Glad you cleared that up. I thought it was because of your inflated sense of your own importance.

But, Jay, I need another explanation from you. In this thread you wrote:

But the crux of my point remains: Oliver can’t vouch for the veracity of the cartoon, can’t comment on its accuracy, can’t even tell us who created it, but still thinks it deserves even further dissemination.

But today you threw up this “piece”:

Naked Guns And The Smell Of Fear
Posted by Jay Tea
Published: Dec 16, 07 08:00 AM

I can’t vouch for the veracity of this account, but it has the “feel” of being real. I can very easily understand how a trusted colleague can suddenly become a bit more suspicious-looking if they started openly carrying a gun.

But that trust and faith can return with interest when a real threat materializes. That’s when Bob, the scary guy with the gun, becomes Bob the defender of the innocent.

I don’t have any hard stats on the matter, but it seems to me that most (if not all) of the recent massacres have been committed by people who were not licensed to carry guns, and not with their own registered guns. The Columbine killers stole their guns. I can’t find the links at hand, but I recall reading that the Omaha mall shooter also stole his guns, and the DC snipers stole their rifle. For the most part, the shooting rampages are not carried out by licensed gun-owners with their own guns.

It all boils down to how well do we trust our fellow citizens — or if we would rather disarm the law-abiding ones in the hopes that we’ll also disarm the dangerous ones, who are already set on breaking far more serious laws.

Are you a complete idiot? Or just an idiot during non-work hours?

This part is very telling. You attack someone for having an agenda, not for being wrong. You are committing a text book Ad Hominem fallacy. And worse yet, you seem to have no issue with that.

You commit the same fallacy when you bring up Media Matters and Oliver Willis. And you do that a lot.

OK… I’m thinking now that your mention of it was a joke. One that went right past me.

It was a social experiment that I executed a little while back to expose the elitism in the definition of “religion” (kinda like FSM). Thank you for proving my point.

I haven’t looked into the origins of the cartoon, either. Well, in my defense, I’ll say that I’m not saying anything about it at all, because I simply don’t have any info to judge upon.

If you have no info to judge it on, how can you call it “anti-mormon” in the first place?

My agenda is simple: to say what O’Riley tells me to think

Fixed that little typo for you.

1) I haven’t looked into the origins of the cartoon, either. Well, in my defense, I’ll say that I’m not saying anything about it at all, because I simply don’t have any info to judge upon. Oliver, from the same position of ignorance, decided to disseminate it further.

I also looked at the YouTube poster’s other videos, and almost half of them are anti-Mormon. So the guy has an agenda. That doesn’t make him wrong, but it doesn’t help him, either.

2) Yeah, I shill for free. I offer my opinions on whatever strikes me, whenever it strikes me, however it strikes me. I’m an utter free agent, obliged to no one. My agenda is simple: to say what I think. And I always try to not just say what I think, but why and what led me to that position. It’s a lasting effect of my education, particularly in math, where “show your work” was pounded into my skull.

Also, I make absolutely no pretenses at any kind of expert status. I never say “take my word for this, I’m a professional/I have a degree/I’m smarter than you.” I take care to say just why I think what I do, and why I think I’m right. I don’t ask for anyone’s trust or faith, I work on earning it every time. I don’t always succeed (especially around here, but I don’t expect anything but a hostile audience), but I do try.

And as far as Haruhi-ism… I gotta go Google that one. I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term.

OK… I’m thinking now that your mention of it was a joke. One that went right past me.

I’ve never said whether or not Mormonism is a cult. I know that it has some pretty odd beliefs and tenets, but as a professional born-again agnostic, I think ALL religions have some pretty silly beliefs at their core. So I tend to ignore the finer details and just judge the religions on the conduct of the adherents. And the Mormons I’ve met have been among the most honorable, decent, upright, honest, forthright, sincere, and downright nice folks I’ve ever known. So maybe I am a bit prejudiced towards them — I can live with that.

Zython, sorry I seemed to ignore you. Between Sean’s coming up with reasonable questions (often just before you did) and Strow’s frothing gibberish, I missed them.

The crux of my point remains, though: Oliver found the cartoon and thought it worthy of spreading it far and wide, despite admitting that “I don’t know enough about Mormon theology to know if this bit of propaganda is accurate or not…”

To me, that would instantly disqualify it from my spreading it further. (Kind of like the “Obama is secretly a Muslim” bullshit.) If I wanted to post it, I’d want to know how accurate it was. Oliver didn’t. To me, that reflects very poorly on him.

J.

Yeah, well, Alzheimer’s will do that.

C.S.’s point is proven further by the fact that you continue to run away from my points. Three times I’ve tried to get a response fro you, and three times you’ve ignored me. Is it that you think you’re better than me, or is it more likely the fact that you can’t admit that I’ve outwitted you?

