How to Handle Morons

[Swordsman]

This was forwarded to me by my old (Former, that is) fencing instructor.

What to do if you fall into a conversation with someone about the terrorist attacks who doesn't believe in retaliation:

1. Engage in conversation, and ask if military force is appropriate.

2. When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"

3. Wait until he says something to the effect of - "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."

4. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.

5. When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would be awful and he should not cause more violence.

6. Wait until he agrees, and has pledged not to commit additional violence.

7. Punch him in the face again, harder this time.

Repeat steps 5 through 8 until he understands that sometimes it is necessary
to punch back

[Craig]

This belongs in the water cooler.

[damianip]

Originally posted by Swordsman:
<STRONG>snip...

What to do if you fall into a conversation with someone about the terrorist attacks who doesn't believe in retaliation:

1. Engage in conversation, and ask if military force is appropriate.

2. When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"

3. Wait until he says something to the effect of - "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."

4. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.

5. When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would be awful and he should not cause more violence.

6. Wait until he agrees, and has pledged not to commit additional violence.

7. Punch him in the face again, harder this time.

Repeat steps 5 through 8 until he understands that sometimes it is necessary
to punch back</STRONG>

While I believe that retaliation is called for in our present situation, I think that freedom of speech and thought should be carefully guarded, particularly at times like these.

That said, the suggested technique of dealing with dissent combines all the finest aspects of Facism, Nazism and totalitarianism in general. It's a technique worthy of the Taliban itself.

Paolo

[Azrael]

*sigh* Are we going to fight this out, again?

[attila]

What a riot! That was Freakin' funny.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by damianip:
<STRONG>

While I believe that retaliation is called for in our present situation, I think that freedom of speech and thought should be carefully guarded, particularly at times like these.

That said, the suggested technique of dealing with dissent combines all the finest aspects of Facism, Nazism and totalitarianism in general. It's a technique worthy of the Taliban itself.

Paolo</STRONG>

It's still freedom of speech; just another means of persuasion. In any case, and to avoid a fight, can we not agree on the main point? It's funny!

[lochinvar]

I'm sorry; I must be dense. But I find nothing funny about punching people repeatedly in the face because they don't agree with you.

Maybe I've lived too long...

[damianip]

Originally posted by Swordsman:
<STRONG>

It's still freedom of speech; just another means of persuasion. In any case, and to avoid a fight, can we not agree on the main point? It's funny!</STRONG>

And what is the main point: to prey on a pacifist with violence? I don't agree then.

Punching someone is not speech but action. Encouraging someone to hit a pacifist in order to conform to your point of view is not very funny and, to me, sounds cowardly and base. Technically, it might be considered felony solicitation.

Pacifists aren't the enemy. Terrorists are the enemy. Punching THEM repeatedly might be both fun and productive.

Paolo

[Swordsman]

Man, nobody appreciates slapstick humor around here...

Now, I would say that it's a perfect analogy if not necessarily sound advice, but I don't want to get into a fight.

[attila]

It is funny because a pacifist would not strike back. Only people who THINK or pretend to be pacifists strike back in this scenario. It is about finding the true nature of the guy. That's why you have to punch him again.

[MHS Fencer]

I'm completely offended by this, but of course, I don't care, because nobody is about to go punching people in the middle of conversation. Besides, it is humorous, i like to think of myself as a thinking pacifist (ie, I'd duck and when u tried to punch again I'd take your legs out from under you).

Anyway, what was this supposed to be about? I think I've gone clueless...

-Ian

[Inquartata]

Geez! It's called satire, folks. No one is really recommending you DO it, any more than Swift actually contemplated using infants as food, despite "A Modest Proposal"...

I think there must have been a third tower brought down on Sept. 11---the "Sense of Humor Tower"!

CAN we lighten up?

[Scaramouche]

Satire rocks! I know so many people like the supposed "pacifist" in the joke! I'd like to punch them in the face a couple of times so they see what big hypocrites they are!

[HilandDoug]

I must agree, that as satire it is funny, and it relieves a bit of tension in those of us who are offended by the "Blame America" crowd.

Interestingly, the following was posted today on "Best of the Web Today" on OpinionJournal.com:

What to Do About the Intellectuals
In National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson weighs in with a withering critique of America's intellectual class:

The usual explanations about the sociology of dissent do not quite make sense any more. So far, those who are fighting in Afghanistan--mostly highly trained pilots and special-forces operatives--are not from among the unwashed poor. The affluent Left, then, is not opposed to action because the less-privileged are dying in droves. Is it because the better educated are more sensitive to world opinion? To the nuances of Islam? To the "Other" in Afghanistan, who are not male WASPs? To the vagaries of the European press? Perhaps.

