Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

I only had time to skim Frank Paynter's drivel. I've read a lot of Frank, back when I had time, and Frank has an exceedingly poor understanding of Computer Technology (tho better than most bloggers). This is Frank's specialty.

So I'm afraid my initial assumption regarding any of discussion of "isms" from the likes of Frank Paynter and Norm Jensen. (sp?) I've read some similar comments by Yule Heibel. Mike Golby is somewhat harder to categorize..

..but I'd just as soon have open-heart surgery attempted to save me, by a three-year-old, than consult with these folks about gaining a good understanding of "isms" (or much of anything else). Although I used to read many-a these folks, daily, because it's good entertainment and "EVEN a blind squirrel finds a nut once every while".

Iow, Frank Paynter has written a good bunch of (crap-)theory, to justify his Quaker religious beliefs.

Where are Frank Paynter's, Norm Jensen's, and all the rest of you lamer's on the subject of Saddam Hussein?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Do you know where he is now, and why haven't you cared about that?

(I don't care, because there are some sub-human's that deserve what they get, whatever it is, and Saddam Hussein IN MY OPINION ONLY is one such. PLEASE do not confuse yourselves on this point. Just because David Weinberger is lured into the Echo Chamber by the likes of Frank Paynter et al does NOT MEAN AT ALL that I believe Frank Paynter deserves similar as Saddam Hussein and the terrorists Frank is supporting in his particular "non-ism".)

"I've played my share of team development games where I'm marooned on the moon with a 45 caliber pistol, an air supply good for one person for two days, sufficient water for three people for three days, a flashlight battery, a gel dildo, and three people on the team with the certain knowledge that it will be a day and half before the rescue craft can possibly arrive to scoot us back to safety in the space station."

Great, and that gives Frank some good expertise in writing to Blogaria on this war. Iow, it's a fun game for Frank et al. But there is little to no resemblance to reality.

"My response to hypotheticals is and always has been, I'll burn that bridge when I come to it. But the question regarding "pacifism" is more than a hypothetical, and I need to be able to answer it."

Then why didn't you shut the fuck up from this point, I would ask Frank??

Because Frank Paynter's pacifism is as hypothetical as Frank Paynter's understanding of Computer Technology. That much is obvious.

Explain to me this: How well is a Quaker gonna be able to comprehend what goes on in war, from their comfy armchair??

Especially one with a good imagination (which IS good!), like these bogus writers??

David, what are you so unclear about here?? Your understanding is so, So, SOOO much better than Frank's and the rest of these pretend-philosopher's-of-(someone-else's-)life. And you allow these manipulators to take away your good understanding, and replace it with Pure 100% Bullshit, the Madison Ave kind at that!

I'm sorry, but I didn't have time to read every bit of this bullshit. I would be glad to be wrong, but fear otherwise.

I think Steve Teles, quoted by Mark A. R. Kleiman, has the best answer to this.

"We choose to foreswear torture in cases where it might be justified in order to control it in the much larger number of cases in which it is not. Once this [norm] gets loosened, the temptation to use it in order to facilitate intelligence-gathering becomes very strong. And once it becomes used regularly for this purpose, it becomes very easy to start using it for purely sadistic reasons--the torturers start realizing that they enjoy it."

JayT, there is nothing in your above comment except insults and name-calling, about a piece you admit you didn't even read completely.

Don't post crap like this here, JayT. You're more than welcome to bring up ideas and to argue against other ideas, but I will remove any further posts that IMO do nothing but insult others.

I'm happy to talk with you about this offline. You have my email address.

Seth, well-put. That's the right policy statement, IMO. It's the policy I was trying to get agreement on.

And Seth has, oddly enough, pointed out exactly where you fucked up lamer's and I disagree.

I will, profoundly, agree that there's a possibility that torture can be used beyond it's intended value, to get information and save lives, because "torturers start realizing that they enjoy it".

However, you speak for YOUR OWN SELF AND YOUR OWN KIND when you claim that I, or anybody else you don't know, like the mini-Coalition Soldiers, will necessarily enjoy torture. That it is "natural" to enjoy torture.

This is false. It's true for some, not most.

This is not GENERALLY the views of the Coalition Soldiers, and you have been blind to the body-mutilitation that's been done by the terrorists.

