By The Editor
You know Timmeh’s brilliant argument that if it snows in one place around the world on a given day or if a city experiences a week of unseasonably cold weather then the theory of climate change is comprehensively disproven?
Well this argument makes his climate change one look positively scientific.
Refugee advocate Marion Le is furious over plans to auction items from the Baxter Detention Centre.
“…It was a place of humiliation, degradation and torture and obscene treatment of children.”
Among items for sale: a slushy machine.
(Quote edited by TBBWP)
Putting aside the fact that slushy machines most commonly live in 7 Eleven-style convenience stores and they are the most soulless places on Earth, it’s rather disingenuous of Blair (for a change) to suggest that the presence of a slushy machine in a detention centre somehow lessened the trauma for its residents.
I mean, it would take waaaaay more than a slushy machine in the corner of the Daily Telegraph offices to make them a nice place to be.
95 Comments
31 May, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Actually we know that 1 day or week of unusually cold weather doesn’t disprove the catastrophic warming theory, we are just using the same logic the Alarmists use against them.
If a week of hot weather in Adelaide is enough to for the Warmists to point out it’s related to our CO2 emissions, then we’ll just feed them their own medicine.
Just like the melting Arctic is enough proof of catastrophic climate change for many, but yet they seem to always avoid mention of Antarctica’s record ice growth.
31 May, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“…most commonly live in 7 Eleven-style convenience stores and they are the most soulless places on Earth…”
You don’t use your brain or even get out much, do you?
Take a trip and see a few places. I dunno, maybe include the Lubyanka, Auschwitz, or Tol Slueng. Any place your heavier-duty socialist mates once held power for a while.
I think you’ll find them a tad more soulless than your local 7 Eleven.
MarkL
Canberra
31 May, 2008 at 8:29 pm
That’d be “lessened”, teach.
31 May, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Thanks, Timmeh. Typed in a hurry, you know.
1 June, 2008 at 12:36 am
I guess the Howard gumint didn’t want the media in there in case we saw all the slushies. Those riots we heard about were actually slushy parties.
1 June, 2008 at 7:37 am
markL has a point. caltex shops are far more soulless than 7-elevens. LOL
1 June, 2008 at 7:46 am
evidently being hosted by a mainstream site hasn’t improved the quality of tim’s threads. a click to your link shows he still sprays vomit and his readers respond by throwing turds. still i suppose you can always judge the quality of the blogger by the quality of response they get. but seriously how does this sort of crap pass for ‘debate’. it’s sad.
1 June, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Oh I see Mark L has decided to migrate over and bring over his Boltist brand of juvenile
imbecility with him, displaying the now common infantile obsession with attempting to claim that the NAZIs were leftists. How great of you too add so much quality and philosophical insight too the discussion Mark.
Its funny how these logically bankrupt right-wing ideologues try too paint people concerned about climate change as beset by ideological obsession, and yet can’t discuss the issue of AGW without bringing up World War Two politics, or being guilty of a Godwin’s.
“You don’t use your brain or even get out much, do you?
“Take a trip and see a few places. I dunno, maybe include the Lubyanka, Auschwitz, or Tol Slueng. Any place your heavier-duty socialist mates once held power for a while.”
Yeah that made a lot of sense Mark.When was the last time you ever got out and visited Lubyanks, Auschwitz or Tol Slueng, moron.
1 June, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“Actually we know that 1 day or week of unusually cold weather doesn’t disprove the catastrophic warming theory, we are just using the same logic the Alarmists use against them.”
Ah I see, you’re only being reactionary hey Anthony. Who is this “we” anyway. Do you mean “we” as in you, and the rest of the members of the ideologically obsessed, climate-change-denialist Church. In a post specifically about Tim Blair’s argument, your use of the word “we” in defending Blair’s arguments and displaying your unity with him, is a clear indicator of the tribal, group-thinking gang mentality of the climate-change-denialist faith.
Anyway rubbish. Members of your faith repeatedly sight one-off temperature examples as “proof’, that AGW is a “myth” or a lie.
“We’re only being illogical because they are”. Yeah great argument Anthony.
1 June, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I can’t wait for Hartlod (Tm) to migrate over here and give us the benefit of his/her/it’s scientific exspurtesse..
The fellow is a legend in his/her/it’s own mind space but a right f$%!#&* plonker to all else..
1 June, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“There will be 607 Deputies in the new Reichstag, largest, in German history. Simplifying the returns, it means that the Nazis and other Right Wing Parties will have a total of 277 seats.”
– From Time Magazine (August 8, 1932)
Believing that the Nazis were leftists requires you to also believe that the entire body of work written on the Nazis before, during, and after they took power, is a massive, left-wing conspiracy to make the right wing look bad.
Which is exactly what MarkL and the other bolt/blair following history deniers beleive. MarkL and others are utterly disconected from reality and their argument that Hitler was a leftist because he called himself a Nationalist Socialist must mean North Korea is a democratic republic because it says so.
Rational mature debate with people of the ilk of MarkL is like trying to teach a baboon to be a concert pianist.
1 June, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“Yeah that made a lot of sense Mark.When was the last time you ever got out and visited Lubyanks, Auschwitz or Tol Slueng, moron.”
2004, 1996, 1997 in that order.
Poor Ron! How little you know.
“MarkL and others are utterly disconected from reality and their argument that Hitler was a leftist because he called himself a Nationalist Socialist…”
Why not check for yourself? A good starting place is, of course, the 1936 National Socialist party platform.
I find it endlessly amusing that neocommies such as yourself still believe that old post-war Soviet propaganda which Stalin used to try and shift the boilerplate socialist nature of the NSDAP and re-invent it as some form of rampaging capitalist construct.
How gullible you still are. Even the Russians do not believe that any more.
