of "story" in modern games compared to the literary greatness of stuff like Bad Dudes? By that metric, how is a game that is about nothing but shooting people an accomplishment?

Bronze Dog said...

Gabe, going way off topic in his thread jump: I noticed alot of people, children (even if the adults are what we whites define as "children" mentally, I mean children) play a game here that is called "Counter Strike".

They usually reer to the game by the initials CS, An American game not very surprising as we are the msot advaned nation on the planet, and with that comes productions such as games.


Think I'll try multiple angles at whatever the hell kind of point Gabe is trying to make.

1. You do realize that Japan also makes a very large bulk of videogames and console systems out there, too, right? You know, big name companies like Nintendo and Sony?

2. Proficiency at pushing buttons and waggling joysticks does not translate into weapon proficiency or vice-versa. There have been reports of real guitar players who can't handle Guitar Hero, even though the game's producers went through the trouble of providing a guitar-shaped controller.

Now I noticed that, and with assumption, the players are just as american white players, and this nodoubt you would use as an example to show they are "equal" (but ignore) any contradictory elements as societies, lack of production etc), and yeah, I would knd of agree.

1. You mean just as skilled as American players? Not surprising if they get to put in the time to practice.

2. Of course, I fail to see what this has to do with my views, since I know of no Counter Strike genes that predispose people to be good FPS players. Are you proposing such things exist?

3. What's this thing about equality, Gabe? As far as I know, you're not talking about genetics, so my null hypothesis that there is no significant genetic difference is completely irrelevant.

The game seems to consist of running around shooting other people, thats the goal, to kill your enemy. Very simple, so why shouldn't spics get it? Sure, they cant create rockets, computers or a stable society, but they are equal in shooting and killing people in a game.....

Probably because the game gives them an equal playing field, whereas real life history and geography did not.

Or do you mean to suggest that real life has downloadable regulations files to establish game balance?

Bronze Dog said...

As for my gaming preferences, I have some liking of Japanese RPGs, which involve reading a lot of character dialogue, broken up with fighting enemies, both random encounters and story-significant boss fights, and devising strategy and resource exploits to get ahead.

I could go with fewer random encounters. I'm sick of running from the weak but infinitely annoying cave bats in Final Fantasy IV: The After Years.

MWchase said...

My preferences run towards the stranger RPG-hybrid genres, though I also play FPSs, which, for me, involve aiming with my off hand in a fashion utterly unsuited to being anywhere near an actual gun.

But yeah, hybrid RPG. Got a TRPG from Square for my iPod, and I'm looking at a match-three RPG that they made with Popcap. I've also come up with the bare bones of a TRPG-Sorry hybrid. I should post stuff on the forum that nobody posts on.

(Actually, speaking of CS, CS:S is 75% off on Steam for a bit. Anybody care to weigh in?)

DwellerinDarkness said...

One of the originators of Counter-Strike is Minh Le, who's Vietnamese-Canadian.

It's not an American innovation, then, and not really an innovation at all. It's a mod of Half-Life, which is an American game. In fact, the vast majority of FPS games were made by American companies, back to the roots of the genre in the late 70s.

So, bravo, Gabe, for picking one of the very, very few FPS games that fails to prove your point. It's actually kind of impressive.

Bronze, most FF games have a "no encounters" item hidden somewhere - does that one? At times they're annoying close to the end of the game, though.

Bronze Dog said...

I don't know, and if it did, it wouldn't matter half the time: It's got a sort of episodic thing, emptying your inventory when you start from a new character's view.

It's still worthwhile, but I had some annoying spots.

Anonymous said...

"By that metric, how is a game that is about nothing but shooting people an accomplishment?"

Wow Chase, you are ignorant. And when did I claim it was an "accomplishment"? Very strange indeed, if you READ what I said you would notice the sarcastic tone of it, "Yeah, a game killing people is great".... But you missed that, I guess your higher intellect lets you read things that do not exist.

"Proficiency at pushing buttons and waggling joysticks does not translate into weapon proficiency or vice-versa"...

Eh, yeah Bronze, THATS WHAT I SAID IN A SARCASTIC TONE, maybe you should read my post before responding to it.

"One of the originators of Counter-Strike is Minh Le, who's Vietnamese-Canadian."