Iow, there is one side in this war that GENERALLY abides by the Geneva Conventions, and one that does not.

And most of you support the side that does NOT, and the side that enjoys TORTURING civilians.

This side. You support these terrorists by claiming that the Coalition Army is of basically the same nature as any common terrorist, which is false.

It may be true of YOU, but not me.

David,

If you care to read my piece, and discuss my writing, I will be glad to leave out the name-calling.

However, you appear to have mis-read my writing.

When you say "there is nothing in your above comment except insults and name-calling", I believe you may have missed a few sentences.

Or perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying, and there is probably no "perhaps" about it, given your statement.

Iow, David.

I am struck by the violent views being expressed with such civil tones.

I find it offensive that anybody could say, AND USE THE MOST CIVIL WORDS in saying, in essence:

"You and your kind enjoy torture. It is natural for you. You are not of an understanding...

..Now I AM of an understanding, and I say that you enjoy torture. And I say you are offensive, and I say you are no better than Saddam Hussein."

This is what Frank (among many others) has said, of me.

Using civil words, of course.

And you wonder why I get offended?? IT IS THE CIVIL WORDS, in part...

Explain why you are surprised I get offended, if you can, and we could discuss some more... (Iow, I would guess I'll be looking to be done writing here, shortly.)

While I think I disagree with the "red in tooth and claw" description of human nature that Teles puts forth ("There is something in human nature that likes the complete control of another, the ability to inflict pain and suffering. This is exacerbated when the torturer feels moral superiority to the one being tortured"), I do agree that the norm, the proscription, is necessary "in order to control this very deep temptation...."

Yesterday some moms that I had breakfast with were discussing their sons and guns. This was a group of people who don't particularly want their kids growing up with cowboy, mobster, soldier gun games, and yet we do live in a larger community where guns are the norm and they help to shape the way the kids play. These moms to a woman agreed that banning guns in the house only caused a greater interest and that ignoring them worked just fine. If there's a point to this story I guess it's that blanket statements about human nature should, I think, take into account our own marvelous minds, our ability to shape our own cultures, our willingness to inculcate the values of our cultures in our young, and something deeper... the Jiminey Cricket thing, the fact that it doesn't take much orientation to set a young person on a moral path and that the organism has its own moral compass deep inside, a conscience.

I want my country's leaders to be ethical hard liners and to accept responsibility for their own failures of leadership. If they will but set an example, it will be easier to bring up kids who value all people equally.

***

And not to feed the trolls, but... quite some time ago I let JayT know that I'd be happy to discuss [stuff] with him if I knew who he was. It's hard for me to engage an anonymous voice that is so directly confrontational.

Frank,

I'm afraid you and others are very much mistaken on most of these points. Individually, the statements make sense.

As a whole, they are not-whole.

"If there's a point to this story I guess it's that blanket statements about human nature should, I think, take into account our own marvelous minds, our ability to shape our own cultures, our willingness to inculcate the values of our cultures in our young, and something deeper..."

You exhalt yourself, as do most in Blogaria.

Yes, parenting exists as it has for the millenia. (The Blogs of the Blogdom have invented little new, in most-a these regards btw, just a lot of intelligent-sounding distractions. Again, for the most part.)

For another example, "These moms to a woman agreed that banning guns in the house only caused a greater interest and that ignoring them worked just fine."

Well, I was raised in a house that banned guns and these play-toys. I played with them at friends' houses. Yes, it somewhat encouraged greater interest, but I did not turn out to be a thoughtless un-caring person, like most-a you posters have.

Go figure.

Iow, people with proscriptions give me the creeps.

But then, I'm not very much into Religion nor religiosity. That could be my bias, I dunno.

"I want my country's leaders to be ethical hard liners and to accept responsibility for their own failures of leadership."

Yeah, dream on... Meaning, I would like the Dukes and Duchesses of Blogaria to accept responsibility for their own failures of leadership..

..but do you see me blaming this group of posters here including you FP, for example, for why it's most assuredly NOT "easier to bring up kids who value all people equally" in our day and age??