MarkL
canberra
1 June, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Heh, knew I had this somewhere in my library:
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
(Adolf Hitler. Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted in Toland, Adolf Hitler, Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday 1976, p. 306)
And, of course:
“Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
(Quoted in Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940)
So, little ronnie, yer ole socialist mate Adolf himself thought he was a socialist and said so. Guess you know better, eh?
…..it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
MarkL
canberra
1 June, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Tim hardly made an ‘argument’ about slushy machines making the detention centre luxurious; it was more just a comic juxaposing.
2 June, 2008 at 12:50 pm
The masses are finally attacking governments that try & enforce Climate change taxes & policies on the voting public. The fact that this is happening in the heartland of Climate Change Evangelism (Europe), shows that this is the beginning of the end of all this Global Warming madness.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080528.wgreen28/BNStory/International/home
Chris of Brisbane, you may want to rethink that religion of yours. Like the French revolution of 1792, the people are beginning a revolt against the AGW Evangelists. Who knows, maybe Al Gore could be the next Mary Antoinette…. “Viva la guillotine”
2 June, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Here’s some more quotes for the ‘Hitler was a leftie’ crowd to consider.
From Hitler’s proclamation to the German Nation, February 1st 1933 -
Also, in early 1922, Hitler said the following –
From Hitler’s Millennial Reich: Apocalyptic Belief and the Search for Salvation (Paperback).
2 June, 2008 at 2:56 pm
So, little ronnie, yer ole socialist mate Adolf himself thought he was a socialist and said so. Guess you know better, eh?
I love it – you really couldn’t script mindless idiocy like that which Mark L has decided to lay out for our amusement here.
Firstly he completely ignores the central and indisputable point of Ron’s comment – i.e. that “Believing that the Nazis were leftists requires you to also believe that the entire body of work written on the Nazis before, during, and after they took power, is a massive, left-wing conspiracy to make the right wing look bad.” Mark ignores it because it’s inconveniently true, impossible to refute, and completely demolishes his ridiculous argument.
Next he manages to prove Ron’s second criticism, i.e. that he is a gullible tool willing to believe anything from the mouths of fascist dictators as long as it serves his argument. Guess Nth Korea is a vibrant and functioning democracy eh Mark? Kim’s always saying so in his speeches isn’t he, little fella?
Lastly, just to complete the trifecta of stupidity, he actually includes a quote where Hitler re-defines ’socialism’ to mean something totally different. The proof that Hitler was talking rubbish when he declared himself ’socialist’ is not only staring Mark in the face – it’s actually in the very quote that Mark is using to ‘prove’ his case!! Oh man that’s fucking funny.
Geez Mark – you’re doing a comedy routine for us, right? You can call it ‘Tim Blair commenter in all his glory’ or something and sell tickets.
I’d certainly pay to see more!
2 June, 2008 at 3:54 pm
In moderation :-(
2 June, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Looks like MarkL has forgotten all about the Red Triangles.
How terribly convenient for him.
2 June, 2008 at 7:17 pm
could you please take me out of moderation?
2 June, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Those hinting at climate change usually refer to a global rise in temperature of about 1 degree since the late 19th century.
Those denying climate change point to the unseasonably cool day in Adelaide as evidence to disprove climate change.
Needless to say the former argument has credibility, the later smacks of conservative, denial “shrillspeak”
And don’t give me the global “temperature has been dropping since 1998 bullshit, because the years in this decade have all been hot It just so happens that 1998 happens to be the highest. I mean 2004 is second hottest, 2003 3rd hottest, 2005 4th etc etc. I don’t see 1912 or 1903 or 1941 in the extreme years. All of the extreme years are in the past 15 years.
Ah but the good ol’ conservative line of argument…play sematics with data, when it suits or when no rational argument can be presented.
2 June, 2008 at 8:13 pm
“2004, 1996, 1997 in that order.”
Guess I’ll just have too take your word on that one Mark
“Heh, knew I had this somewhere in my library”
Or do you have it saved into your computer, so whenever you bring discussion of the NAZIs into any discussion about political issues of today, and somebody cites your rubbish, you can produce these quotes as “proof” that the NAZI were indeed ‘leftists’, and therefore anyone taking a ‘leftist’ position on an issue of today is on the path to NAZISM?
2 June, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Mark, and other dunderheads obsessed with the drawing infantile parallels between NAZIS and modern day politics.
Hitler said a number of things, many which were in contrast to things he had said or done before or since. The self-contradictory and inconsistent nature of the things he said and did, probably had a lot to do with the madness, ignorance and desire for hate which drove him, and the need to garner support amongst the masses and dupe them into subservience
Mark, You say you have a library but as Mondo has shown too you, you clearly display your lack of understanding of even basic political terms like ‘Socialism’ when you try to present the second quote as proof of Hitler’s Socialist intentions, when the bulk of the quote you provide represents ideas that run in contrast to Socialism.
Besides, the machinations of Hitler’s brain, were anything but the sole current behind NAZI ideology and practice, and I suspect some, including the persecution of homosexuals would have been secretly been confronting to Hitler.
As Ron has pointed out, obsessing with this “the NAZIs were leftists” theory, requires one too see virtually everything written about them before, during or after their control over Germany, including what the said themselves, as one big conspiracy.
It requires one too ignore the bulk of their activities, and too cherry-pick selective quotes. It requires one too ignore the fact that their greatest support, inside and out of Germany, came from Conservative parties, and that those most consistent in opposing them, tended to be left-leaning Social Democratic parties.
Anyway get over it, this whole obsession with where the NAZIs stood on the political spectrum, and the subsequent accusation that people own or are responsible for the NAZIs for adopting certain views on issues, is the height of infantile absurdity.
Its incredibly disrespectful to those that actual suffered as a result of their actions, and is only applicable to those who were involved in their activities, or who genuinely share their more evil beliefs. The irony of course is those most responsible for the juvenile and imbecilic behavior, of dragging the NAZIs into debate about irrelevant modern issues, are ostensibly those whose overall politics are closer, but not akin, to those of the NAZIs, than those who they accuse.