It turns out that HALF-LIFE is a game made by the American company Valve through Sierra (sponsor) and this "CS" is a "addon", which means they use the current technology which the American company Valve already made, and make it personal and specific.

America truly Rulez, if you travelled you would understand How good we are.

MWchase said...

So, your plan here was to post some incoherent garbage, some of it factually incorrect, wait for us to try to figure out what you meant and address your assertions, and then claim that you meant what we said, even though some of that contradicts the few bits in the original statement that can actually be read without decoding?

Such tactics are a concession of rhetorical incompetence on your part.

By the way, Gabe, half the time, we don't know what you're saying. Since it's hard to convey tone in the best of conditions online, expecting anybody to dredge stuff like sarcasm out of your comments is a gross and unjust imposition.

(I mean, I at least try to make my sarcasm obvious. "literary greatness of ... Bad Dudes"? Nobody could assume that statement was meant seriously, unless you said it. Part of your problem with stuff like that is, you invoke Poe's law on yourself. Your positions are so bizarre, extreme, and incoherent that we have no metric for distinguishing sincere beliefs from off-the-cuff-ramblings from HAHA GUISE I WUZ JOKIN.)

Final note: I assumed that CS was supposed to be an accomplishment because you brought it up as an example of American achievement (even though it isn't. American, I mean).

DwellerinDarkness said...

And then your response is even more incoherent. You start out saying that you were being sarcastic, and you end by trying use the "Americanness" of Half-Life as justification for the awesomeness of Americans before again invoking the primacy of anecdotal evidence in making judgements regarding ethnicity.

Can't speak for everyone, but I've pretty much given up trying to interpret what you type. I just assume that your statements are genuine and go from there. And I'm quickly beginning to doubt that there's any reason to do so.

Anonymous said...

Since it's hard to convey tone in the best of conditions online, expecting anybody to dredge stuff like sarcasm out of your comments is a gross and unjust imposition.

Indeed, this could be misunderstood, especially since the dots dont make it obvious: but they are equal in shooting and killing people in a game.....

.... It is amazing, you are clearly a young boy/man, and when I was in your age computers did not exist, and yet I can understand sarcasm and irony better then you in written form, especially in a forum like this. makes me wonder, are you willingly ignorant, or just stupid?

I assumed that CS was supposed to be an accomplishment because you brought it up as an example of American achievement (even though it isn't. American, I mean).

Yes it is American. VALVE the MAKERS OF THE GAME IS AMERICAN, This "CS" is a ADDON to the game, it is made by the TECHNOLOGY VALVE, the AMERICAN company made.

Your positions are so bizarre, extreme, and incoherent that we have no metric for distinguishing sincere beliefs from off-the-cuff-ramblings from HAHA GUISE I WUZ JOKIN.)

If the Truth is a joke, fine. If you cant handle the truth, to hard for you to deal with, not my problem, I am just the messenger, if you dont want to accept reality live in the dreamworld you are "everyone is equal, but dont let the dog drive the car"...

Anonymous said...

Since it's hard to convey tone in the best of conditions online, expecting anybody to dredge stuff like sarcasm out of your comments is a gross and unjust imposition.

Indeed, this could be misunderstood, especially since the dots dont make it obvious: but they are equal in shooting and killing people in a game.....

.... It is amazing, you are clearly a young boy/man, and when I was in your age computers did not exist, and yet I can understand sarcasm and irony better then you in written form, especially in a forum like this. makes me wonder, are you willingly ignorant, or just stupid?

I assumed that CS was supposed to be an accomplishment because you brought it up as an example of American achievement (even though it isn't. American, I mean).

Yes it is American. VALVE the MAKERS OF THE GAME IS AMERICAN, This "CS" is a ADDON to the game, it is made by the TECHNOLOGY VALVE, the AMERICAN company made.

Your positions are so bizarre, extreme, and incoherent that we have no metric for distinguishing sincere beliefs from off-the-cuff-ramblings from HAHA GUISE I WUZ JOKIN.)

If the Truth is a joke, fine. If you cant handle the truth, to hard for you to deal with, not my problem, I am just the messenger, if you dont want to accept reality live in the dreamworld you are "everyone is equal, but dont let the dog drive the car"...

