Worship of Diety

[il Padrino Ute]

SU never claimed to embody kindness, so he never attempted to benefit from a false reputation for being a kind man.

Yes he did, otherwise I never would have brought up his calling people dipshits.

[RobinFinderson]

Yes he did, otherwise I never would have brought up his calling people dipshits.

You have to say/believe that, because otherwise your bringing up the dipshits thing would just be lame. But I bet you would have a hard time finding a link to any place where SU claimed to embody kindness. That just isn't the kind of thing he would say.

[creekster]

Look, my definition was pretty reasonable, but my point was simply this: Just because SU may not always be kind, that does not make him a hypocrite for claiming kindness as an ideal. Identically, just because a Mormon may not always exhibit true Christlike charity, that does not make him a hypocrite for claiming Christlike charity as an ideal. If I were to call someone out on this board for being a hypocrite because they weren't the embodiment of Christlike charity, that would be a lame thing to do.

You are such an ass! (remember, ass is OK between us!)

Kidding aside, there was absolutely nothing in your post that said your little maxim was limited to SU's use of dipdhit. Here is what you said:

And besides, one needn't embody a quality in order to believe in it as an ideal.

I suppose one could argue that embody means complete assimilation, but you didnt. Instead, you retreated as fast as you could from this commetn by claiming that it was only meant to apply to SU's dipshit affinity. THat sure seems duplicitous to me, but I knowe you are a little sensitive about that claim, so I won't make it.

No big deal, I suspect both of our posts reflect on us very well at this point. We certainly arent going to persuade each other and lord knows its unlikley anyone else is even reading anymore.

[creekster]

this one? or this one?

yes.

[il Padrino Ute]

You have to say/believe that, because otherwise your bringing up the dipshits thing would just be lame. But I bet you would have a hard time finding a link to any place where SU claimed to embody kindness. That just isn't the kind of thing he would say.

I could prove you wrong, but it would be a violation of trust.

[RobinFinderson]

No big deal, I suspect both of our posts reflect on us very well at this point. We certainly arent going to persuade each other and lord knows its unlikley anyone else is even reading anymore.

I have no idea what we are talking about.

Here is the thing about definitions... yes, they are important, but more important than the authority of the source of a definition is simply whether or not two people can agree on a meaning. Once you have agreement, the definition becomes useful. I thought that my definition was reasonable, but if people think that it is substantially different than a dictionary version, than I am happy to work with the dictionary version. No big deal.

But one point stands -- it isn't hypocritical for SU to claim kindness as an ideal just because he isn't always kind... and I tend to think that calling someone a dipshit is more funny than unkind.

Plus some people really are dipshits. In a different thread tooblue claimed that I had once said that his irrationality was the byproduct of his abuse. I was pretty sure that I had never said anything remotely close to that, nor is it likely for me to have said anything in jest that could reasonably be interpreted as that kind of accusation. So what do you call someone that makes a patently false and insulting claim like that? I called him a jackass, which I think is a pretty reasonable thing to call someone who would make something like that up. Now one man's jackass is another man's dipshit. All I am saying here is that there are indeed dipshits, and stating the obvious is not necessarily unkind. A better argument would be that SU is inclined to call people dipshits when the status of being a dipshit has not been reasonably established.

[il Padrino Ute]

I have no idea what we are talking about.

Here is the thing about definitions... yes, they are important, but more important than the authority of the source of a definition is simply whether or not two people can agree on a meaning. Once you have agreement, the definition becomes useful. I thought that my definition was reasonable, but if people think that it is substantially different than a dictionary version, than I am happy to work with the dictionary version. No big deal.

But one point stands -- it isn't hypocritical for SU to claim kindness as an ideal just because he isn't always kind... and I tend to think that calling someone a dipshit is more funny than unkind.

Plus some people really are dipshits. In a different thread tooblue claimed that I had once said that his irrationality was the byproduct of his abuse. I was pretty sure that I had never said anything remotely close to that, nor is it likely for me to have said anything in jest that could reasonably be interpreted as that kind of accusation. So what do you call someone that makes a patently false and insulting claim like that? I called him a jackass, which I think is a pretty reasonable thing to call someone who would make something like that up. Now one man's jackass is another man's dipshit. All I am saying here is that there are indeed dipshits, and stating the obvious is not necessarily unkind. A better argument would be that SU is inclined to call people dipshits when the status of being a dipshit has not been reasonably established.

Now you're being hypocritical. You came unglued when I called Bill Moyers a jackass.

[RobinFinderson]

Now you're being hypocritical. You came unglued when I called Bill Moyers a jackass.

That is becase Bill Moyers is my hero, and I love him and think that no one has done more to save the human race, save only Karl Marx, than Bill Moyers.

[il Padrino Ute]

That is becase Bill Moyers is my hero, and I love him and think that no one has done more to save the human race, save only Karl Marx, than Bill Moyers.

That doesn't matter. You're still being hypocritical.

[RobinFinderson]

That doesn't matter. You're still being hypocritical.

Well at least we finally agree about the greatness of Bill Moyers. I always knew you would eventually see things my way.