2 June, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Marc, with a C. Are you mad? What the heck does the French Revolution have to do with today’s concern regarding AGW?
And you talk of my religion, when your bizarre drawing of parallels between what should ostensibly be a Scientific debate, but is made into an ideological one by imbeciles like yourself, and irrelevant historical political issues, is a clear example of behaviour conducted by those of the Climate-Change-Denialist faith.
In reality, like most people, I am concerned about the potential impact of AGW because the majority of Scientists warn of it, and because I am concerned about the need to look after the environment which sustains us.
You blind minion Donkeys try to paint those concerned about AGW as part of some sort of faith, or as beset by ideology, yet clearly the Climate-Change Denialist movement is the one most blinded by ideology, and the one most displaying the hallmarks of a faith. A clear example being your slavish devotion to the bleatings of your right-wing-ideologue, blogging-ministers, who have no qualifications in the area.
2 June, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Ah, the old ‘Hitler was a leftist’ canard…an interesting theory, though you might wonder why on his ascension to power he did away with the German Communist Party, the German Labor Party and the trade unions…surely a massive tactical blunder for a socialist surrounded by capitalist nations, annihilating your natural ‘allies’..?
2 June, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“Tim hardly made an ‘argument’ about slushy machines making the detention centre luxurious; it was more just a comic juxaposing.”
tim is barely capable of making a rational argument about anything. comic juxtaposing? don’t make me laugh, he isn’t nuanced enough for that.
2 June, 2008 at 11:09 pm
“What the heck does the French Revolution have to do with today’s concern regarding AGW?”
simple.
marie antoinette: ‘let them eat cake!’
global warming denialists: ‘let them eat cake!’
global warming/climate change denialists exist in a dyson-style cyclonic vaccum. their arguments go in circles, their denialism goes in circles, the groupthink that exists among them goes in circles, the signatories of ‘well-creditentialed scientists’ who who sign ‘no climate change exists’ petitions go round like circles, and their fervent worshipping of anything unscientific that can be used to prove their point also goes in circles.
but that’s ok, just so long as we can leave them all unsupervised, busy circling each other while the rest of us get on with the business of addressing the very real issue of global warming and climate change.
3 June, 2008 at 8:40 am
I love it – you really couldn’t script mindless idiocy like that which Mark L has decided to lay out for our amusement here.
Comment: Automatic ad hominem (’script mindless idiocy’). This automatically invalidates your argument, such as it is, through use of a fallacy in logic.
Firstly he completely ignores the central and indisputable point of Ron’s comment – i.e. that “Believing that the Nazis were leftists requires you to also believe that the entire body of work written on the Nazis before, during, and after they took power, is a massive, left-wing conspiracy to make the right wing look bad.” Mark ignores it because it’s inconveniently true, impossible to refute, and completely demolishes his ridiculous argument.
Comment: Facts, please. If this is actually an ‘indisputable point’, why do Hitlers own words (not mine, his – he classed himself and the NSDAP as a socialist movement: please see the vile Mein Kampf on the subject) dispute it? This is actually the well-known fallacy in logic known as Argumentum ad Populum. Two fallacies in logic in two paragraphs. Well done, but not the lefty record, I’m afraid.
Next he manages to prove Ron’s second criticism, i.e. that he is a gullible tool willing to believe anything from the mouths of fascist dictators as long as it serves his argument. Guess Nth Korea is a vibrant and functioning democracy eh Mark? Kim’s always saying so in his speeches isn’t he, little fella?
Comment: We are indeed on a roll! A third fallacy: Non Causa Pro Causa. The form in this case is a bait-and-switch: I could almost claim a fourth, of course, red herring, but will forebear to do so. The attempt at making a point of that argument was so weak it was not worth bothering to answer – socialists lie, you see, about their intentions – but as you have raised it again in an amusingly jejeune manner, I will happily discuss it. All you have to do is to prove a causal link between the statement that ‘Hitler was a socialist’ and ‘North Korea is a functioning democracy’. Good luck with that, boy.
Lastly, just to complete the trifecta of stupidity, he actually includes a quote where Hitler re-defines ’socialism’ to mean something totally different. The proof that Hitler was talking rubbish when he declared himself ’socialist’ is not only staring Mark in the face – it’s actually in the very quote that Mark is using to ‘prove’ his case!! Oh man that’s fucking funny.
Comment: Another para, more fallacies. Another ad hominem, and one not often seen as it is so easy to spot: circular reasoning. You are saying the following: Hitler was not a socialist.[Why should I believe that when he said he was?] Because he does not use my definition of socialism. [Why should I believe that your definition is correct?] Because it is not the one Hitler used… so Hitler cannot have been a socialist.
This is rather amusing.
You see, even small children normally work this one out by age about 7 and realise that it is a fallacy. Yet, lad, you are still using it, a true tribute to your education and mental capabilities. As you seem to believe that Kim Jong Il is a socialist, and you apparently do not like his brand of socialism, you automatically acknowledge that different forms of socialism exist. Yet, despite Hitler himself describing himself as one and implementing in his party platform most of the standard socialist policies of his era (environmental legislation, protection of animals, full control of personal life, industry etc by the state, eugenics and so-on), somehow you can believe the old CPSU propaganda that he was the opposite to what he described himself as being, while acknowledging that different forms of socialism exist to this day. You live in a highly illogical and warped mental world. This, too, amuses me.
Geez Mark – you’re doing a comedy routine for us, right? You can call it ‘Tim Blair commenter in all his glory’ or something and sell tickets.
Comment: Oh, there is a comedy routine here, all right. One logical fallacy per paragraph. Comedic, but in a sad and rather pathetic way, because it shows that you are a perfect stranger to debate, and have no ability to structure the simplest of arguments.