Bronze Dog said...

1. Ellipses don't indicate sarcasm to those of us in the skeptical blogosphere. We've seen a LOT of woos abuse them in a badly thought out effort to appear dramatic or something.

2. We've tangled with lots and lots of crazy people. Satire, sarcasm, irony, and so forth are often killed when you live in the age of the internet, where you can come into contact with people who say all sorts of absurdities with a straight face.

Gabe: If the Truth is a joke, fine. If you cant handle the truth, to hard for you to deal with, not my problem, I am just the messenger, if you dont want to accept reality live in the dreamworld you are "everyone is equal, but dont let the dog drive the car"...

1. There's some humor to the fact that you're capitalizing "Truth", as if you're a divine prophet reading holy dictum, like many other woos who capitalize it. Humans have no access to that sort of thing. Science exists so that we can arrive at tentative conclusions that can be overturned with good evidence.

2. Straw man. I doubt anyone here believes everyone is really equal. I certainly don't. The disagreement we have with you is whether or not race plays a significant part in the differences people have. Whenever we bring that up, asking you to define and defend your nebulous, ever changing hypothesis on the matter, you do everything you can to change the subject.

Anonymous said...

Ellipses don't indicate sarcasm to those of us in the skeptical blogosphere. We've seen a LOT of woos abuse them in a badly thought out effort to appear dramatic or something.

Fair enough, Will make it obviously clear if I am sarcastic or ironic.

We've tangled with lots and lots of crazy people. Satire, sarcasm, irony, and so forth are often killed when you live in the age of the internet, where you can come into contact with people who say all sorts of absurdities with a straight face.

Certainly agreed, but I would like to point out, I assumed I was clear/obvious when sarcasm been used.

Science exists so that we can arrive at tentative conclusions that can be overturned with good evidence.

I would prefer if you stopped calling me "a woo".

Also, "Truth" (notice the quotes) is a Concept, and I do not speak about the concept "Truth", but Truth :)

The point is, "the world is spherical" is a truth, whiles you could debate it claiming that its not a "correct sphere" and therefore not a sphere and so on, the same applies to everything, the sun is warm is a truth, but what is warm (the concept not the word)? Someone could claim that the degrees of the sun is what he consider cold (as in not warm) and so on.

This kind of bullshit is a way of avoiding ones faults and the fact thatyou may (or may not) be wrong, if i claim that Paraguay is a piece of shit backwards nation, I have no issue if you want basis for this, I supply data or real life experience or knowledge of the nation and so on, but to straight out say "no its not true" or "its wrong" without any backing, then you are on veyr thin ice.

And thats what i see here.

Bronze Dog said...

Gabe:
This kind of bullshit is a way of avoiding ones faults and the fact thatyou may (or may not) be wrong, if i claim that Paraguay is a piece of shit backwards nation, I have no issue if you want basis for this, I supply data or real life experience or knowledge of the nation and so on, but to straight out say "no its not true" or "its wrong" without any backing, then you are on veyr thin ice.

And thats what i see here.


You might want to get off the hallucinogenic drugs, then.

1. You haven't supplied data, only anecdotes. When we point out the inadequacies of anecdotes, you go post-modernist, essentially saying that your sloppily gathered personal experience is more reliable than any carefully gathered objective data.

2. A proposition presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. When we pointed this out: That it's your job to falsify a null hypothesis, you go post-modernist, essentially saying that the scientific method itself is wrong.

3. I don't flat-out say you're wrong. I tell you the logical fallacies that you employed, and how they undermine your case. When I do this, you change the subject by retreating into the same psychobabble I hear from crystal-waving woos. I'm not the subject here. Race is. Why can't you talk about race, Gabe?

4. I readily conceeded that various nations are crappy, but you just go on pretending I said they were equal to first world nations. They are not. I know they are not. I said they are not. Stop lying.

MWchase said...

"I can understand sarcasm and irony better then[sic] you in written form"

You know, I had the same feeling about my own ability to convey sarcasm in text... when I was ten. (See? I can do it, too!)

As to irony, I'd just like to quote from several threads back...

