Bush lets out his inner asshole

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

That's right, mick. Despite your tireless demonstrations of kindness and charity from your very first post on this thread, you have been targeted for abuse by the cynical and sociopathic forum elite - led by yours truly.

Or maybe you just got as good as you gave, as even happens to delicate little flowers like godfry from time to time.

LOL.

Well, some of us don't have cashmere sweaters and haven't been pinned, like you, vm.

[mickthinks]

Thanks viscousmemories!

[Livius] described the President's behavior as inappropriate, rude, hurtful and churlish, but she didn't say anything about whether it was immoral.

Livius has offered a little more in the way of criticism; she's applied all these terms; appalled, making a kid cry, inappropriate, hurtful, cowardice, meanness, picking on a little girl.

It is difficult to imagine how Livius could leave out meanness and cowardice when assessing what's immoral, but maybe she doesn't include them. But is picking on little girls and making them cry not an obviously moral issue? When she said his behaviour was inappropriate for a president, was she assuming, in your opinion, that the President of the USA has no real obligation to act appropriately toward his citizens? Hmmm, maybe you're right.

However, you cannot persuade me that when Livius talked about being appalled that GW hurt the girl, she wasn't intending that to be a moral judgement.

You're the one who framed it as a moral question
Yes, that's a good point. In my very first post in the thread I offered the opinion that GW might not have been bad like everyone seemed to be saying. If Livius isn't judging GW on moral grounds either, then she's in agreement with me on that point. In which case, why hasn't she said so?

Mick

[Deadlokd]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Thanks viscousmemories!

[Livius] described the President's behavior as inappropriate, rude, hurtful and churlish, but she didn't say anything about whether it was immoral.

Livius has offered a little more in the way of criticism; she's applied all these terms; appalled, making a kid cry, inappropriate, hurtful, cowardice, meanness, picking on a little girl.

It is difficult to imagine how Livius could leave out meanness and cowardice when assessing what's immoral, but maybe she doesn't include them. But is picking on little girls and making them cry not an obviously moral issue? When she said his behaviour was inappropriate for a president, was she assuming, in your opinion, that the President of the USA has no real obligation to act appropriately toward his citizens? Hmmm, maybe you're right.

However, you cannot persuade me that when Livius talked about being appalled that GW hurt the girl, she wasn't intending that to be a moral judgement.

You're the one who framed it as a moral question
Yes, that's a good point. In my very first post in the thread I offered the opinion that GW might not have been bad like everyone seemed to be saying. If Livius isn't judging GW on moral grounds either, then she's in agreement with me on that point. In which case, why hasn't she said so?

Mick

Why don't you just ask her without long winded rebuttal? Maybe we can sort this out in one or two sentences each.

I don't know if you were playing devil's advocate and it spiralled out of control, especially with the feminist angle (?) or whether you really don't see Dubya's actions as an issue. Either way, you seem to have most of the board offside. What say we start again?

[mickthinks]

Why don't you just ask her...
Why should the words Livius uses today be any clearer than the very clear words she used yesterday?

... without long winded rebuttal? Have I used up my permitted quota? Do freshman have a smaller allowance? Sorry!

Maybe we can sort this out in one or two sentences each.
What?! The corrupting symbiosis between partisan prejudice and dishonest journalism in Western democracies?! I think it'll take more than two sentences!

Mick

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

However, you cannot persuade me that when Livius talked about being appalled that GW hurt the girl, she wasn't intending that to be a moral judgement.

I don't know what she intended but I don't believe that's the only possibility. Maybe she was simply appalled by the POTUS demonstrating such glaring diplomatic incompetence. It may not be the worst example of political clumsiness on his part, but in the context of his many previous blunders it really is pretty appalling that a man in his position would be so politically graceless.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Wow! You're a pupae fucking Sock Cucker!

Aww. Ain't that adorable. It thinks it's witty. Let me know when your mental age starts to stabilize after this current free-fall, kiddo.

