Uppity-Negro.com

Thanks for the publicity. I think I've been the subject of two posts on this site so far. I want all the traffic I can get.

I'll keep you in my prayers.

Ok, I see what you guys meant about the kicking a puppy thing.

La Shawn does raise an interesting point, though. Why on Earth would anyone -- particularly those of us actually paying for our own storage and bandwidth -- want all the traffic they can get?

Wait, should I not talk about her like she's not in the room? She seems tourist-y to me, doubt she'll bother coming back to see if there's a reply to her comment.

Besides, what is there to say? "You're not very bright, are you, dear?" Think that's been implied in everything I've written about the child since I learned of her existence. . .

So does the kicking the puppy thing serve as an exuse for not being able/wanting to intelligently engage in a dialogue about the issues with which you disagree? (I noticed you've used that puppy tactic on more than one occasion/issue) I can certainly understand how much more fun it is to tear ideology down on sheer opinion alone.

Well, her ideology is constructed on sheer faith alone. I'm not sure what there is to discuss, except whether or not she's interpreting Scripture properly, and I try to avoid debating finer points of religion. Particularly religions I'm not a practicing member of.

Which sort of lets out all of them, actually.

Um, guess we could talk about the last few new episodes of Angel. . .

Well everyone writes based on faith. The question comes down to faith in what. But that's not really the point, but more of a smokescreen really.

Actually, in reading much of La Shawn's blog (since that was were the puppy comment was directed in this instance), and some other stuff she's written for newspapers and whatnot, it seems to me she switches back and forth from the perspective of "faith" as you call it, and also from a conservative perspective. Which, by the way doesn't necessarily have anything to do with faith. Contrary to popular belief, conservative doesn't equal Christian. So her ideology doesn't seem to be constructed on sheer faith alone. There are some very good logical arguments there. There's plenty to work with by way of ideological debate and conversation.

I just wondered, since I know human nature tends not to enter into a sphere of opposition from those on the other side of the spectrum; especially on our blogs.

Er, ambra, you do realize there are Unitarian Universalist types that regularly comment here, right? Lea Hernandez is one, too, come t'think of it. . . point being, I'm perfectly aware that "conservative doesn't equal Christian."

Sometimes I wonder why conservatives didn't choose some other religion's good name to ruin by associating it with their shit, actually.

Bit interested in what you think of this post at Electrolite. Still processing it myself.

And I have no idea what "everyone writes based on faith" means. Which is why I'm not arguing the point. I'm not sure there is one.

Yea yea yea, UU's I'm quite familiar with. Not sure what that had to do with my comment. In any case. Per the faith thing, let me further clarify...most people operate based on faith in something, whether it be faith that the chair you sit in will hold your weight, or that you can j-walk across the street without getting hit, or that there is no such thing as God, etc. It's all about worldview, everyone has one. Even people who don't do if you catch my drift. As you were...

Oy vey.

Ok, the chair and the j-walking things are what you call testable hypothses, right? Where you can, like, push on the chair to get an idea of how much weight it'll support, or make an estimate of how much time you got to cross the street before getting hit. Religion ain't testable. You're going on faith alone. Think that's the whole point with some of 'em.

But you know that already, and I'm typing to feel the keys on my fingers.

Mentioned Unitarians because, while I'm sure it's possible to be a conservative Republican and a UU member, I'd think the cognitive dissonance would make one's head go 'splody.

I often underestimate how much is required for the 'splodiness to kick in, though.

"Religion ain't testable". That's a whole different debate. And it is a debate. There are people who make very good money refuting that statement alone. Fortunately, I am not one of them, so I won't waste my time.

Also, considering the circularly conufusing doctrine of UU thought, I'd say it's HIGHLY possible to be a conservative Republican and a UU member. That is provided that said Universalist chooses that party and feels it's the right thing to do. I jest.

. . .

All right, dear, which rock-solid, logically rigorous denomination of Christianity are you a follower of?

And what I said earlier about cognitive dissonance? This very much applies to the foul-mouthed agnostic lecturing the nice Christian girl on respecting others' beliefs.

Because there's not just the odd UU member here. We're also talking about two very powerful witches and a thousand-year-old ex-demon.

That, and a noble lawyer. A lawyer with a soul. Gypsy curse, long story.

I'm not a member of any denomination.

And at what point did anything I say disrespect others beliefs? Before you answer, let us use your previous discourse as the standard. This has merely been a civil back-and-forth. However, I am quite familiar with coherent thought being mistaken for disrespect and lack of tolerence.

In regards to the various types of people you report on your site. I'm not quite sure why you continue to tell me these things because it really doesn't make much of a difference to me considering the above paragraph.

P.S. I am not now, nor have I ever been a nice Christian girl.

See, ambra, I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous when you claim not to know when you weren't respectful of others' beliefs -- in which case, you're not worth talking to -- or if you genuinely don't know when you're being rude -- in which case, you're not worth talking to.

You do see my problem, don't you?

Why not try commenting in another thread, like the one about the Michigan legislature allowing doctors to discriminate on the basis of orientation? Since, apparently, the point of this conversation is to prove how civil and coherent thought-y this conversation is?

Okay, this is like beating the air so why not say we call it quits? It is somewhat ironic that you lecture others on the nature of being rude. Per the Michigan story, I think it's disgusting and unfortunate that people think they're helping things by denying health care on the basis of orientation. But I'm not a Republican (thought you had me pegged eh?) so I don't really have anything to prove by way of participating in the discussion around "republicans being evil", except to say they're wrong.

. . . you, um, do realize you're a guest on my site, yes?

An uninvited, and not particularly welcome one?

So yes. Feel free to fuck away off at any time.

Like now. Now would be good.

You're pretty bitter eh?

No, just very, very tired of dealing with trolls. I've gotten to the point where I usually just delete you lot's comments rather than trying to talk to you.

I now remember why I don't usually bother.

I suppose I should thank you for that.

There is no fire without smoke. hello