Me: "Somebody who attempts to argue genetics based on anecdotal evidence and unfounded assertions claims that my attempt to refute an analogy represents a lack of knowledge of biology. Thank you, good sir. A thousand Alanis Morissettes could not make anyone on this earth uncertain of the definition of irony, so long as your comment remains."

djfav said...

What the fuck, Gabe? All you do is jump from one thread to the other, derailing every thread as you go.

Fucking stop it.

Anonymous said...

I have a completely off-topic thing I got on about because I saw a movie earlier, wanted to have your OPINION about it....

Something that really, and I mean really, pissed me off about my own nation is the attitude woman have. No no, nothing like that, the thing is, I saw it in a movie recently and got so pissed off.

The movie, which is irrelevant, is called "Click", I assumed it was a comedy as it was with Adam Sandler which I found rather funny, but one scene and really one basis for the movie just made me tick.

If you haven't seen the movie its about a guy where work is somewhat overly important to him and he things the world is unfair and yada yada yada and he gets a remote allowing him to control his own life (fastforward in time and so on, but seem to be limited to reverse his past choices). This is COMPLETELY irrelevant, the movie that is, just saying so you have some sort of idea of what I am talking about.

Okay, so, his wife whom is UNEMPLOYED then complains to him that he takes his work to seriously and do not spend X amount of time with his children, and here is the rubb: She would not be able to feed herself if it was not for her damn husband PAYING FOR EVERYTHING.

This woman is unemployed, or "stay at home mom" as they call themselves, and she clearly have no interest in getting a job or support the family, she considers that Reading stories for the children is her JOB.

Yes, and I realize many of you may agree. This is why I am asking, Do you? I never asked anyone about this.


The point is, in America we have, shamelessly I admit, alot of these. Our Counterpart in Europe and other Civilized areas do not have this in the same degree we do. They work, support the family, maybe have a 50/50 split and so on, but ALOT of American woman are unemployed "stay at home moms" and consider that fine.

I do not want to sound mean here, but taking care of your Children is known as a RESPONSEBILITY, it is not a job. Or maybe you wish to supply fundings for the worlds woman that get pregnant?

It is a big topic, but related to it is for example the "Dads" making claims like "When you live under my roof you do as I say" (with a husky workingclass voice).

That is idiotic, Straight out.
No, This is your child, you are RESPONSIBLE for him or her, this means they generally live at home until a certain age, if you want to force them to "do as you say" rather then RESPECTING THEM as individuals, you are a, whatstheword, asshole?

If you did not "want" him or her you should have addopted him or her, but you can not now, as a serious responsible individual, claim that you OWN your son or daughter, no, You are RESPONSIBLE for them, they are INDIVIDUALS.

I feel its insulting towards todays youth, I guess alot of it is related to my own childhood and how I seen how friends and others got treated, I also seen the difference from say in Germany or France, and as an American I am a bit ashamed.

I realize you may not be able to relate, but well, I thought I would ask and see what you say, I can not see anything positive and only NEGATIVE connotions with the current behaviour, as in arrogant asshole Father screaming to his son what to do rather then respecting him or a mother/wife not working for 15 years living at home watching Oprah Winfrey on tv because she is a "stay at home mom" and that is her "job".

Rather insulting in my view. Especially in regards to the kids, Sorry kids, you are not the loving son of James and Sara, you are Work... Atleast for Sara..

Bronze Dog said...

Gabe in yet another desperate effort to evade the topic at any and all costs: ALOT of American woman are unemployed "stay at home moms" and consider that fine.

Because cooking, cleaning, balancing the checkbook, paying the bills, home maintenance, and child care are so trivially easy, it must be because they're lazy.

I do not want to sound mean here, but taking care of your Children is known as a RESPONSEBILITY, it is not a job.

Because we all know that having additional, possibly unnecessary money-earning responsibilities on top of all that work at home cannot in any way whatsoever detract from either.

...or a mother/wife not working for 15 years living at home watching Oprah Winfrey on tv because she is a "stay at home mom" and that is her "job".

Gabe, do you realize that citing stereotypes from television as if they were more real than real life isn't helping your case?

Anyway, what did this random subject change accomplish other than stalling, Gabe? You've been stalling in one way or since August.

Tom Foss said...

