18 votes

Wow, my girl really put Ed's girl in her place

In reply to Ed Ucation's post: http://www.dailypaul.com/308385&from=lbp

So I was reading over Ed's sermon and discussing it with one of my lady friends, and she is a real whizz, nothing gets passed her. I wasn't sure myself about the logic of the post so I ran it by her for her thoughts.

The first point she harped on was where Ed's girlfriend said that because some obese people don't control their weight we should only judge the other one's or none at all or something. That didn't seem sound to me, but what do I know.

Well, she was on that like a pitbull, and said: "Some or even most violent people are predisposed to be violent. Their temperament and impulse control may be poor. People may be born as sociopaths without any empathy for others. Even if they are unable to act on it, the desire is still there.

No one chooses to be born. Just like being born prone to obesity, or homosexuality, a person can also be born prone to being a boastful egomaniac, a bully, a liar, or highly ethnocentric, or prone to disapprove any departures from group behavior norms.

Why should we judge some of these predispositions, but not others? It can't just be about actions. Ed wants us to judge people for their views even where no action is involved, like the bearded duckface guy from TV that people keep talking about.

Why voice disapproval of behaviors that are beyond the control of anyone? Why say anything at all? Everything is determined anyway, no one has any control over anything.

If the principle in question is solely the individual's ability to control or choose otherwise, then on a deterministic view no one can ever make any choice than the precise one they made."

As we read further, it seemed that the OP wasn't really concerned with just the mere fact of choice, but was focused only on specific groups. My lady friend started to pant with anticipation, her brain was purring, and she said:

"It sounds like the OP is really engaging in a kind of muddled, garbled thought process that selectively chooses to apply the 'is it is a choice or not' standard in the case of some groups and not others, and there is some implicit secondary principle used to determine which groups get the rubber stamp, and get to be defended.

That seems to be their status as members of special politically correct groups, which happen to be part of the voting and whining coalition of the left, which generally support more government control, speech control and enjoy manipulating the majority with a truly hateful and sinister kind of collective guilt trip and brainwashing that weakens their whole resolve to stand up and defend their own interests and liberty."

I asked her to elaborate, and she said

"Well, I did not see Ed or his girlfriend worry about any other groups that are routinely insulted and denigrated and mistreated in the public discussion, in popular culture and by law.

For example, the huge levels of discrimination of white males, especially the very poor and underprivileged, in hiring, admittance to schools, government contracts, scholarships, etc.

Or boys in school being mistreated and drugged and then judged for their natural behavior.

Or fathers' rights being trampled over in courts, custody, rights toward their children, and all the pain and misery this causes for millions of fathers and their children.

Or the overall degrading portrayal in the culture of fathers and the free way in which people feel to abuse and insult and mock them.

Or the way large parts of America and many ethnic groups, even other countries, can have their cultures and traditions and even accents mocked and treated like crap and insulted. For example, southerners in America, or Germans and other Europeans, and Arabs and Muslims in popular culture, or even just the common trope of the evil WASP or British accented villain.

These things are far more pervasive and accepted than any similar portrayal of homosexuals or blacks, who seem always to be portrayed as shining beacons of virtue and moral exemplars.

Or how people of specific religious backgrounds can be insulted freely and lied about and misrepresented all throughout the culture, including even on DP (Catholics, Mormons)."

I personally haven't ever seen any actual hate directed at minorities or gays on these forums, and rarely see such a thing in real life in the culture, although it is portrayed plenty in fictional television and movies.

I asked my big brained lady friend to go on and sum up her evaluation of Ed's post with logical precision. She said,

"So to round it out, there seems to be two principles at work aside from mere bias toward defending popular PC groups, probably for the sake of prestige points and status boosting.

If the two principles are applied to everyone and not just selectively (gay, fat), we would have to say no one should ever say anything about any person or group or action that occurred outside of the person's control. On a deterministic view, that would encompass every act or thought. We know Ed is a full on materialistic determinist, so then for him no action could ever be judged. His whole sermon then seems kind of absurd.

