MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:52 PM
MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:54 PM
OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 4:54 PM
OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Trolling. After explicit warning. Removed. Please find your own site, post, or thread where that kind of commentary is welcome. There’s a big wide internet out there waiting for you.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Well, lookee here ... those alleged "trolling" comments are now back from the memory hole. Interesting development.

What, no deletion of MadCon's challenge?

You left out Colonel Allen West, dhimmi.

Luka on June 3, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Beware, lest thy impertinence arouse the mighty Delete Button of Caliph SeeKay.

/sarc

Wow.

CK, your moral confusion is completely on topic. I've been making that point repeatedly, and you keep dodging it (while deleting comments that expose your illogical approach on the pretense that they're irrelevant).

Bad form, sir. Very bad form.

That would simply be a veiled insult, though…which is precisely the tactic that CK employs that I despise. If you’re going to insult someone, be upfront and uncompromising about it. Don’t try to trick people that you believe to be dumber than you by cloaking it in an article.

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 5:35 PM

I see your point, but I don't think it would necessarily be so. Moral confusion is what underpins CK's entire "argument" about the mosque at Ground Zero. Clearing it away would be like doing a controlled burn of the choking underbrush in a forest; we'd be able to see things more clearly and choose our path more intelligently.

Which term(s) are you claiming we violated ...

(a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (c) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services

... that justify your action? This isn't LGF. This is Hot Air.

Trolling. After explicit warning. Removed. Please find your own site, post, or thread where that kind of commentary is welcome. There’s a big wide internet out there waiting for you.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Here's the official Hot Air policy on comment removal:

We reserve the right to delete your comments or revoke your registration for any reason. Rarely, if ever, will we do so simply because we disagree with you. We will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in our good-faith opinion, (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (c) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services.

What did MadCon and I supposedly violate?

Here's irony for you: a jihadist would have more respect (albeit grudgingly) for those of us who are willing to stand and fight his evil ideology, than he'd have for CK MacLeod and his fellow travelers.

I don’t want to use my privilege to blog in the Green Room to pursue a personal vendetta with another GR blogger. I think doing such a thing is childish.

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:52 PM

I agree. That was an unwise choice of words on my part, since fisking requires snark. I was actually hoping you'd use MacLeod's confusion as an object lesson on how not to achieve worthwhile ends (defeating shariah, advancing conservatism, de-fanging the Left, protecting American principles).

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

or in fleeting version of public opinion

Oops. I meant "or in some fleeting version of public opinion" up there.

If there’s such thing as an objective moral standard

Double oops. I meant "If there’s no such thing as an objective moral standard" when I wrote that.

Your talk of "principles" makes no sense on its own terms, because you're actually talking about preferences and consensus. It's like you're lecturing for hours about the essence of squares and parallelograms while pointing to a picture of a circle. No matter how many thousands of words and emotional appeals you pile atop each other, you're still just spouting nonsense.

Why should I take your assertions seriously when you're either unwilling or unable to root them in anything beyond your personal preferences/prejudices (or in fleeting version of public opinion)? If there's such thing as an objective moral standard, then your essays on "Tolerance Über Alles" carry as much weight as an essay on which flavor of ice cream is the best. It's just your opinion, and as we all know, everybody has one.

MadCon, Esthier, and I are challenging the foundation of your worldview, and your responses have so far been equal parts condescension and character attack covered with a paper-thin veneer of barely civil intellectual superiority. Offer something substantive or do everybody a favor and stick a sock in it.

Your talk of "principles" makes no sense on its own terms, because you're actually talking about preferences and consensus. It's like you're lecturing for hours about the essence of squares and parallelograms while pointing to a picture of a circle. No matter how many thousands of words and emotional appeals you pile atop each other, you're still just spouting nonsense.

Why should I take your assertions seriously when you're either unwilling or unable to root them in anything beyond your personal preferences/prejudices (or in fleeting version of public opinion)? If there's such thing as an objective moral standard, then your essays on "Tolerance Über Alles" carry as much weight as an essay on which flavor of ice cream is the best. It's just your opinion and nothing more, and as we all know, everybody has one.

MadCon, Esthier, and I are challenging the foundation of your worldview, and your responses have so far been equal parts condescension and character attack covered with a paper-thin veneer of barely civil intellectual superiority. Offer something substantive or do everybody a favor and stick a sock in it.

MadCon, any chance you'll post a Green Room fisking of CK's moral confusion on display above, in these posts ...

"The Marriage of Heaven and Hell in Manhattan"
"I don’t hate Muslims, but why do we need a mosque at Ground Zero?" (especially this comment)
"29 to 1: NYC community board approves Ground Zero mosque"
"On the tremendous middle finger given to America by Islam in the form of a Manhattan mosque"
"In My Own Name Only"

... and elsewhere?

CK MacLeod spends an awful lot of time striking the "who are you to say?" pose, lecturing intolerantly about tolerance, and larding his writing with condescension and disdain as substitutes for rational argument.

My objection was to CK's judgmental attitude toward others, which seems incompatible with his apparent belief that judging is Not To Be Tolerated™ ... since there's no such thing as objective moral standards. If CK can make sense of his judgmental disdain for and disapproval of people judgmentally showing disapproval and disdain, I'm all ears. Otherwise, this "Tolerance Über Alles" approach to the Ground Zero mosque is just an exercise in self-righteous wanking.

It's not my fault if CK's unwilling or unable to understand that he's building his argument on a foundation of sand. His threats to delete my comments suggests that I've hit a nerve.

Butch up, princess.

OhioCoastie

go to

https://ckmacleod.com/

to find MacLeod, if you can’t wait for him to appear here.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Waiting's part of the point. Talk about a drive-by essay ...

and an argument about insult needs to address the actual meaning of the word, particularly distinguishing between insults intended and insults perceived.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Someone's either being intentionally obtuse, lacks common sense, is unaware of that old reliable reasonableness standard ... or some combination of same.

----------

In other news, we still have crickets chirping in CK's corner.

I'm wondering where CK gets off criticizing anyone for anything, since he apparently doesn't think there are any such things as objective moral standards.