3 June, 2008 at 9:40 am
Out of interest MarkL, do Timmeh’s flying monkeys get a T-shirt?
3 June, 2008 at 9:55 am
Check out this post by the Boltster:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/as_you_can_tell_from_this_blog/
Bolt may as well say outright: “Ah yes, all studies confirm it, people that think like me are indeed the bestest people in the world.”
Cringe.
3 June, 2008 at 11:06 am
Blair is just being a slush-puppy barking at the moon.
Fuck liberty! Give me slushies or give me death!
3 June, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Hey Mark – I started reading your reply, but since you made an immediate and fundamental error in your very first sentence there was no reason to read through the rest (which was undoubtedly riddled with similar errors of both logic and fact).
Note to you – ‘Ad Hominem argument” is not the same as simply being rude whilst debating. I was rude – I pointed out to others that you are an amusing idiot – but I quite clearly used an argument of formal syllogism to make my case. I’m not surprised that you missed it.
Please learn the basics of what a ‘logical fallacy’ actually is – and then come on back here and try again.
I’ll be waiting.
3 June, 2008 at 4:34 pm
That was quite a display from MarkL. I hope he drops by again next time Blair decides to post a link on his blog.
3 June, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I have subsequently made the mistake of actually reading a bit of the remainder of Mark’s mental ejaculation above.
What a phenomenal idiot. Pretty much nothing he says in his patronising and jargon-filled rant makes even the slightest bit of sense.
Still, one does have to significantly alter ones perception of reality to believe that the Nazis were a bunch of Lefties.
(Hey Mark – just so you know – the above comment of mine IS an ad-hominem argument. Take note of the difference and maybe you will learn something from this little exchange)
3 June, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Oh Mondo, what are we to make of you, lad? Still believe that there is only one form of socialism, do you? What really does make me chuckle is that McCarthy thought the same thing (insofar as he had thoughts, one supposes).
Leon Trotsky would disagree with you, but someone put an icepick into his brain. Do you happen to recall why? Mao might disagree too, as his variation also drew the ire of the CPSU. Do you recall that?
You are left believing that someone who described himself as a socialist, who implemented the bulk of conventional socialist thinking of his era, and whose party platform was openly and avowedly described as socialist as a result, somehow was not. Your only response is to say ‘I do not define socialism as he did’.
This is risible.
The facts do not support your contention. The good thing is that with a modicum of effort, you can check this for yourself.
You will not dare, of course.
So you keep believing your own circular arguments, and I’ll keep pointing and chuckling.
TTFN
MarkL
Canberra
3 June, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Mark L,
I think Krupps, Porsche, Meschersmitt etc quite enjoyed your dreamlike “socialist” world that you have invented for the Hitler years during WW2.
Have you ever done any studies of the German economy 1939-1945? Perhaps not!
3 June, 2008 at 8:15 pm
However much you dislike Bolt and Blair, do you three realise how desperately sad it is to set up a website like this? When you get down to it, two bloggers you despise are far more successful than the three of you combined – so you start a blog dedicated to your “enemies”.
How very, very sad. Tragic, pathetic and with the stench of desperation.
But you know what? I LIKE it! You’ve got some spunk, young men! I like the cut of your jib. I’m going to enjoy it around here.
3 June, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I think its pointless arguing whether Hitler was left or right: such arguments rely on assumed definitions of left and right, which may be different from definitions of others.
A far better account is the Horseshoe Theory: http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2008/03/introducing-horseshoe-theory.html
3 June, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Mmmm!!! I smell a troll!!!
3 June, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Its not Blair and Bolt who are the real worry, it’s the shocking realization that their are thousands of idiots out there who support them on a whole range of issues.
3 June, 2008 at 9:36 pm
If Mark L can demostrate that the German economy of 1939-1945 was run along a socialist model, I’ll eat my underpants! Has anyone of the Boltlovers heard of Albert Speer?
3 June, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Sorry, thats “demonstrate”. I am definitely not drinking. It’s only Tuesday night for God’s sake.
3 June, 2008 at 10:32 pm
“But you know what? I LIKE it! You’ve got some spunk, young men! I like the cut of your jib. I’m going to enjoy it around here.”
clearly not concerned about how ‘desperately sad’ it is then? and why stay if you think the site is irrelevant?
hypocrite.
3 June, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“DeanL
3 June, 2008 at 9:55 am
Check out this post by the Boltster:”
never mind that. the REAL story is that one of bolt’s bloggers named the infamous 10 stolen generation aborigines the other day – ON HIS BLOG!!! the silence from bolt and his boltanistas since has been deafening.
are we witnessing the first crumbling of the bolt stolen generation denialisms? watch this space.
3 June, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Because the guards and administrators didn’t need to eat huh…?
4 June, 2008 at 8:30 am
“clearly not concerned about how ‘desperately sad’ it is then? and why stay if you think the site is irrelevant?
hypocrite.”
That’s RIGHT, sonny. It means I’ll fit in here won’t it, since you keep your spleen ticking over by visiting Blot and Blair every day religiously, don’t you.
Hypocrite, know thyself.
Now, little marionette, do that classic Leftie thing where you try and be funny and pathetically fail, or try and be clever and end up being unintentionally hilarious. I love it when you guys do that. Such sport!
4 June, 2008 at 8:42 am
Poor little Abu.
Are you upset because not enough people responded to your little Ellis story the other day, you know, the one you ripped off from Strattons book. Must have felt good to get that little pat on the head from Andrew like the good little silky terrier you are. Attention whore.
4 June, 2008 at 8:43 am
It’s all good. Thanks Shane!
4 June, 2008 at 9:07 am
Abu, Bolts blown the morning dogwhistle again, shouldn’t you be running along. There are muslims to vilify.