If we took a more restrictive view of the principle as applying just to things we might call chosen vs not chosen, then we would have to still extend the coverage of the second principle from fat and gay ("special groups") to all the other groups I mentioned above, who are routinely insulted and even legally abused in our society.

I think Ed's post was just an attempt to dress up political correctness in high sounding moralistic language. Using guilt to try to artificially channel and restrict open discussion of issues, and opinions he doesn't like, into a No-No category. Some views probably make him feel uncomfortable because of fear of being out of step with political correctness. Intellectual insecurity does that.

He may think he is a real rebel and maverick because he doesn't believe in the Big Bang and believes in the Platimum rule instead of the Golden rule (lols I know), but at heart and at bottom he really just sounds like a typical brainwashed modern liberal college student, with a few unorthodox and funny ideas about the viability of anarchism tacked on for fun, like the tail on a donkey.

He hates all of the prescribed groups he's supposed to hate, he uses the right buzzwords, and he seems pretty much in line with the popular zeitgeist."

Ouch. Well, I was done with her so I told her to grab her stuff and get the hell out of my apartment.

On a personal note, I don't know if Ed is routinely rude and mean to fat people, and maybe he is. If he is, he needs to examine his conscience, and find away to make that right.

I know my conscience is clear toward all people, and when it isn't, I rectify it, I don't give a moral sermon to others.

What I never do is try to artificially construe opinions of others into a newspeak word like "hate," when the views are not at all hostile or hateful (like the bearded fool's from the Duck cooking show). I would never engage in the manipulative use of language or lame ploys to guilt others with the weight of popular political correctness religion.

I haven't myself ever observed any hostility toward such groups on DP, and would like some examples.

More to the point, there are lots of free choices don't infringe on the rights of others. Like becoming morbidly obese, having s3x with your domestic partners on the front lawn, smoking meth until you die, or killing animals for fun, or stepping over dead bodies on the line to pick up your take out fried chicken. If we can never judge any act that isn't a "choice" or which is, but doesn't "violate someone's rights," then we end up in Bedlam.

Ed would like us to not even be permitted to have our standards in our own private lives.

In such a worldview, violence should be controlled only as a matter of public safety, but nothing ought ever be judged, as it is merely determined by the person who never sought to be born anyway and probably was predisposed to his acts.

We should never teach that anything is wrong, or live according to such outmoded ideas. We should just put up tons of cameras and have lots and lots of police everywhere at all times to idiot-proof, violence-proof and pen off all the moral abominations we have spawned as a result of teaching such nonsense. And that is what we're doing.

Let's breed a world of evil, not judge, and then when it comes to maturity, pen it off from our little liberty playpen, and wait til the evil is at the door. When it is, we will inform it that what it is about to do is not according to the non aggression principle, and that it would infringe on our rights, and hope for the best.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
deacon's picture

Well now

I am not saying I don't believe this,and I am not saying I do.
But I don't believe this,not one bit.

Let it ever not be said,that I never did not do nothing for you.

LOL, BILL3's girl sounds an awful lot like BILL3

Look, she even claims to know my epistemological propinquities: "We know Ed is a full on materialistic determinist...". Do you have a secret identity we don't know about, BILL3?

BTW, I try to avoid ad hominems in general, but I think we can agree that you (and your, ahem, "girl") are fair game (as I am fair game to you). Good natured insults are part of our back and forth, and I think neither one of us minds. Thought if I am wrong, speak up.

Now as to the points you, I mean your girl, raised in this post, I will come back and address them later. I gotta get some crap done.

"It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go - maybe even longer. If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs." - Piet Hut


BILL3 is just really good at taking dictation. LOL. And wow, what a gal -- to defend white guys instead of women, where it comes to discrimination. "She's" a keeper!


Later will be better.


To be critical of something doesn't make you a "Judge" of said thing. If I think a sports team made a bad play and suggest what they should have done something else it is my opinion, not a judgement. In our PC culture, we are told that this is a judgement to silence the faithful among us, "Thou shalt not judge". This however should not get past those of us that want liberty.