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Hmmm... A freshman hazing here, Sock?

I see you've all got him already labelled...what more do you need?

Soon, mick, your horizons here will diminish considerably. You've pissed off the 'girlie gang'.

Freshman hazing? No, mick is just a silly fuckwit who has demonstrated his personal hobbyhorses are more important to him than thinking clearly. I don't know whom he's pissed off, but certainly not me -- I enjoy watching him dig his hole deeper and deeper. As far as horizons diminishing, I offered you an olive branch quite awhile ago, and rather than even considering picking it up, you pissed on it and continued on your pathetic binge of martyrdom. Even so, Hyde, let me know if Jekyll ever comes back, 'cause I actually liked that guy. YOU pissed me off, not because you're an idiot, but because you're a smart guy that I liked, who decided to be an abusive asshole.

[livius drusus]

Oy. This was my first post on this thread, mickthinks:

13 year old girls aren't "frail women"; they're children. What does "feminism" have to do with being appalled at a grown man making a kid cry? If it had been a 13 year old boy, it would still have been inappropriate for the President of the United States to respond hurtfully, whether the kid cried or swallowed hard or blushed from head to toe or what have you.

I am questioning your claim that this situation is "a frail woman bursts into tears and that's automatically a bad thing the man has done" and that "feminism had educated us out of that kind of crap." I didn't say I was appalled, notice. You said people shouldn't be, framing it as a gender issue, characterizing the child as a "frail woman" and the president as the "man" being blamed because of his gender.

I asked what does feminism have to do with being appalled by the situation, and pointed out that in fact the reaction would likely have been the same no matter what the gender of the primary actors, because propriety dictates that adults, especially ones in position of authority, especially the ones in the position with most authority in the world, be more careful in their interactions with children than with other adults.

That's it. That's my sole interest in this thread and your posts, mick. If you have anything at all, any source, any evidence, even a better fleshed-out argument for your claims about feminism, I'd be glad to pursue the discussion.

Short of that, my interest stops. I'm really not in the business of casting moral judgements left and right -- the most judgement you see in this post is my calling the presidential response inappropriate -- and if I were to judge the morality of the president, I would not use a picayune incident such as this, especially when there's a war going on.

[mickthinks]

Let me know when your mental age starts to stabilize after this current free-fall Bless!

[Zadalya]

This is a surprisingly long thread and doesn't seem to be about GW anymore.

[erimir]

Well, muckstinks (aren't such name alterations so clever?), what about that time that Dubya drunkenly felt up his niece at a family reunion?

You thought we forgot about that, didn't you.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

Even so, Hyde, let me know if Jekyll ever comes back, 'cause I actually liked that guy. YOU pissed me off, not because you're an idiot, but because you're a smart guy that I liked, who decided to be an abusive asshole.

(pot, kettle, black)

Y'know, Sock, you look smashing in cashmere. And such a nice pin, too.

[Deadlokd]

And on that note, I'm going somewhere else. This has gone way off topic, and is just snarky shit now.

[mickthinks]

Hello again viscousmemories!

You're the one who framed it as [a dispute whether this story of the girl in tears is an example of Bush being morally repugnant] and then put that strawman in liv's mouth.

This a complicated way of saying that Livius was not disputing my position; that her response when I said "The dispute here between us is whether this story of the girl in tears is an example of Bush being morally repugnant" would have been a simple "No, I agree with you there". Only, for some reason, she didn't respond and instead you took up the cudgels.

Now here's the wierd thing... Back then you started in by disputing my grounds for saying that Livius hadn't offered any evidence of Bush's moral repugnance;

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

If you haven't applied any moral standards to Bush's behavior, then how were you able to determine that livius hadn't offered proof (or even evidence) that his behavior was morally repugnant?

and now you're implicitly agreeing that she couldn't have. Why the confusing switch? I have to say it has been very unhelpful!