4 June, 2008 at 9:48 am
Ya mushkalji… inta ghabi kabeer. la ta’rif ana sadeeq al muslimeen? la qul ay shay hata inta astateer an taqool bisaheeh, ya himaar.
Ana a’rif akthar binisba thaqafa wa tareeq Islam wa al’arab min sa’arif abadan…
Perhaps a translation might be useful: “Oh troll. You are a great idiot. Don’t you know I am a friend to the Muslims? Don’t say anything unless you are able to speak the truth, Oh donkey.
I know more regarding the history and culture of Islam and the Arabs than you will ever know…
In other words, if you think I am amongst those who villify Islam, then you clearly are not familiar with my ouvre…
4 June, 2008 at 10:17 am
Abu,
Do you ever speak out against the right-wing fuckwits on Bolts blog when they make their outlandish claims about Muslims.
Do you ever speak up as a “great friend” of the Muslims to castigate your fellow bloggers?
Your silence speaks volumes “oh great friend”.
4 June, 2008 at 10:31 am
Yes, I have done so. Do some research. But if you try and stamp out every brush fire you’ll go crazy. Who appointed me defender?
Don’t you get it? Most commenting on blogs, whether Right or Left wing, is just so much noise.
4 June, 2008 at 10:42 am
I did do some research. Googled the blog – page after page of Bolt’s little disciples making claims and slurs that you and anyone in their right mind should have found offensive.
You let everything go through to the keeper.
And it’s not like you didn’t bother to post in those topics either. Pathetic.
You appointed yourself defender by telling me what a great friend you are to your brethren.
Could it be you feel ashamed by your failure to act?.
4 June, 2008 at 11:17 am
Could it be you have confused me with someone who cares about your opinion?
4 June, 2008 at 11:20 am
Hey you keep responding, so I guess there’s no confusion.
4 June, 2008 at 11:27 am
I am only “interested” in how much I can yank your chain, not your opinion.
Isn’t this fun!
4 June, 2008 at 11:28 am
In any case if you care so much, why aren’t you on the attack over there, instead of circle jerking here?
4 June, 2008 at 11:34 am
Yep thought so. A big fucking coward is what you are. Slink back to Bolt’s blog hypocrite.
4 June, 2008 at 11:44 am
Yes, yes, that’s what stands for intellectual discourse on the Left.
You seem quite forthright, brutish and manly but then this is the internet and I have it on good authority that Shane is also a girl’s name.
What fun we’re having!
4 June, 2008 at 11:50 am
It wouldn’t surprise me if you were just another one of Bolts persona creations. It would certainly explain the inconsistent garbage you serve up. He never can get his story right.
4 June, 2008 at 11:59 am
It doesn’t get much better than this. Thanks for hitting all the stereotypes today, Shane.
Enough toying with the insects. I have work to do and, while it’s been fun, I need to ration the hilarity lest I injure myself laughing. See you later, Shane.
4 June, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Bye Andrew.
Another Cate column please, but only if it’s got pictures.
4 June, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Shane, why do you think he is Andrew Bolt? Do you think everyone is Andrew Bolt, or just people you disagree with?
4 June, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Name one, just one other person that I have accused of being Andrew Bolt.
4 June, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Shane, you had absolutely no evidence that he is Andrew Bolt. I was enquiring whether you commonly accuse people of being Andrew Bolt or if you had some special reason for assuming that he was. Clearly you don’t.
By the way, I am not Andrew Bolt.
4 June, 2008 at 4:52 pm
No, I am Spartacus!
4 June, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Abu, don’t you have work to do?
4 June, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Not today. What about you?
4 June, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Err.
4 June, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I had work to do, I did it, I checked in to enjoy the hilarity again. Does that satisfy your curiosity?
Perhaps you should start an “Abu Chowdah Watch”, young man. You seem very fond of this surveillance and monitoring caper.
5 June, 2008 at 6:56 am
Jesus Christ. Are markl and MARKL the same person? Since the post from “markl”, was not formatted and edited like those from “MARKL”, yet displayed similar but more extreme idiocy and delusions of self-logical-grandeur, I couldn’t tell whether the “markl” post was a parody of “MARK L”’s ramblings. Great piss-take if it was.
My other theory is that perhaps “MARK L” posted it after a big night on the piss, exacerbating his peculiar inability to self-asses the logic of his arguments, and his own self-delusions of superior intellect and insight.
5 June, 2008 at 7:07 am
Seriously people like “MARK L” perplex me. They seem to have a fairly decent, if not an above average grasp of the English language, and grammatical competency. They also seem to be able to conduct specific research and demonstrate certain aspects of understanding in regards to the nuances of things like politics.
Yet they seem to be missing certain parts of their brains, or have missed out on an important part of development. Displaying a distinct lack of the ability to look at adult issues with any sort of maturity or balance, or ability to weigh up aspects of an issue,
but more importantly too conduct any sort of self-assessment into the rationality of their own arguments. Hence they simply go round and round in circles with their argument, yet strangely accuse others of doing so.
In the markl, rant, one of the central tenets to the ramblings seemed to be, that Mondo’s
easily understandable argument, that drawing on descriptions of regimes by their own leadership, as ultimate proof of their political positioning, is logically fallacious given that there are more clear examples of other regimes whose names clearly do not reflect their natures, is a logical fallacy in itself, as it incorrectly rules out drawing at all on the definitions of political regimes by their own leadership.
Yet given mark’s mental incapacities, he fails to acknowledge or understand that his WHOLE initial argument revolved using the NAZI name, too argue that it formed proof of that regime’s ‘leftist’ nature, and that Mondo and others were simply responding to his initial fallacious argument.
But despite all this and all of mark or Mark’s ramblings, the most striking point is that for all of Mark L’s attempt to patronise others about the use of logic, the fact that the NAZIs were even brought into a discussion about an irrelevant issue, came down ultimately too Mark’s childishness and engaging in one of today’s most common logical fallacies.