But I disagree about about me being hypocritical. When I went 'ballistic' (I don't agree with that characterization, but whatever), it was because I didn't think that brother Moyers deserved the title 'jackass.' Likewise, I'm not defending any specific time that SU called someone a dipshit. What I am arguing is that there are indeed jackasses and dipshits, and imo, calling someone either one of those words is not inherently unkind if the situation calls for it. I'm not being hypocritical here because I genuinely thought that tooblue had been a jackass, and I genuinely thought that Bill Moyers didn't deserve that title.

[Jarid in Cedar]

That is becase Bill Moyers is my hero, and I love him and think that no one has done more to save the human race, save only Karl Marx, than Bill Moyers.

Stop worshipping Moyers!!

[il Padrino Ute]

Well at least we finally agree about the greatness of Bill Moyers. I always knew you would eventually see things my way.

But I disagree about about me being hypocritical. When I went 'ballistic' (I don't agree with that characterization, but whatever), it was because I didn't think that brother Moyers deserved the title 'jackass.' Likewise, I'm not defending any specific time that SU called someone a dipshit. What I am arguing is that there are indeed jackasses and dipshits, and imo, calling someone either one of those words is not inherently unkind if the situation calls for it. I'm not being hypocritical here because I genuinely thought that tooblue had been a jackass, and I genuinely thought that Bill Moyers didn't deserve that title.

My opinion of Moyers remains the same and always will. And I don't want you to cry, so I'll not comment on Marx.

You are being hypocritical because you implied that calling someone a jackass or a dipshit really isn't that bad, yet you were bent out of shape when I called Moyers a jackass. IOW, it's ok if you call someone a jackass because you think he or she is a jackass, but how dare anyone call someone you admire a jackass.

If it's okay for you to call tooblue a jackass, then it's ok for me to call Moyers a jackass.

[LA Ute]

Freedom is my god.

Yours and Fyodor's. I think he has a different idea than you about what choices one should make, but that's OK.

[RobinFinderson]

My opinion of Moyers remains the same and always will. And I don't want you to cry, so I'll not comment on Marx.

You are being hypocritical because you implied that calling someone a jackass or a dipshit really isn't that bad, yet you were bent out of shape when I called Moyers a jackass. IOW, it's ok if you call someone a jackass because you think he or she is a jackass, but how dare anyone call someone you admire a jackass.

If it's okay for you to call tooblue a jackass, then it's ok for me to call Moyers a jackass.

It really isn't that bad for you to call Bill Moyers a jackass, and again, I wouldn't characterize my reaction as 'getting bent out of shape.' I like Bill Moyers, I respect his opinion, in fact I even seek it out by watching his show most weeks. I think I know what he stands for, and I don't think he deserves to be called a jackass. I don't think there is anything hypocritical about rushing to someone's defense if they are being unfairly represented. You will note, no one rushed to tooblue's defense when he was caught inventing insulting facts about me.

If I recall correctly, you didn't really make the case for Moyers being a jackass. You mostly just insisted that he was a jackass, and when I said that I liked Bill Moyers and thought that he wasn't a jackass, you didn't try to make the case for his jackassery, you just insisted more vehemently (though someone referenced some jackassery he may have been a party two under the Johnson administration. That was a solid argument, but I don't think it came from you). What you are calling 'ballistic' and 'bent out of shape,' presumably, is when I asked whether or not you would appreciate if I were to call the current LDS prophet a 'jackass,' and than proceed to not make the case for that. I think that is a reasonable question.

Or to put it one more way, if someone is going to call someone else a dipshit or a jackass, the name caller should be prepared to defend that observation.

[il Padrino Ute]

It really isn't that bad for you to call Bill Moyers a jackass, and again, I wouldn't characterize my reaction as 'getting bent out of shape.' I like Bill Moyers, I respect his opinion, in fact I even seek it out by watching his show most weeks. I think I know what he stands for, and I don't think he deserves to be called a jackass. I don't think there is anything hypocritical about rushing to someone's defense if they are being unfairly represented. You will note, no one rushed to tooblue's defense when he was caught inventing insulting facts about me.

If I recall correctly, you didn't really make the case for Moyers being a jackass. You mostly just insisted that he was a jackass, and when I said that I liked Bill Moyers and thought that he wasn't a jackass, you didn't try to make the case for his jackassery, you just insisted more vehemently (though someone referenced some jackassery he may have been a party two under the Johnson administration. That was a solid argument, but I don't think it came from you). What you are calling 'ballistic' and 'bent out of shape,' presumably, is when I asked whether or not you would appreciate if I were to call the current LDS prophet a 'jackass,' and than proceed to not make the case for that. I think that is a reasonable question.

Or to put it one more way, if someone is going to call someone else a dipshit or a jackass, the name caller should be prepared to defend that observation.

Nice attempt to avoid the topic of hypocrisy on your part.

I don't have to defend my opinion of Moyers to you or anyone else for that matter. As I told you that day, if you have a problem with my opinion of Moyers, it's your problem, not mine.

If you wanted to call Monson a jackass, it doesn't affect me so go ahead and do that.