Iow, one-a the first traps is blaming somebody else for your own ineptness, isn't it??

~~~~~~~

And I'm no more anonymous that you are Frank Paytner, just cause "everybody" knows Frank Paynter and few know my name.

You are vastly mistaken, in quite a few respects, Frank. First off, pretending you have the full measure of understanding of the meaning and actualization of respect.

You do not.

Not say that I do myself have the full measure of understanding of respect (as that is a vast word, to be understated,) however I am at least able to discern that you do not.

I can't possibly correct all your misunderstandings, Frank, but you sit corrected yet again:

It's hard for me to engage an anonymous voice that is so directly confrontational.

In case I wasn't plain, the "anonymous" aspect is a ruse that you use.

You, obviously, find it hard to engage in honest discourse.

Not to imply you are totally dishonest, because I've read some heartfelt discussion on your Quaker beliefs.

You just do not understand your own selfness, so give up on understanding other people much, until then.

Sorry, that was harsher than I intended, Frank.

You are being blatantly dishonest about why you do not want to engage in discussion with me, Frank.

But I'd meant to phrase more like "Not to imply that you are even GENERALLY dishonest Frank, because..."

JayT, you need to calm down. This isn't your blog, and you needn't monopolize the comments. Say your piece and then shut up long enough for others to say theirs. Not every comment here is a reaction to you, and you are not the center of the universe. I am.

If you will observe a little closer, Mr. Bennett, you will possibly note some-a the following:

i) There has been ample opportunity for others to make comments. Did you notice me "monopolizing" this website yesterday from noon on?? Or not?

ii) The author writes the words, however the reader necessarily ascribes the tone-of-voice. I'm much calmer than you perceive, obviously.

iii) I have observed, throughout most-a my fucking entire life, that I am not the center of the universe. Have you observed same of yourself, Mr. Bennett, yet?

TIA.

It seems to me that Paynter's blog is a good-enough place to discuss Paynter's post. The link is actually http://sandhill.typepad.com/sandhill_trek/2004/05/tired_of_isms.html

I attempted to post the following at Frank's, but for whatever reason was not able:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Btw, anybody claiming they are in favor of the draft out of the ethics of egality is sadly lying. It's been pointed out before that this attempt to re-start the draft is nothing other than an attempt to hide that fact that there ARE MANY people willing to volunteer to take on the brave battle. And it's also the easiest way to bring this war to an end would be to re-start the draft, of course.

This would be the primary motivation, which is in no way related to a "sense of fairness".

And those fighting and dying for these very stupid fricktarded posters here on this thread, so they can write the PC pseudo-wisdoms..

..Well, those fighting for this reason are obviously pretty stupid and fricktarded themselves (but for the opposite reasons these posters would make up in their feeble thinking). Because the people they are fighting and dying for are, almost, as bad as the enemies they face on the front lines..

..some of them anywho.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some truths are not very well-suited for children to hear, of course.

And you call this a "Frank" discussion???

And you call this fucking shit that Frank posted as "useful"???

"I'd like to see us civilize ourselves and purge the concept of war from our vocabulary and our consciusness."

Well, this has already been accomplished, for the large part.. which is why there is almost NO intelligent discussion of these things.

Frank can stand up on his own high horse of morality, because he is a fucktarded moralist claiming to be against moralism and all other isms...

He is STILL against the War in Afghanistan, after all that's been said and done.

And you still listen to him, David, and not face the facts I present??

Those on your side of this debate are book-burners and liars and filled with their own brand of righteous hatred (JUST like Norm Jensen's of Dave Winer, btw), David, or have you not-noticed that also?

Apologies to Yule Heibel, as I'd intended to qualify my remarks above.. but would take too much time. Just to say, I've read many a fine comment of yours (and probably seen your site), but you've gotten in a conversation which is a foregone conclusion based on the participants. Did not get a chance to skim your comments at Franks, and may later or may not.

David, your "friends" are fucked up. Almost totally. You can hardly COME UP with a more pompously arrogant and ignorant statement as that which Frank and other espouse. If you made the attempt, you (almost) could not POSSIBLY "better" Frank on ignorance and self-exaltation, above.