Judgement comes when we first convict and THEN pass our verdict on someone. So did the Duck star suggest that anyone was going to hell for being homosexual or did he merely state that it is not in line with Christian doctrine? I agree that many have played into the hands of the PC police. We do not have freedom because we belong to a group. Going one step further, it is only God that gives us freedom. The very freedom of choice that you decide to exercise that may be opposed to God's plan He has given you. That is Christian doctrine, not Duck Dynasty doctrine.

And again we have been duped by the liberal media. We are certainly better than this, or at least should be. We have been encouraged to once again shut up about what we believe and have been mislabeled as judges. Have you taken the bait?

As for the OP, I think we need to be honest about what we believe. If we think homosexuality is wrong, it doesn't make us any less inclined to liberty, even for homosexuals. It is not inconsistent to be a libertarian and opposed to things that we see as morally corrupting and in fact we should be on the front lines about saying it instead of the statist that may have very different solutions than we do.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

Yes she did. "They'll grind us up in a big machine"

Yes she did. The media decides who we can be mean towards. A lot of folks buy into it. Calling a man a bigot never ever ever changes his mind.

Think about it: "I hate you you Bigots! Why don't you get along with people! I can't stand you guys! How dare you have an opinion other than mine. You are a bunch of Dang bigots! Go to Heck! Dang you to Heck! Dang you! Dang You! Stop holding on to your guns an religion! DANG YOU!!!!!!"

Yeah, never changes minds. Like the song says:

They'll grind us up in a big machine;
They'll feed us all on the same beliefs,
Holy dollar and a credit card;
but we got a way of doing things,
and no bankers gonna steal from me;
they wanna tear it all apart.

Grandmas in the kitchen;
Papas done past on;
we sit out on the front porch,
just a pickin’ on the songs;
and there's a bible on the table,
cause he bleed for what we have,
and that’s the ballad of a southern man,
I guess that’s something you don't understand.

My first rifle was a .243,
Papa gave Daddy and Daddy gave to me.


Texas Liberty Talk Radio http://www.ragingelephantsradio.com/

Ron Paul on his son Rand Paul:
"he does a lot of things similarly, but I think he does everything better. Than I have done over the years,"

Most dramatic folks, tend to excite negativity.......

and that is why I find that kind people rock. It's nice to not hear pointless gossip, judgement, and all the other BS. Why? I never have to feel their envy and selfish pride........

kind people rock

Does this woman speak in italics all the time...

or just when she's on a tear?

Tweeting occasionally as himself @cudnoski on the twitter.

its when shes ready man.

its when shes ready man.

beware the downbumpers.

They seem to think they matter when they ain't.

Tweeting occasionally as himself @cudnoski on the twitter.

Here, Here

Great post

A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.

I guess I took it differently...

The way I interpreted it was that within any group of "labeled" people (fat, gay, ugly, purple, etc), there are always exceptions. Thus, it is grossly inconsiderate to treat individuals based upon biased generalizations. If the actions of a person do not harm innocent beings, then they should be no one else's business.

Collectivism is counterproductive on any level when it comes to personal characteristics.

Answer me this

"If the actions of a person do not harm innocent beings, then they should be no one else's business."

Do you honestly believe anyone is innocent? And otherwise, why just innocent beings. If they harm guilty beings then it is OK?

At what point does it become the responsibility of family and friends to take an individual to task regarding their bad decisions? If you don't care about someones well being, I guess I could agree with you. Do you honestly want to live in a world where when someone exercise their freedom to harm themselves, absolutely no one feels they have an obligation or duty to correct said person.

And this popularly mimed inconsistency my friends is where careless libertarian memes begin to fall apart.

If I am driving on the wrong side of the road, even if I haven't harmed any innocent people, I guarantee you that I would want someone to correct me before I do harm to myself or others.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops


Perhaps I should have used more precise language. By innocent, I mean people not committing aggression against the person that may perform a harmful action. For instance, suppose a slave revolts and kills his/her master but doesn't stop there; they go on to murder all the other slaves and the wife and children of the slaveholder. The act has gone beyond that of self-defense.