What's funny is that Gabe's whole screed here is not only out of touch with reality (the number of women who have been able to stay at home with the kids has been dwindling for decades--especially with the current economy), but it also shows his complete lack of understanding of the whole racial thing as well. Hey, Gabe, you know what's a major contributing factor to gang affiliation and juvenile delinquency? Not having any parental involvement. You know what causes a lack of parental involvement? Parents who have to work multiple jobs. You know what causes parents to have to work multiple jobs? The cycle of poverty, which starts with parents who can't afford to spend time with their kids and can't afford to give them the education that would allow them to get ahead in the world, causing them to seek out success and companionship elsewhere (often in illegal places), causing them to have children who they can't support, and finally leading to them being unable to spend time with their children or give them the education they need to get ahead in the world.

But no, I'm sure it's some magic property of their melanin-production genes.

Go ahead, Gabe, buck the trend of reality. While everyone else is complaining about how American kids are being raised either by television or by nannies and daycare centers because their parents are constantly working, you complain about how American opulence gives women the ridiculous idea that taking care of children is difficult.

Is there anything you're not wrong about?

Anonymous said...

Because cooking, cleaning, balancing the checkbook, paying the bills, home maintenance, and child care are so trivially easy, it must be because they're lazy

Eh, No Bronze, you missed the whole thing.

No, it is NOT WORK, it is RESPONSIBILITY!!!!

That was my point, and you seem to now say that people doing what they should do, their responsibility, are doing their "job".

So having Children is a JOB, it is not responsibility, being a Father and Mother is a JOB, not ones responsibility... Thats just amazing Bronze, it also gives excuses to the eunemployed mothers not contributing to the family....


Anyway, I suspected you wouldn't agree, negros are "stay at home" as well, same reason I guess, its their "job" to be unemployed...

Bronze Dog said...

Someone here loves purposeless semantics games, as if defining a thing into a different category somehow magically makes it easier and less time consuming. Because we all know that words are more real than reality.

Oh, and of course Gabe makes a non-sequitur back to race as if doing all that work of managing a household were comparable to other forms of joblessness.

So Gabe, now that we're back to race, finally, define it.

Gabriel said...

No Bronze, no semantic game, I am correctinng you as you seem to think that caring for your own children is defined as "work".

There is a difference between responsibility, such as your family or kids to work, which is the way of funding your life.

Having Children or Caring for ones Family is not work, it is your responsibility, You decided to get married, have kids and so on, Work is the way of funding your life, you can quit work, change job and so on.


Do not confuse a Woman making food for her kids as A JOB, she decided to have children, her responsibility is to care for them, do not confuse it with work and it is insulting that when a Father have to pay for the entire family whiles a woman sits on her ass at home "working" for her kids.. Well, its rather pathetic.

Or rather, An excuse not to get a job.

Bronze Dog said...

Gabe: No Bronze, no semantic game, I am correctinng you as you seem to think that caring for your own children is defined as "work".

Defining work broadly to mean something that takes significant time and effort.

There is a difference between responsibility, such as your family or kids to work, which is the way of funding your life.

And what does being paid that have to do with whatever the hell kind of point you were trying to make?

Do not confuse a Woman making food for her kids as A JOB, she decided to have children, her responsibility is to care for them, do not confuse it with work and it is insulting that when a Father have to pay for the entire family whiles a woman sits on her ass at home "working" for her kids.. Well, its rather pathetic.

Just because Peggy Bundy was a lazy deadbeat stay at home mom who sat on the couch watching Oprah on television doesn't mean that all stay at home mothers are lazy deadbeats who do nothing but sit down watching Oprah. What part of that basic point is so difficult to comprehend?

Or rather, An excuse not to get a job.

Ever heard of the concept of diminishing returns?

Gabriel said...

I am rather shocked Bronze, do you seriously support the "stay at home moms" who live on the salaries of their husbands (or ex-husbands forced to pay alimony)?

You wouldn't support a, say, family with mom and dad BOTH WORKING supporting their families and dividing the stay at home responsibility?

You actually excuse these woman, not working, with that they DO work because they "cook for their kids"?

Wow.... . Wow..

Bronze Dog said...

Wow, once again, Gabe amazes us with his ability to turn anything and everything into a false dichotomy.