5 June, 2008 at 7:53 am
Abu, what “surveillance and monitoring”? I simply read two of your comments within inches of each other on the same thread. Hardly a panopticon.
5 June, 2008 at 8:21 am
Damian, just following the amusing meme that forms the raison d’etre for this website.
5 June, 2008 at 9:57 am
Abu needs his daily pat on the head. Andy is neglecting him this morning. That’s why he’s here trolling for table scraps.
5 June, 2008 at 10:58 am
What, Shane? No vulgarity and scurrilous abuse today? Perhaps I’m having a good influence on you. Good to see you maintaining your level of interest, young man/lady.
5 June, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Chris, did you see the recent documentary by Niall Ferguson on the War of the World? He makes some very good points that the totalatarianist regimes of Stalin and Hitler were identical in most of their goals, methods and outcomes. Even down to pointing out that Stalin took over one of Hitlers concentration camps and moved in his own set of victims or that Stalin had racist policies of his own.
So while Hitler was clearly socialist in some of his political views, it is not really useful to compare him to any modern socialist – unless they are authoritarian in nature themselves. Likewise the arguments that Hitler was an atheist/artist/vegetarian so all atheists/artists/vegetarians are bad falls down at the first hurdle. Most atheists/artists/vegetarians do not share any political aims or methods with Hitler.
5 June, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Chris of Brisbane
5 June, 2008 at 7:07 am
…
In the markl, rant, one of the central tenets to the ramblings seemed to be, that Mondo’s easily understandable argument, that drawing on descriptions of regimes by their own leadership, as ultimate proof of their political positioning, is logically fallacious given that there are more clear examples of other regimes whose names clearly do not reflect their natures, is a logical fallacy in itself, as it incorrectly rules out drawing at all on the definitions of political regimes by their own leadership.
Comment: Oh, this is rather funny: if barely coherent. Firstly, Mondo presented a point, and a point does not an argument make. Secondly, you carefully avoid the assumption Mondo clearly made: the NSADP was not HIS definition of socialism, therefore it was not socialist at all. This is, obviously, a form of the logical fallacy of composition, which assumes that the property of a collection of items is shared by each item. I have pointed this out above, but the silence in reply has been deafening.
Yet given mark’s mental incapacities, he fails to acknowledge or understand that his WHOLE initial argument revolved using the NAZI name, too argue that it formed proof of that regime’s ‘leftist’ nature, and that Mondo and others were simply responding to his initial fallacious argument.
Comment: we will contest this risible contention below. The reason the discussion is so juvenile is obvious: Audiatur et Altera Pars on the part of my interlocutors. There was, of course, a logical and quite interesting argument available to the normal denizens of this site: that NSDAP ideology might have arisen from socialist roots, but was otherwise so distorted as to pass beyond the actual meaning of socialism into realms uniquely perverse. The same argument can be applied to Stalinism, of course. Yet, what is observable here was a recourse to ad hominem and (frankly) inchoate hysteria. That is very interesting.
But despite all this and all of mark or Mark’s ramblings, the most striking point is that for all of Mark L’s attempt to patronise others about the use of logic, the fact that the NAZIs were even brought into a discussion about an irrelevant issue, came down ultimately too Mark’s childishness and engaging in one of today’s most common logical fallacies.
Comment: I did indeed act in a patronising way: such boorish jejeune foolishness deserves it. However, it was Ron and yourself who started the shrieking about the NSDAP, not I.
Let us now test the contention that “that his WHOLE initial argument revolved using the NAZI name, too argue that it formed proof of that regime’s ‘leftist’ nature”.
Actually, no. My contention here is that the NSDAP arose from socialist ideological roots, and retained sufficient of those (as reflected in its party platforms and ideological core writings and dogma) to be accurately classed as a socialist ideology precisely as its leaders claimed up to the day of its destruction. There are facts to support this contention.
SO let us look at this.
MarkL
31 May, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“…most commonly live in 7 Eleven-style convenience stores and they are the most soulless places on Earth…”
…
Take a trip and see a few places. I dunno, maybe include the Lubyanka, Auschwitz, or Tol Slueng. Any place your heavier-duty socialist mates once held power for a while.
I think you’ll find them a tad more soulless than your local 7 Eleven.
Comment: No evidence that “his WHOLE initial argument revolved using the NAZI name, too argue that it formed proof of that regime’s ‘leftist’ nature”. This is an objection to the alleged soullessness of 7-Eleven stores by comparison to some truly soulless places.
Chris of Brisbane
1 June, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Oh I see Mark L has decided to migrate over and bring over his Boltist brand of juvenile imbecility with him, displaying the now common infantile obsession with attempting to claim that the NAZIs were leftists. How great of you too add so much quality and philosophical insight too the discussion Mark.
Comment: Well, lookee here, it’s actually CHRIS who raises this issue. What a surprise! No evidence here that “his WHOLE initial argument revolved using the NAZI name, too argue that it formed proof of that regime’s ‘leftist’ nature”. But, Chris, this is your issue, not mine.
Ron
1 June, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“There will be 607 Deputies in the new Reichstag, largest, in German history. Simplifying the returns, it means that the Nazis and other Right Wing Parties will have a total of 277 seats.”
– From Time Magazine (August 8, 1932)
Believing that the Nazis were leftists requires you to also believe that the entire body of work written on the Nazis before, during, and after they took power, is a massive, left-wing conspiracy to make the right wing look bad.
Which is exactly what MarkL and the other bolt/blair following history deniers beleive. MarkL and others are utterly disconected from reality and their argument that Hitler was a leftist because he called himself a Nationalist Socialist must mean North Korea is a democratic republic because it says so.