Perhaps not. Rather, I think fashionable anti-Americanism and pacifism have now become completely aristocratic pursuits, the dividends of limited experience with the muscular classes and the indulgence such studied distance breeds. Our pampered critics may be as clever as Odysseus, but they have lost his nerve, strength, and sense of morality. And so they have neither the ability nor desire to ram a hot stake into the eye of the savage Cyclops to save their comrades.

In another NRO piece, Stanley Kurtz writes that "with the attacks of September 11 and the ensuing public outrage over the vituperative and one-sided 'blame America first' response of the tenured radicals, the academy may finally be facing serious public questioning of its legitimacy--along with widespread dismissal of its relevance and credibility."

Who can disagree? And yet some caveats are in order. In the first place, there are plenty of intellectuals, even in the universities and even on the left, who have been quite sensible about the war. The anti-American fringe makes a lot of noise, but we're willing to bet its volume is far more impressive than its numbers. To combat these people, we need to begin with the civil-libertarian truism that the answer to offensive speech is more speech. If you work at or attend a university (or anywhere else intellectuals gather), resolve that if you hear someone badmouthing America or justifying the Sept. 11 atrocities, you'll answer back--politely, but firmly and confidently.

There's a distinction to be made among the anti-American intellectuals, too. Some of them are simply haters, people who genuinely loathe America. Such people are due exactly the degree of tolerance society extends to, say, members of the Ku Klux Klan: We respect their right to express their views, but we treat those views as beyond the pale of respectability. True America-haters deserve to be denounced and shunned.

On the other hand, many intellectuals are merely unserious people. David Brooks captures this nicely in a Weekly Standard essay: "The earnest conformity that does prevail in wartime drives intellectuals--who like to think of themselves as witty, skeptical, iconoclastic dissidents--batty. They grow sour, and alienated from mainstream life."

Of course the "earnest conformity" that accompanies a just war is entirely compatible with wit, skepticism, even iconoclasm. It is the product not of an ovine mentality but of the obvious rightness of the cause. The metaphor of "moral gravity" is instructive here. An atrocity of the magnitude of Sept. 11 pulls us all in and forces us to contend with it. Well, almost all of us. We've encountered, and maybe you have too, a few people who seem blithely oblivious to the horror of Sept. 11. Frank Rich's column this week (link requires registration) is a good example; less than seven weeks after Sept. 11, the New York Timesman returns to his usual partisan prattle, even blaming the anthrax scare on the "religious right" (no, he's not talking about the Taliban).

How, we've wondered when we hear such things, can anyone contemplate Sept. 11 and not be serious about it? We suppose moral gravity, like the physical kind, exerts its pull only on those that have some weight to begin with. If one's mind is filled with helium, even a brutal attack on his country won't stop him from floating off into the clouds.

[lochinvar]

I give up.

You can think it's funny if you want to.

It didn't make me laugh. It made me sad, to think that someone actually thought of it, and that the rest of you actually thought it funny. (Except Paolo.)

I guess I definitely HAVE lived too long.

[its_me_mango]

people are confused about the appropriate reaction. but what is an "appropriate" reaction to the reality that a small group of people delibertly smashed into two office buildings in order to kill 12,000 men and women working at their desks, and we all know and realize that they planned this, they were living in our communities, making friends with us, talking with us and learning about our culture, our businesses and way of life. If someone doesn't like another person's way of life then they should leave. it's that simple. it was too much culture shock for some of those people to come here, either as "students" or as workers. i feel very badly since i have had many friends of the islamic faith, including fundamentalists. i think we could all say that couldn't we, we're not particularily special because we've had friends who were fundamentalists right? we've known fundementalist christians too, but there's one difference, i think that the fundamentalist christians did less mischief in the world , except for Bosnia, when the Christian's tried to wipe out the Muslims, which is why America went to Bosnia, to assist the Muslims but people have short memories. As you can also see from the pretty picture above, that is supposed to make us not want to fight back, however, the young lady pictured above is from a well to do family who supports her fencing, and lets not forget that of the 12,000 people who were killed on Sept 11th, many of them were just as "simple" just as dark, and just as ethnic as the young lady pictured above. Does anyone here think she is stupid, vapid or unable to distinguish right from wrong? i doubt it.