It depends on the individuals involved, Gabe. Not everyone wants to do things your way. Household income is not the only determiner of happiness. Some people value time to enjoy their life more than extra money.

I'm one of those sorts. If you offered me a six figure income that'd require an 80 hour work week, I'd likely turn it down (maybe contemplate toughing it out for the short term) because I wouldn't have the time to enjoy the stuff I'd spend that money on. In fact, I'd probably run out of things to spend it on. That's the law of diminishing returns in action.

If a family can work things out with two incomes and like it that way, that's fine. If a family can work things out with one income and like it that way, that's fine.

Gabriel said...

You know what Bronze, I suspect your hostile nature to this is because its close to home.

Let me guess, your mother is unemployed never done a days work in her life other then "working" for you and your brother.... Close enough?

DwellerinDarkness said...

Aaaand ad hominem. Wonderful.

Asshat.

Bronze Dog said...

Gabe: You know what Bronze, I suspect your hostile nature to this is because its close to home.

Let me guess, your mother is unemployed never done a days work in her life other then "working" for you and your brother.... Close enough?


Ah, the stench of psychobabble. The first refuge of a woo who knows he's losing an argument. Kind of like Creationists who'd rather hear about why we hate god, rather than discuss fossils or ERVs.

Of course, the only anger I have is the frustration of trying to inform you that America isn't like you've seen on TV, ye who invoked the Holy Broadcast of Married with Children as if it were the prototype for reality of single-income houses.

My mother tended to the family finances, my grandparents' finances, my grandparents' healthcare (insurance, keeping them on their medications, etcetera) as they felt the weight of their years, went back to college, did volunteer work at local church and school libraries, is currently doing volunteer work at the local retirement home, remodeled two houses we owned to sell them at significant profit so that she could design from scratch the house they moved in this summer (as well as make our homes that much more comfortable to live in), raised two kids and helped them get through college.

But I suppose since she didn't make a lot of money doing that happiness-enhancing behavior, and stopped to watch a few soap operas, none of that counts as productive or meaningful.

...Kids these days, they think work is all about amassing "bling" so that they can buy shallow materialistic impersonations of happiness.

---

So anyway, how exactly is desperately changing the subject to my family from your desperate subject change to TV stereotypes of homemakers supposed to convince any of us or any lurkers that race is a causal factor poverty and/or strife?

Oh, let me guess: It doesn't. It just buys you more time to stall.

Jacqueline said...

Gabriel whined:

"You actually excuse these woman, not working, with that they DO work because they "cook for their kids"?"


How the fuck would you know what masses of women do, you demented shitwit?


JS:)

MWchase said...

"How the fuck would you know what masses of women do, you demented shitwit?"

He was in some houses once, that's how.

Anonymous said...

It is funny how your clearly unemployed and poor mother living on your fathers and families finances "managed", I mean, she "remodeled" two houses....

You know, last time I rearranged my entire home in the States.. Wow, it was tough, so much Work... I should have gotten paid to ,move the position of the sofa and put the tv on the wall... Damnit world, evil evil world... So hard work....

Now, your mother is volunteering, interesting, especially since she is clearly unemployed so I guess your father stands the bill for the cost of food and such...

It is indeed funny, I, you know me, Who travel the entire world and HELP people, volunteering, can do it because I am rich, I got money, I earned my money by hard work and good business and now I can do whatever I want whenever I want it.. But your "mommy" seems to be more like a parasite, just like my example earlier.

And no, this is not a "stereotype", I made a General assesment, this is the world. Also, during MY youth this was the universal truth, it has changed now, today alot of woman actually Do work, but you still have a LARGE percentage that gets thrilled that they get pregnant as that means she will never work a day in her life again, because the husband or ex-husband shall pay the bills and she will Cook food and give him sex, just like your mother I gather, a kind of prostitution...

Well then.. It IS work, your mother gives your father sex and he pays the bills..... Okay, fair, I agree, your mother WORKS when she is "at home"...

Tom Foss said...

Gabe, have you ever heard of chefs, nannies, daycare providers, babysitters, accountants, and maids? Each one gets paid to do a particular job. Each does that one thing, usually for several clients, each day.

So why is it a job to do one of those things for several clients, but not a job to do all of them for one client, as stay-at-home moms do?

