Skip to main content

Making stuff up: what you do when you've got nothing

I tried. I was going to let this abyssmal, ignorant post by donviti at Delawareliberal go by without comment. Really.

But there are just so many things wrong about An Awful Christian Ritual That Needs to Be Stopped from the man whose infantile rants are somehow treated as either real commentary or legitimate attempts at literary posturing by his co-bloggers, that I couldn't pass it by.

In this post donviti--who claims once to have been Catholic and should therefore know better--terms circumcision a Christian ritual, which it is not.

But watch him bristle should anyone point out his ignorance or suggest that some of his writings tend to be ... anti-Catholic.

In this post donviti--whose source of record is a blatantly anti-Semitic urban-rumor type post at the Daily Kos--passes off as true the myth that Jewish children are circumcised by an adult sucking on their penises.

Circumcision is a serious issue for a lot of folks, and there is a reasoned Libertarian case to be made against it as well as one that can be made for it. That case isn't made in a post where faux outrage and pretend moral superiority are substituted for ... pretty much anything.

Somebody seems to have had his forebrain trimmed back instead of his foreskin.

Comments

Nancy Willing said…
huh. You do have a way with the links. I hadn't read any of those post's threads.

What is that phrase I'm looking for for DV? ....teh stupid, it burns.

IMO, organized religion's main function is to foster altruistic behavior by way of getting control of one's ego. Civilized populations depend on it.

Ego check? DV, DD never got the memo. In fact, one could almost extrapolate from that site that the Catholic Way fails miserably to that end.
Delaware Dem said…
I voiced my disagreement, and a number of the commentators debunked DV, so relax.

http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/07/10/an-awful-christian-ritual-that-needs-to-be-stopped/comment-page-1/#comment-133792

Hey Nancy! Still bigoted against gays, are you?
Hube said…
Hey Del Dem? Still advocating murder for those who disagree w/you, scumbag?
Nancy Willing said…
hmmm, DD's disjointed brain is at it again.

DD, I'm not against gays just people who use the gay lobby for their dirty politics, dear. But you knew that.

Btw, how does an examination of the irregularities in human character that easily arise from the Catholic Way translate into bigotry against gays? I am assuming that this lie about me is your rationale for the Dellies' latest: "Nancy is dead to us". Yeesh.

How on earth did you muster the wherewithall to pass the bar? Your impulsivity and frequent incoherence do not a lawyerly soul make.
Hugh7 said…
The sucking is not a myth. It's called metzitzah b'peh (search on that if you doubt it) and it used to be mainstream but it's now only done by the most ultra-hasidic. There was a scandal in New York about it in 2005 after three babies died from herpes, probably caught from the same mohel, but only token measures were taken against it. Babies are probably so traumatised by circumcision itself that - herpes aside - it probably makes little difference.

How can there be a libertarian case for circumcision, unless children are somehow their parents' property and lack individuality or individual rights up to a certain age? If so, what is that age, and who decides? If your body is not your own property, what is?
Nancy Willing said…
DD --you 'expressed your disagreement' only after you read this post on Delaware Libertarian...seeing as how you cited this post within your 'disagreement'. RIDICULOUS.

Where are any of you when DV stepped it up in two subsequent posts --one of which DV mocks the miscarrages of RWR's wife.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...