[attila]

Sorry guysbut,

Humor is one of those things you can't write essays about. You either laught at the punchline or you don't. I like it that way. Because if you HAVE to explain the joke is is DE FACTO not funny.

Any body hear the one about:

How can you tell a mormon wedding? It is the one where the Bride's mom is the one pregnant.....

[Scaramouche]

Originally posted by lochinvar:
<STRONG>

It made me sad, to think that someone actually thought of it, and that the rest of you actually thought it funny.

</STRONG>

It's not funny about beating someone up for their beliefs or bombing afghanistan, it's funny because it shows how fleeting some people's strong "beliefs" really are. Basically ripping on hypocrites. Total non-literal humor. You haven't lived too long, just lighten up a bit and have some fun with it!

[Scaramouche]

Hey atilla my grandma was mormon and I so totally think that is inappropriate and WRONG.

JUST KIDDING! haha that was silly BRAVO

[Catlady]

Heck, I am Mormon--as if the use of the word "heck" isn't indication enough--and I like the joke about the bride's mom. I'll even go you one better.

Q: Why do Mormon women stop having children at 35?

A: Because 36 children is too many even for them.

For other Mormons out there, or the curious for that matter, yes I believe in and support my religion, but the truth is some people around here really do have way too many kids. Anyway, it wouldn't hurt us to have an ocassional sense of humor about ourselves.

No onto the pacifist thing. Lochinvar is right. A real pacifist wouldn't hit back. Sort of defeats the purpose. It reminds me of a story I heard once. Supposedly Ghengis Khan, who vowed not to leave one stone atop another in the cities he conquered, came upon a temple in a city. Sitting in front of this temple was a very elderly monk. This monk met the eye of the Khan as he passed. The Khan stopped and said" Old man, don't you know I could kill you right now without even a second thought". The monk answered "Oh Mighty Khan, don't you know I could die right now without a second thought". Apparently the Khan was impressed and left the temple alone. True or not, something to think about.

Let me say a few words on behalf of the peace-niks among us. First let me say I support this war, albeit reluctantly in the sense that I wish that someone on either side of it could have stopped it before it got to this point. I agree there is such a thing as a just war, but as I've said before too often people, not just the US, say that theirs is the side of God and/or justice, when in fact it isn't. Instead they just want to soothe their consciences. In this case, we have to defend ourselves, but I'm not so blind as to think that there aren't reasons, some legitimate, why other countries might dislike the US although the action that Bin Laden et.al. took was completely unacceptable.
That said, I was not in favor of the Gulf War. That was blood for oil, simply, in my mind, much as I love my car and the convenience it provides, not a fair exchange. Yes, there were human rights violations going on there, however there are several other nations where similar things occur where we have chosen not to intervene. China comes to mind, how did we repay them? With most favored nation status, because it suited our economic interests. Similarly our economic interests guided us in the situation with Iraq. What disturbed me most was not patriotism, granted I'm not openly patriotic, but I think the frenzied display is easier than true patriotism, but how easily the American people were whipped into a frenzy by careful manipulation. In this case too, we were aware of human rights violations committed by the Taliban, but it's amazing how little they were mentioned until it suited our purpose. Should we have attacked them for these violations? Absolutely not! Nevertheless it's interesting.
Before everyone jumps all over me for not supporting "our men", I do support them. I am grateful for what they do. To me, however, one of the primary ways of supporting them is to not shed their blood needlessly.

Another thing that sticks in my craw, is the hatred of intellectuals. Remember in many Communist regimes, and don't we still consider anything that so much as resembles any part of it the absolute evil, the intellectuals were often the first to be killed or exiled. I think that should tell you something. I also resent being categorized as a spoiled rich, brat. I'll admit to being spoiled, and my family was certainly relatively well off, although I'd stop short of calling us rich, but do not under estimate my resolve, or committment to this country and other worthy causes. My statements of dissent, and that of others, is a contribution to this country's welfare. Just because, unlike most of the world, unfortunately, my day is not consumed by merely making sure that I have sufficient food and shelter, or just because I don't scrub floors, or clean toilets for a living, does not make my opinion less in touch with "the real world". There's loonies on both sides--remember Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson claiming that all this happenned because of the gays, liberals and their other favorite targets--, but just as most conservatives and hawks are reasonable people, who are for the most part in touch with reality, so are most Liberals and peace-niks.

All right, I'm leaving rant mode now. As always take everything with a grain of salt.