Just think: when both parents work, who takes care of those responsibilities? They don't do themselves. No, you have to pay people to do them. So which is more cost-effective: dad working so mom can stay home, cooking and cleaning and taking care of the kids and bills for free, or dad and mom working and hiring maids, accountants, nannies, and babysitters to do all those things?

And I love how one-sided your model is: it's a woman's choice to have a kid, therefore a woman's responsibility. Maybe since no woman will come near your ignorant, racist, misogynistic ass you don't know, but it takes two people to make a baby. The kids don't magically stop needing to be cared for at 5:00, so why does dad's responsibility to them end then?

Bottom line: calling something a "responsibility" doesn't make it any easier or less time-consuming, and being a stay-at-home parent is a luxury that most families can't afford these days.

Bronze Dog said...

What amuses me right now: Gabe does a very poor job of picking his battles. Even if he were to "win" and prove that I'm a loser and that my mother is Peggy Bundy... so what?

My family's personal life has precisely zero to do with the alleged genetic differences between races. It's all stalling on his part.

Tom Foss said...

I like how he's shooting his argument in the foot (again). Inorder to be a stay-at-home mom, a family has to be financially secure enough to not need two incomes, which generally puts them into a high middle class bracket (these days especially). Such moms, in Gabe's estimation, are parasites. Presumably, then, working moms are far superior. Working moms are also more likely to be in households that need multiple incomes (not even going into single moms at this point)--i.e., lower-income households.

Now, let's take a brief moment to look at the racial demographics of those superior lower-class moms vs. the inferior higher-class ones...

Jacqueline said...

So Gabe, after that boring detour into irrelevancy are you going to try to explain how your magic woo woo "whiteness" makes you a superior being, or are you going to prevaricate some more?
Because if anyone had any doubts that you're clearly an inferior debater, they've had those doubts completely dispelled.
I mean how much more egg can you self splat on your face and not realize that everyone here is laughing at your pathetic banter?

Anonymous said...

"So why is it a job to do one of those things for several clients, but not a job to do all of them for one client, as stay-at-home moms do?"

Because a "Stay at Home Mom" us CARING FOR HER CHILDREN.

Moron, and that was my point from the start, taking care for OTHER peoples children is work in the sense we DO use the normal term "working", but Caring for YOUR family and YOUR kids etc, is not work, it is a choice you made with responsibilities you choosen.

Moron.

Tom Foss said...

Because a "Stay at Home Mom" us CARING FOR HER CHILDREN.

And that makes her lazy?

You also neglect to mention that she's caring for the house, the bills, and her husband. But I guess none of those are "work" either. Only what gets done outside the house from 9-5 and has a paycheck attached is "work."

Moron, and that was my point from the start, taking care for OTHER peoples children is work in the sense we DO use the normal term "working", but Caring for YOUR family and YOUR kids etc, is not work, it is a choice you made with responsibilities you choosen.

And these responsibilities don't take effort and time?

Look, Gabe, you come in with yet another irrelevant non sequitur, this time about how women who don't work outside the home are lazy parasites. When it's pointed out to you that those lazy parasites are doing jobs that, if they were working outside the home, you'd have to pay other people to do, you retreat into this stupid semantic game that somehow "things you choose to do" are not "work." I can't speak for anyone else, but I chose my job, and I choose to go to work every day--doesn't that make it exactly the same damn thing?

As usual, Gabe, you're completely out of touch with reality and thinking in binary relationships that don't exist. Dad goes out and works, and because he makes enough money that his wife doesn't need to bring in a second paycheck, he gets free childcare, free home maintenance, free cooked meals, and free accounting, all services he would have to pay for otherwise. That's not parasitism, that's mutualism.

And once again, Dad chose to have kids and own a house too; why do his responsibilities for those things end at 5:00?

Jacqueline said...

Anonymous said...


"Moron."


Finally Gabe, you admit it.It explains why a "superior" being such as yourself can't answer a simple question.

Run along now Gabe, back to your mommie and go and get your warm milk before beddy time.

I can't believe how pathetic this Nazi buffoon is.


JS;)

MWchase said...

Gabe, are you saying that anybody who makes a choice to take on responsibility is being lazy for not taking on responsibility against their will?