As an adult, it is no one's responsibility to protect a person from themselves. This doesn't mean people that are concerned can't or shouldn't voice their opinions. I've tried to get my dad to quit smoking, eat better, and drink more water, but it is not my "responsibility" to do so. I can't force him to do any of those things either.

Concerning your last sentence about driving on the wrong side of the road, in that circumstance you are directly placing other people's lives at risk. That's a different scenario altogether.

The last example has it the kernal of truth that I was trying to


Yes you do risk harming someone by driving on the wrong side of the road but you haven't yet.

The same thing can be said about substance abuse that can alter your judgement. Drugs and alcohol can cause you to great pain for your family both physically, psychologically, and financially.

I honestly believe that just like stopping someone from driving on the wrong side of the road because of the clear and present danger they could cause, too warrants us to curb the addict.

Now whose responsibility is always important to determine. It is inevitably however a problem for society if people are harming themselves. It reflects our priorities and humanity if we stand by and allow such things to persist.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

Boom. It takes a great deal


It takes a great deal of intellectuality to overlook the obvious. I don't want to reignite this argument but I could easily rattle off 10 examples that everyone would agree are horrible actions that don't involve any rights violations. They don't even necessarily pertain to self harm, either. It should be easy for anyone who hasn't closed their mind to see this, so I won't make any horses drink or even lead them to water. Ideology is a terrible blinder.

Please do tell

Rattle away.

let's just do one at a time

let's just do one at a time so no one gets confused.

hanging a squirrel from a little tiny wire noose on each of its limbs and then pulling to constrict them every time a blue car passes by would be reprehensible, despite violating no ones rights.

yes, i am going to use over the top absurd examples, because this is so absurdly easy and should be so absurdly obvious that i will make it absurd. until you ask me to stop,

ball, court, yours.

Ideology is a terrrible blinder?

How, pray tell, do you know that these actions are horrible? Don't you need to evaluate them according to some ideology to determine that they are indeed horrible?

"It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go - maybe even longer. If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs." - Piet Hut

no ideology is required to

no ideology is required to find an action reprehensible. it might just be a visceral reaction shared by most people. it might be purely subjective, a response rooted in imagining oneself the victim or imagining how they'd never do such a thing.

ideology is a systematic formulation of ideas... conclusions following from premises, the premises constituting the basic assumptions or claims of the ideology.

"all people are naturally equal,"
"all people ought to be economically equal,"
"all people ought be equal before the law and otherwise free,"
"human distress is caused by the inequality of wealth of the capitalistic system and the exploitative ruling class,"
"all human misery is caused by the control of religion over men's minds,"
"all human ill is caused by man's rebellion against god's divine commands,"
"all human ills are caused by a lack of complete freedom from any involuntary action in society,"
"the principle of life is the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people."

most if not all of these are claims or premises just given at the outset from which conclusions and systems of ideas follow. whether any can be proved or not i'll leave aside.

to the point, no such claims or premises are necessary for the more modest statement, "that is horrible," when watching a person let a child starve to death for example (no rights violation).

it could just be an inherent, visceral human response present in most people instinctively (naturalistic) or by design (religious claim).

there are no purple people.

there are no purple people. why don't people know this.

I guess its a common misconception...

based upon Sheb Wooley's 1958 #1 hit "Purple People Eater."

a newspeak word like "hate"

Thank you!

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

welcome! :-)

welcome! :-)

It started out as a brawl in comments that escalated to a fight

in chat and now it's open war on the board.

Most of those who think so actually don't and most of those who think sew actually rip.


ROFLMAO! Um yeah, glad to see I'm not the only one that saw the original attempt at this format of argument was "So full of holes I could drive my hummer through it."

You are responsible for your own actions period.
You always have a choice.
Some times the choices sux.
Deal with it.

"You only live free if your willing to die free."



Excellent post

This really needed to be said.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Anonymous