Mick

[Crumb]

Wow mickthinks, your ability to beat an issue to death is astounding.

[mickthinks]

Thanks Crumb! I think I'll take that as a compliment!

[Crumb]

As you wish.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You're the one who framed it as [a dispute whether this story of the girl in tears is an example of Bush being morally repugnant] and then put that strawman in liv's mouth.

This a complicated way of saying that Livius was not disputing my position; that her response when I said "The dispute here between us is whether this story of the girl in tears is an example of Bush being morally repugnant" would have been a simple "No, I agree with you there". Only, for some reason, she didn't respond and instead you took up the cudgels.

I can't believe you're paraphrasing what I said, rephrasing the paraphrase in your own words and then attacking this fantasy argument as though I said it. What I actually said wasn't complicated at all: You implied that livius had said something she didn't say. A bad habit you seem to have.

Now here's the wierd thing... Back then you started in by disputing my grounds for saying that Livius hadn't offered any evidence of Bush's moral repugnance;

and now you're implicitly agreeing that she couldn't have. Why the confusing switch? I have to say it has been very unhelpful!

You're not the only one who's confused. Aside from the obvious passive-aggressive sarcasm this paragraph is incomprehensible to me.

For the record, I can't read livius' mind and I don't speak for her. If you want so badly to know what's in her head you could always read and respond to her posts.

[mickthinks]

Sorry viscousmemories!

It wasn't my intentention to misrepresent you or Livius. I cut and pasted this (from your post here)

You're the one who framed it as a moral question:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

The dispute here between us is whether this story of the girl in tears is an example of Bush being morally repugnant.

...and then put that strawman in liv's mouth

into a composite;

You're the one who framed it as [a dispute whether this story of the girl in tears is an example of Bush being morally repugnant] and then put that strawman in liv's mouth.

It's a way of combining references for ease of reading which I would have thought was familiar and uncontroversial, and I'm surprised it's aroused your suspicion.

What I actually said wasn't complicated at all: You implied that livius had said something she didn't say.
Well, that does leave the complication of trying to work out what it was that you deny she believes, and that's what I am trying to clarify here.

I thought the opinion that you are denying Livius holds was "this story of the girl in tears is an example of Bush being morally repugnant". I stand corrected. What is the opinion you are denying that Livius holds?

Mick

[viscousmemories]

I'll just quote myself.

Originally Posted by vm

For the record, I can't read livius' mind and I don't speak for her. If you want so badly to know what's in her head you could always read and respond to her posts.

Like a dog returneth to its vomit, so I return to see if things have improved in this thread.

[Stephen Maturin]

[mickthinks]

Thanks viscousmemories!

I'll just quote myself - "For the record, I can't read livius' mind and I don't speak for her. If you want so badly to know what's in her head you could always read and respond to her posts."

Yes, that still leaves the complication of trying to work out what it was that you deny she believes, which is what I am trying to clarify here.

Mick

[viscousmemories]

I'm surprised you can't figure this out, but it follows from my statement that I can't read her mind and I don't speak for her that I am not in a position to hold forth on what she does and does not believe. I'm not sure what I said to give you the impression that I am an authority on livius' mind or that I intend to have a public dialogue (with you or anyone else) on the subject of her beliefs, but I assure you that was never my intent.

That's as clear as I can make it, so barring an unforeseen turn in the direction of your interrogation I'm not likely to add anything else to this discussion.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

(pot, kettle, black)

Y'know, Sock, you look smashing in cashmere. And such a nice pin, too.

Have a nice life, godfry.

[mickthinks]

I'm surprised you can't figure this out
I guess that is because you think you have been consistent. I think you've said inconsistent things and caused confusion.

I'm not sure what I said to give you the impression that I am an authority on livius' mind ...
You said [here] one of my arguments against her was a strawman. If you don't claim to know Livius's mind on the issue, I don't see how you can know my argument was a strawman.

Mick