I suppose it is a coincidence I can't post at Frank's, but I'm guessing Frank and all his friends all around the world would rather this truth did not see the light of day. And it hasn't because reading words is not-same as seeing truth of the facts, not by a long shot.

:

(And, again, that is NOT the PRIMARY reason I'll "give you a breather" on my writing. Nor is it, exactly, a case of the vast ignorance outweighing any attempt to provide intelligent facts, precisely... No time, mainly.)

:

The shame is that it is precisely Frank's LACK of civility and lack of understanding of civilized behaviour and civilization in GENERAL, which prevents his laudible goal.

Funny that... It's Frank and his friends more than Mr. Bush and bin and the Mullah Omar et al put together, by my estimate.

I can't disagree with any of that, JayT. Frank's a moral snob.

I'm weak, and had to check back. I should be working.

"It's EVEN worse than it appears", as has been said.

Frank is a technological snob.

Frank is an intellectual snob.

Frank is a Religious snob.

Frank's friends are all of the above.

Frank's friends convince each other they are absolutely NOT snobs, of course, because there is so much plain factual evidence to the contrary.

One line of pseudo-reasoning: "Snobs make money, and these folks don't, so therefore..."

"Snobs are not open-minded, and all liberals base their entire philosophy on being open-minded, so it would logically be impossible for Blogaria to be snobs."

"Blogaria is ALL ABOUT EGALITY."

"Blogs are BETTER than journalists, in present views."

These are all self-confirming idiocies, as is the one that there's no Echo Chamber around MY BLOG!!!!

When there is almost nothing BUT Echo Chambers going on all across these blogs. These multiple layers of intertwined self-confirming idiocies lead in one direction. One direction or the other they still lead to one of two self-confirming-directions for almost all bloggers. Almost without exception, because bloggers are snobs, almost without exception.

But, Mr. Bennett, I believe we disagree on one point I've not mentioned: I believe you and Dr. Weinberger are equally confused. You both are under the misimpression that you can even see the center (or miiddle) of any discussions. This would not be so, just yet.

Thus the polarization. There is no left-center or right-center, just people mix-and-matching their various misconceived viewpoints, to make it appear to themselves and their friends like each is THE RIGHTFUL CENTER, IN BALANCE...

Sheesh...

:

Who would-a thought that the use of computers for the past 30 years would-a, somehow someway, been largely responsible for the vast polarization of viewpoints...? Who'd a thunk...? Who'd a thunk that all you have to do is TELL PEOPLE you're not evil.. just LIE AND TELL PEOPLE you're not thinking in binary-ignorance.. just LIE AGAIN and TELL PEOPLE naw you aren't over-intellectuallizing you are very caring, and they would believe that??

Apparently not many, because the question was raised a week or two back. How is a question like this even brought UP? Because people refuse to learn from those who know, and would prefer to not-learn from those who agree with them, as it's always been throughout history.

Each person, one-at-a-time, makes these decisions. Most do so incorrectly, obviously.

Back to square one, snobs pretending to be not-snobs... Some-a THE most hateful people on the planet pretending to be pacifists...

Hm... Naw, must be coincidence, right? Computers aren't that powerfully addictive to actually cause mass-stupidity are they?? Just because a computer screen looks and functions nearly-identically to a TV, surely a boob-CRT is actually the opposite of TV, right??

(Hint: no, it's the people who own responsibility for their stupidity.. who will probably then try to blame the computer for all these evils.. and evils they are.)

Watch much TV/computer screens, Mr. Bennett, yourself?? (Rhetorical question, I gotta get going.) Point is, Frank is not the problem strictly speaking. Their are so MANY liars of the kind Frank hangs out with, on both sides, that it would be impossible to blame anybody too awful much.

However, that does NOT mean there is therefore NO problem here whatsoever. Would that it were so.

Going..

..going....

coming..

?

~~
;-D

Sorry to bail, but I'm sure most aren't... I've caught a whiff of some powerful fucking stench in my vicinity, and I think it's coming from me...)-; And both a cult and an anti-cult that may be in my vicinity.

I'm not sure. Not-doing a thing, until I find out a few things for "certain".

Stop insulting my friends. Name-calling isn't thinking. This blog is not a place for you to work out your anger issues.

I know Frank. I know him in person as well as by what he writes. He is not a snob. He is a decent, smart, funny, dedicated person whom I admire.

I am not going to talk about Frank's character any further. And here is my new policy: I will delete posts that I deem to be more insulting about people than enlightening about issues. I will use my judgment, which undoubtedly will be inconsistent and imperfect. Tough.

The new policy is starting now...

Now that we have started on the torture route we will inevitably end up at www.itorture.com