Comment: Now, Ron picks up Chris’s meme and runs with it. Not me, Ron. RON says that: “their argument that Hitler was a leftist because he called himself a Nationalist Socialist must mean North Korea is a democratic republic because it says so”. I have not stated this anywhere. Have you any idea how funny this is? A straw man is being assembled here, and it is very obvious.
Then Chris, the words posted by Ron were magically transmogrified in your mind into the bald-faced falsehood that “his [my] WHOLE initial argument revolved using the NAZI name, too argue that it formed proof of that regime’s ‘leftist’ nature”?
I very rarely lean back in my study and roar with laughter, but this had me laughing like a kookaburra. I cannot thank you enough for this mental Goon Show you have put on for my entertainment.
MarkL
1 June, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“Yeah that made a lot of sense Mark.When was the last time you ever got out and visited Lubyanks, Auschwitz or Tol Slueng, moron.”
2004, 1996, 1997 in that order.
Poor Ron! How little you know.
“MarkL and others are utterly disconected from reality and their argument that Hitler was a leftist because he called himself a Nationalist Socialist…”
Why not check for yourself? A good starting place is, of course, the 1936 National Socialist party platform. …
Comment: My response to this statement by RON is factually based. ‘Go and check the following sources of information and see for yourself.’ So, (again) no evidence of this statement being correct: “his WHOLE initial argument revolved using the NAZI name, too argue that it formed proof of that regime’s ‘leftist’ nature”
MarkL
1 June, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Heh, knew I had this somewhere in my library:
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
(Adolf Hitler. Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted in Toland, Adolf Hitler, Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday 1976, p. 306)
…
Comment: I then provide some quotes from other sources to reinforce the point that one should always look to the facts. Yet again, no evidence of this statement being correct: “his WHOLE initial argument revolved using the NAZI name, too argue that it formed proof of that regime’s ‘leftist’ nature”
Mondo Rock
2 June, 2008 at 2:56 pm
So, little ronnie, yer ole socialist mate Adolf himself thought he was a socialist and said so. Guess you know better, eh?
I love it – you really couldn’t script mindless idiocy
Comment: Fact: NSDAP leader did actually say he was a socialist and the reference was provided. Response: this is “mindless idiocy”. Intriguing and illuminating technique – ‘the facts do not matter!’ Logical conclusion: to some neocommies, fantasy and inchoate emotive waffle is far preferred to fact. Once again, no evidence of this statement being correct: “his WHOLE initial argument revolved using the NAZI name, too argue that it formed proof of that regime’s ‘leftist’ nature”
Chris of Brisbane
2 June, 2008 at 8:13 pm
“2004, 1996, 1997 in that order.”
Guess I’ll just have too take your word on that one Mark
“Heh, knew I had this somewhere in my library”
Or do you have it saved into your computer, so whenever you bring discussion of the NAZIs into any discussion about political issues of today, and somebody cites your rubbish, you can produce these quotes as “proof” that the NAZI were indeed ‘leftists’, and therefore anyone taking a ‘leftist’ position on an issue of today is on the path to NAZISM?…
Comment: Ahem… who made an issue of this? Ron did, I believe and the facts above show this. You (Chris) then extend the argument with the laughable line “therefore anyone taking a ‘leftist’ position on an issue of today is on the path to NAZISM?”
I have nowhere mentioned this, you have cut it from whole cloth and imputed it to me. Where is your evidence that I have said this? There is certainly none in this thread. The only person pushing this line is you. Again, intriguing.
What really, really bemuses me about this is that the neocommies have extrapolated a fantasy figure – a mere caricature of what they appear to think anyone outside their groupthink circle is – of me from their OWN statements and fantasies. They have then ascribed these fabulist characteristics to me and attacked this caricature of their own imaginings as if it were reality. (As the following post shows.) Not unnaturally, I find this hugely entertaining….
Chris of Brisbane
2 June, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Mark, and other dunderheads obsessed with the drawing infantile parallels between NAZIS and modern day politics.
Comment: And all the while, there was a reasonable and intellectually interesting argument to make, which you did not recognise in pursuit of a chimera of your own creation. BTW, when you describe the creators of this fantasy as ‘dunderheads’… well, it was created by Mondo Ron, and yourself.
This is absolutely hilarious. I simply could not make this stuff up.
Nowhere in this entire font of humour, Chris, have you been able to back up your self-generated falsehood: “his [my] WHOLE initial argument revolved using the NAZI name, too argue that it formed proof of that regime’s ‘leftist’ nature”
Instead, I can prove that this very same falsehood is your own creation, indeed a caricature of your own imagination, my dear Don Quixote of Brisbane. That you live among the windmills of your own fantasies genuinely helps me to understand why certain neocommies routinely reject reality and fact in favour of a landscape of their own imaginings. No wonder people who do not agree with you appear so exotic and must be caricatured – how could your worldview survive if you did not act in that manner?
This is most useful to me in one of my professional fields. So I can quite sincerely thank you for the insights into the way you think – you are obviously harmless as an individual and that you think this way is of course irrelevant to me personally (yes, of course the reverse applies).
However, other, and non-harmless people think in a similar manner. This insight is why I bothered with this small investment of time, of course.
With proper application, I can use such insight to educate my subordinates so that when they move on from here they can better predict the way our targets think. What allows us to get inside their heads makes them vulnerable in ways they cannot even comprehend –a useful advantage in that field.
See, you CAN serve a useful purpose.
MarkL
Canberra
5 June, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Fark…
6 June, 2008 at 12:45 am
hellllllooooooo? moderation alert on above. wtf?
6 June, 2008 at 7:45 am
Yes, I agree. Can’t have opposing views on this site. Send one of the three trolley boys for a clean up on aisle four!
6 June, 2008 at 11:38 am
I’m going to get tedonitis from having to scroll past all that.
