Quote of the day–Mikeb302000

Joe Huffman, I don’t want to play that game. I didn’t want to on Kevin’s blog and I don’t want to here either.

Does that give you a major victory over me, that you can say I don’t know the difference between truth and falsity? Fine, go ahead.

You and all your friends can say that over and over again. It’s a perfect way of avoiding what I am saying, of pointing out what I am saying is wrong, of discussing the issues.

Go ahead, be my guest.

Or if you’d like you can educate all of us about the proper way of determining truth from falsity. It might be interesting to know what you and all your pro-gun friends know that the rest of us, poor liberals that we are, don’t.

September 5, 2009
Comment to Tamara K. on Dr. Wintemute
In response to “Again, Mikeb30200, how do you determine truth from falsity?” The reference to Kevin’s blog about the comments here.
[Being able to determine truth from falsity is a game? Wow! And all this time I thought it was the basis for rational thought and a requirement for membership in the human race.

The issue is that Mikeb302000 believes what he wants to believe regardless of the facts. He is unable or unwilling determine truth from falsity. That makes his assertions based on faith, defined as “Belief without or in spite of evidence to the contrary.” That makes his belief system a religion rather than anything approaching science. I don’t have a problem with faith based belief systems as long as they leave me alone. But once they attempt to use force (and government is certainly a form of force) to make me conform I have a big problem with it.

That he is obstinately devoted to his own opinions and prejudices makes him a bigot.

Of course, I can’t help but have this nagging doubt that since he puts up such incredibly weak arguments that he is really on our side tossing out strawmen for us like clay pigeons in front of Tim Bradley.–Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Mikeb302000

  1. To be fair, some of his… animosity… in that response is probably due to me linking back to that conversation at Kevin’s every time MikeB tries to infringe upon / abridge / limit someone’s rights on the basis of his own personal beliefs. Granted, it is a very childish, immature reaction, but I have been driving the point home every time the opportunity presents itself… an adult would realize that he had a deficiency that needs to be corrected, but MikeB just keeps on operating on faith and belief alone.

    Unfortunately, I have little doubt that MikeB is exactly what he comes across as – someone determined to abridge/infringe/limit people’s rights simply because he believes it is the right thing to do, and because he believes it will somehow magically help crime. My faith in humanity would be significantly less damaged if he were nothing more than a clay pigeon, but I am too cynical to honestly believe that…

  2. Yep another good quote from MikeB to expose his bigotry.

    Won’t do any more than his admission over at Kevin’s, nor when he answered you “Just one Question” with “Yes”, and then abandoned his own post. Or when I asked him what information would he need to see and change his position, he said “Nothing”.

    What surprises me about MikeB is his inability to even attempt to cover his bigotry. Southern Beale, The dorks at One Utah and Delaware Liberal, and the dorks on Huff-Po, will dodge direct questions and bounce around questions that get dangerously close to their hypocrisy.

    MikeB lets it all hang out.

  3. Honestly, I don’t think bigotry is the word you want.

    I’ve sat as spectator on a couple of discussions (internet and in other places) between a religious believer and a skeptic and/or atheist.

    MikeB’s attitude is remarkably close to a Believer (or, for that matter, one of the varieties of Non-Believer) who is intrigued by people who hold to a different belief system. He’s trying to engage in conversation in such a way that the unenlightened might have a chance to see the Light.

    It’s much easier to converse with him than with the more caustic variety of troll. But statements like this are grounded not in logic, but in belief.

    (For what it is worth, I am a religious man…and I know the difference between unthinking Faith and thoughtful faith. I suspect I can tell the difference between unthinking non-belief and thoughtful non-belief.)

    He’s speaking from unthinking faith–or to be more precise, a certainty that certain things are settled to the point at which critical examination is unnecessary. (The ones who think that critical examination is counterproductive are that more caustic kind of troll I referred to.)

  4. Joe, Thanks for the link and the continued challenge. And thanks Linoge and Weer’d for the sort-of back-handed compliments.

    I find it very amusing that some of you have taken up this theme of suggesting that I’m really pro-gun trying to demonstrate the stupidity of the gun control argument.

    Joe, does that have something to do with how you determine the true from the false, using tactics like that in the argument?

  5. karrde there are some days when Mike’s behavior fits your characterization, others when he is just a caustic troll.

    As for him “trying to engage in conversation” I’ve seen no basis for that. He likes getting comments and traffic, but “conversation” never occurs on his blog, or in comment sections he graces.

    Hell just look at the above post, and any subsequent comments he makes here.

  6. I am just trying to figure out which part of my comment could be misconstued as a compliment… Grantew, I did indicate that I believe he is being honest is his desires and attempts to infringe on the natural rights of law-abiding citizens, but how is that a “compliment”?

    If anything, it is our resident bigot admitting to his bigotry and the pride he has for it…

  7. You determine truth from falsity by testing the assertions, theories and hypotheses. We all knew that a long time ago, so the antis’ “argument” is about something else entirely (which we also all know).

    What is it then? Socialism, which at its core subjugates human rights in favor of the nebulous concept of “the common good” which is to be determined by a ruling class and inflicted upon the “masses” by brute force. Socialists, virtually to the man, favor gun restrictions for “the masses” but not for government. Capitalists virtually to the man, favor of course rights in general, including the right to keep and bear arms. The socialists hate RKBA (and all other natural rights) as an impediment to their wishes for a command society. Socialists have a natural hatred for gun rights (and all other rights) and capitalists are either indifferent or they favor RKBA. It goes with the territory. OK?

    SO; rights protection, freedom, and liberty on one hand, and socialist theories and fantasies of utopia and power on the other, cannot co exist. One concept, as Ayn Rand put it, destroys the other. The problem we face is that the pro force crowd isn’t going to just sit idly while the pro rights movement takes hold. The problem is that there is a pro force movement. Which will it be then? Who wins? Or rather, does the pro rights philosophy win or do we all lose? To put it more succinctly; will the pro force movement lose, or will we all lose?

    This is the real bitch of it all. The socialist movement is one that, at its core, wants to fuck things up that other people have built. That doesn’t take much to succeed. Hatred and chaos spread more easily than respect and order. Our ideal of liberty, with government as the protector of rights, is much more fragile. You can spend a lifetime building an estate, meticulously, piece by piece, lovingly assembled, ready to pass it on to your children, and one angry, jealous, socialist fuckwit, or some jihadist, or one of Obama’s communist revolutionary friends, can wipe it all out in a heartbeat. We will tend to lose by default.

Comments are closed.