Perknose, perhaps I should disable user rating so I can look as pretty as you. My low user rating doesn't really mean much considering there are a lot of prominent AT members with similar ratings. In fact, the average is pretty darn low. But you should not even attack me for my user rating because it has nothing to do with the argument and you do not allow yourself to be held to the same standard. It doesn't really work for your argument to attack me personally by calling me a troll.
As for grammatical mistakes in your other posts, you have a howler in your first sentence in THIS POST. Pretty weak for a guy who claims to have been paid to write, although in my two years as a business writer, I did note the large number of weak assed hacks in the field. Sad, really, I weep for the English language. Have you spotted your mistake yet? Be sure to let us know when you do.
I guess I am missing "It"? Big deal.. I already said I don't use 'Sunday best' for these forums. If I have an error elsewhere, please enlighten me because I do like to learn.
You have grammatical mistakes in your post ridiculing my grammatical mistakes. My intentions for including an excuse for my grammar was to limit the scope of the argument to the argument itself instead of attacking each other on irrelevant matters.
The problem not only with fundamentalist Christians but with Republicans in general is not that they act on blind faith, without thinking. The problem is that they are incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for Evidence. What they get off on is not Believing, but in having their beliefs tested.
You are trying to tell me that the first sentence is saying that they do not act on blind faith without thinking? That is wrong and ignorant of the author's intentions. You are failing to examine the context. The author cleverly uses both a red herring (diverted focus) and a false dilemma (stating only two alternatives exist when there can be others).
The red herring is obvious in the second sentence because he trivializing the first (much more broad and offensive) attack in the first sentence by emphasizing a lesser attack. Essentially, he is expecting the reader to believe that 'fundamentalist Christians - and Republicans in general - act on blind faith, without thinking' and take it as a premise without supplying arguments. He is saying that Republicans in general ARE those things, just that is not where the problem is. The author is clearly not stating, "Republicans in general do not act on blind faith without thinking. But, they are incorrigible doubters..."
The false dilemma is that the author includes the first sentence and the second as the only possible explanations for Republican behavior[sic].
From the article:
This is the wrong approach. As a professional misanthrope, I believe that if you are going to hate a person, you ought to do it properly. You should go and live in his shoes for a while and see at the end of it how much you hate yourself.
This was what I was doing down in Florida. The real challenge wasn't just trying to understand these Republicans. It was to become the best Republican I could be.
From this, I think he is trying to sound unbiased - like he says he actually puts forth an effort of understanding. Instead, his whole ordeal is merely to come up with an explanation for why Republicans ace so 'fvcked up'.
Anyway, YES, I take offense at the article. And YES, I take offense when someone professing to be a literary master describes it as insightful - one of the highest praises possible for an actual study. I do not take offense at your personal attacks, however, because they make me look INSIGHTFUL to a discerning third party.
If you would like me to point out grammatical mistakes in your post, I would rather not. Also, my intent is not to attack your person. Let me know if I have responded to all of your arguments that do not center on attacking me personally.
Facebook
Twitter