Note to new bloggers: If you want to convince people that you have good ideas and arguments, it's best to present your posts in well-written form. Now, we all make typos and the occasional grammatical error. But when your opening paragraph is as bad as this, you are bound not to make a good first impression.
Positive Liberty's Jon Rowe, as well as the secular progressive movement continue to distort our Founding Father's view of the Law of Nature(State of Nature), by violating the Framers and Christian Philosophers' application of words. Rowe's latest post is incorrect because he attributes philosophical wordage, an abandonment of a biblical view.
But then again, when you read, or attempt to get through the post in its entirety...one can only conclude the blogger should not bother to "fix" the grammar problems in the post because, as the music production and engineering professors used to tell us at Berklee College of Music -- you can't polish a turd.
2 comments:
Jon, I've read through the posts on the Barton-wannabe's blog. I suspect this individual is one of the many fundamentalists who actively misrepresent historic evidence in order to push their desired agenda.
He's reminiscent of creationists who misrepresent physical evidence in order to discredit science, in a vain attempt to bolster their creationism. His mind appears to embrace dogma and defend it against the light of evidence and reason.
The only successful strategy I've seen in dealing with such individuals is to
(1) Ignore them.
(2) Poke fun at their big picture by talking about them in the 3rd person, but never engaging them directly.
If the unintelligent details of such an individual's statements are addressed intelligently, they may infer, to others, some level on intelligence upon the individual and his position.
I do notice, in him, a few characteristics that are particularly familiar to me. I suspect he is one of the many such individuals who use to frequent the (now defunct) yahoo message boards.
I hate to admit it but, I spent an inordinate amount of time on those boards, and still have a library of more than a 1000 standard replies prepared to correct positions ... such as claims that Jefferson was Christian, or Madison was unimportant or minor as a framer/founder.
In any event, his latest post is great for a multitude of laughs.
Quote:
The only successful strategy I've seen in dealing with such individuals is to
(1) Ignore them.
(2) Poke fun at their big picture by talking about them in the 3rd person, but never engaging them directly.
End Quote
As a person who probably agrees with you on issues on the US founding, views about rationality and "God", I find your smug, dismissive and openly arrogant attitude more than sickening.
Socrates (or rather Plato) showed us that every person was worth taking the time to dialogue with, even an uneducated slave boy.
Rather than the ignorant and superstitous, but this attitude, whether atiest or fanatical, and people like YOU are the prosaic problem with modern intellectual discourse.
Namely, no discourse, because you of course, are right, and they of course, are completely wrong. So, no dialogue.
I suppose that in your comment we can infer that they won't be engaged because you are too good for that, it wouldn't do any good, and of course, the "inordinate amount of time on those boards" keeps you from actually discoursing with those inferior to you.
As far as I can tell, the owner of THIS blog tries to define terms, come to common understandings, disagree and persuade his opponents. It's hard work, and requires an education, all part of being a real scholar.
Now go ahead and mock or ignore me, you a-hole... and that's in the first person.
Post a Comment