Abu: what, like what happens on Bolt’s site?
6 June, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Bingo.
6 June, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Get a life, MarkL.
Abu, can you give Bernie Slattery a call and see if he can step in and moderate for us? On second thoughts, not him – he’d probably let MarkL post his nonsense, anyway. What we need is an arch-commie, a real comments Nazi. Any ideas?
6 June, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Even funnier. “Oops, the usual denizens have been shown to be foolish, quick, burn the witch who did that!”
MarkL
Canberra
6 June, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I don’t see what this has to do with slushies…
6 June, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Damian: I have no idea who Bernie Slattery is. Should I?
I think you should moderate. You seem a moderate fellow. My advice is: award points for cleverness and a sense of humour. Shame those who can’t hack it and resort to swearing and abuse and those who fall back on lame saws, like, “so-and-so is a Hansonite” and “Robert Manne is a great thinker”, and so on.
Hope this helps.
6 June, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Man, and I though I was guilty of long posts. Mark L, I bothered reading about the first paragraph, but at the end of the day, no matter how much you attempt to patronise others and argue that they are guilty of logical fallacies, you’re the childish fool who brought NAZIS into a totally irrelevant debate, and engaged in the moronic behaviour of drawing parallels between people on this blog, and past dictatorships. The height of immaturity Mark. That kind of behaviour may pass as acceptable, or even intelligent debate at sites like Bolt’s or Blair’s, but not in the real world.
6 June, 2008 at 7:04 pm
“That kind of behaviour may pass as acceptable, or even intelligent debate at sites like Bolt’s or Blair’s, but not in the real world.”
Though it certainly has found its level and true home here.
6 June, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“Though it certainly has found its level and true home here.”
I actually think some of you banter is quite funny Abu, but it’s the kind of “no you are”, effortless humour that makes you giggle a bit to start with, but just get old and annoying quickly.
The only people that are engaging in the infantile behaviour that I mentioned are recent arrivals like MarkL, who have come from mutually congratulatory group-think communities like Bolt’s site, where accusing those you disagree with as being akin to NAZI’s Stalinists etc, is common practice. The most that I have seen any regulars or ‘leftists’ here do, is draw parallels between Bolt and Hanson. Something that I think has holes in it, but is hardly any thing like accusing someone of being like Hitler.
“Yes, I agree. Can’t have opposing views on this site. Send one of the three trolley boys for a clean up on aisle four!”
Opposing views are frequently posted here, and there are few sites that I can think off that would give such liberty too lengthy diatribes like that from Mark L, whether in support or critique of the host’s position.
6 June, 2008 at 8:12 pm
No comeback except that I am being mean.
As for “accusing someone of being like Hitler” you are the only one actually doing that. I have certainly not said that of you.
Funny, that.
MarkL
Canberra
7 June, 2008 at 3:29 am
“I actually think some of you banter is quite funny Abu, but it’s the kind of “no you are”, effortless humour that makes you giggle a bit to start with, but just get old and annoying quickly.”
The alternative here seems to involve a tiresome, humourless pedantry with a touch of doctrinaire finger-waving arrogance, lacking in self-awareness and devoid of irony.
I’ve made my choice, as have you.
9 June, 2008 at 11:37 am
“No comeback except that I am being mean.
As for “accusing someone of being like Hitler” you are the only one actually doing that. I have certainly not said that of you.”
No Mark I simply couldn’t and still cant be bothered going though another one of your rambled, boring and posts, filled with try-hard attempts at patronisation, when I realised from the first paragraph, that it was simply going to be the same circular, clutching at straws post, displaying your lack of self-insight.
Are you simply going to ignore to yourself that fact that your first post on this topic contained some childish comment about the fact that a place of former Nazi atrocity, was carried out by the host’s “Socialist mates”, or that you then proceeded to label other as neo-commies. Typical Boltist behaviour, act like an immature obnoxious child, engaging in moronic logical fallacious, in one instance, and in the next, try to patronise others about the structure of their arguments and the need for restraint.
10 June, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Oh, Don Quixote, how rich!
“No Mark I simply couldn’t and still cant be bothered going though another one of your rambled, boring and posts, filled with try-hard attempts at patronisation, when I realised from the first paragraph, that it was simply going to be the same circular, clutching at straws post, displaying your lack of self-insight.”
Comment: Shorter Chris: “I have no comeback, and will try and hide by whining that I cannot understand long posts or logical arguments”.
How sad that you cannot comprehend more than sound-bites.
“Are you simply going to ignore to yourself that fact that your first post on this topic contained some childish comment about the fact that a place of former Nazi atrocity, was carried out by the host’s “Socialist mates”, or that you then proceeded to label other as neo-commies.”
Comment: Three socialist atrocities, cannot you count, lad? Glad you recognise that now. See, you CAN learn, Don Quixote!
You do understand that you just implicitly accepted the fact that the NSDAP was a socialist organisation, don’t you?)
Typical Boltist behaviour, act like an immature obnoxious child, engaging in moronic logical fallacious, in one instance, and in the next, try to patronise others about the structure of their arguments and the need for restraint.
Comment: Wrong as usual, Don Quixote. I have commented at Bolt’s a very few times. I do patronise such as you, who routinely reveal their foolishness via logical fallacy (real ones, not your ‘You do not agree with me so that is illogical’ waffle).
And what do we find here in this sentence but more ad hominem (”immature obnoxious child” and “moronic”). By which you confirm in your own words that you have no logical response in this (very one-sided) discourse.
Apologies if the 170-odd words I added to your post overtax you too much.
It being so long, and all.
MarkL
Canberra
28 June, 2008 at 9:38 am
Game, set, and match, I assume.
Of course, any further response now will merely pretend to lofty disdain at having to expose oneself to the vulgarity of a differing opinion. Or an ad hominem.
MarkL
Canberra
Comments are closed.