Seriously, I don't think I can think of any better example of confused ideas, strung together by thoughtless sound bites, than myself ten years ago. And I was so... I'm not sure what the standard of behavior is for ten-year-olds, so I don't know if I counted as crazy, but... eh. Point is, if I say "you remind me of me when I was ten", it's not a compliment.

I dunno what my point here is, Gabe. If I'm wrong, you can bask in your superiority to my puny intellect. Haha, you were actually right about being in your mid-seventies and a world traveler, and some random guy was 65+ years off in evaluating your age.

But, from my perspective... nope. I'm quite confident in, if nothing else, my assessment of your mental capabilities. Go read a book on critical thinking, little boy.

Anonymous said...

And once again, Dad chose to have kids and own a house too; why do his responsibilities for those things end at 5:00?

Erh????
Why would they end at 5:00???

What are you on about? A Father and Mother has equal responsibilities for their family, I only mentioned the Woman specifically now because they are the one doing the least (yes, WORKING for your family is not "work" as I use the term), Why the hell would a Father NOT be responsible for his family after 5? Are you on crack? Are you making this up as you go along and ignoring everything I written? Dude.


I break it down to you very simple:

A Family, say a Mother and a Father having two kids.

My point is that if a "mother" stays at home instead of supporting the family by working, she is indeed Lazy. I am not talking about a Temporary "at home", such as after pregnancy, I am talking about the FULL TIME at home mothers, THEY are, indeed Lazy.

And yes, we have EXCEPTIONS, such as a PLANNED family with the Father being Okay with actually supporting the entire family whiles his wife is unemployed at home wit hthe kids, But I am not talking about them.

I am talking about the general consensus amongst the "stereotypical" stay-at-home-moms that consider their family, the children they have, "work", and would evne say they should "get salary" for it, this is bullshit and I am a man enough to talk about it, YOU aren't as you need to follow "politcal correctness", but I point out the facts.

So ignoring EXCEPTIONS, which you would jump on as there is nothing else for you, I am talking about a woman who has not worked for 10 years because she decided to "stay at home" with her kid(s) whiles the husband has to pay for everything. This is not "cool", as they say. And if Iwhere a woman, would be rather ashamed of my gender if I saw it going on.

I am wondering, are y o ueven getting what I am saying or is it to complex, it is strange that you do not see this obvious error. Weird indeed.

Once again, No, TAKING CARE OF YOUR FAMILY is not "Work" as we use the term, I mean Employment ,and that is just how the same woman use it, They consider their resonsibilities to be Employment, and thus is truly a insult to families around the world.

And no, MEN ARE THE SAME, and it is strange that one moron here apparently think that men should be "off" from their responsibilities after 5, STRANGE viewpoint and certainly a poor father or future father, lets hope he does not have children. Cooking, Cleaning and Shopping is irrelevant to who mis doing it, it is the responsibility of Both Parents, I aimed specifically for the woman here and about that issue, I can certainly agree that ALOT of men do not take their responsibilities and just go to work (employment) and not do their work at home, say spend time with the kids, cooking or shopping, but that is rather irrelevant and ANOTHER topic as I was talking about the females here.

You cant even distinguish between different topics, cheezes.

Bronze Dog said...

This homemaker thing has to be Gabe's most pathetic subject change and semantics game thus far.

Call me when he's moved on to his next random retreat angle. I think it's safe to say Gabe will never man up and talk about race and genetics, like he once claimed we were scared about.

Bronze Dog said...

You know, I wonder how many zeroes Gabe got on essays for rambling off topic.

Jacqueline said...

Bronze Dog said...
"You know, I wonder how many zeroes Gabe got on essays for rambling off topic."



But he gets full marks for showing us all how far from reality he has strayed!


JS;)

Dweller in Darkness said...

Well, a degree from Patriot University does came with certain restrictions, BD.

Tom Foss said...

Gabe didn't write essays, he beat up nerds so they'd write them for him.

Chakat Firepaw said...

Hmmm... missed this thread jump.

Gabe: Stop hiding from the question.

Who do you mean when you say white?


(BTW: An ellipsis consists of three dots, no more, no less. You also cannot end a sentence with an ellipsis.)