That’s cause you never bother to participate into these.

“Hell, sometimes I take it as a matter of pride that I’ve got them so worked up, they can’t even maintain coherency and actually rebut my points.”

What fucking points?

“Hell, sometimes I take it as a matter of pride that I’ve got them so worked up,”

So you admit to being a troll. Very good.

“So sorry, no victim here.”

Yes you are. You are a victim of genetics and upbringing.

Not that I’m complaining. It’s actually helpful to me — I call it my AEWI, or Asshole Early Warning Detector. Once the abuse starts flying, I just know I needn’t bother take the person seriously.

Hell, sometimes I take it as a matter of pride that I’ve got them so worked up, they can’t even maintain coherency and actually rebut my points.

So sorry, no victim here. In fact, I’m feeling downright benevolent. Can I offer you some chain oil for that chainsaw? It’ll help it run smoother.

J.

And you are not capable of one, which is why I treat you the way I do.

“If you ever feel like having an actual discussion, let me know.”

I tried having a serious discuss with you in the past. It didn’t work.

I actually defended you in the past to others in this Blog because I thought you were better than the rest of the right-wing ‘tards we get around here. You proved me wrong.

So listen to this next part carefully…

You are not the innocent victim here. You receive exactly the treatment you deserve. Don’t like it? Try and act human next time.

Jay, it seems that the one who doesn’t care about the origins of the cartoon is you. Not only do you not mention them, but you also fail to acknowledge that you don’t know. Why do you hate Mormons? Why do you hate Haruhi-ism? Why do you hate America?

J.

Since you don’t consider me a human being, that means that you and I are incapable of having a serious discussion.

So I say this, as one sub-human to another: go fuck yourself.

With a chainsaw.

Repeatedly.

If you ever feel like having an actual discussion, let me know. In the meantime, fire up the Husqvarna and have a grand time.

J.

What you recall mean exactly shit.

And to call your desire to connect anything posted here to Media Matters as an, ‘afterthought’ is dishonest. Firstly, that seems to be a key attack you’ve brought up on numerous occasions. Secondly, it implies you’re capable of thinking.

“Neither can you apparently.” is Zython’s comment. Should have been in italics.

Neither can you apparently.

And I still don’t see why anyone should have to in this context. Oliver didn’t hide that he couldn’t vouch for it. And, seems to me, his posting’s main point was that this cartoon being viewed by half a million people can’t be good for Romney.

Whether cartoon is accurate or not, whether someone can vouch for its veracity or not, what has that to do with the observation that having it widely viewed can’t be good for a Mormon candidate?

Yeah, in the way a car crash is interesting and involving.

Oliver can’t vouch for the veracity of the cartoon, can’t comment on its accuracy, can’t even tell us who created it

Neither can you apparently.

I wish I could live with those kinds of rules. It’d make my blogging a bit easier.

Somebody call the repair shop. My irony meter is smokin’ again.

Tea, who was it who posted this just the other day?

I can hear John Edwards now: “Senator Clinton, you’re going to get asked about how your Rose Law Firm billing records were hidden, undiscovered, in your residence for years after they were subpoenaed. Or about your willingness to tolerate your husband’s infidelities. Or your truly astonishing single adventure in the cattle futures market. Or any of a host of other issues. Don’t you think you should either come clean on all these things, right now, and put them all to rest, or get out of the race before they can be used to bring down not only you, but our party?”

That’s beyond “passing along rumors.” That’s outright M.S.U. Take your fake, phony outrage and clear off.

But the crux of my point remains: Oliver can’t vouch for the veracity of the cartoon, can’t comment on its accuracy, can’t even tell us who created it, but still thinks it deserves even further dissemination. Couple that with his openly-avowed partisanship and history of going after Romney, and the conclusion is fairly clear: its ability to hurt Romney’s campaign trumps all other considerations.

J.

Jay Tea: “Oliver out-and-out said that he had no idea about the accuracy of the cartoon, but posted it anyway in hopes it’d hurt Mitt Romney (and, by extension, all Mormons — including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Caesar’s Palace)”

From what in Oliver’s post do you draw the conclusion that his motive for posting it was to hurt Romney. My reading of it was that he’s making an observation. To wit: This cartoon getting a wide audience can’t benefit Romney.

What if he’d posted a link to the Fox News reports about Obama attending a Madrassa and said “I don’t know enough about Muslim teachings to know if this bit of propaganda is accurate or not (I know more about the people and the movement than what they worship) but it’s clear distinction from mainstream Public Education and the fact that it’s got over 500,000 views on Youtube can’t help someone like Obama.”?

Would you assume he’d posted it to specifically hurt not just Obama but also apparently ALL Muslims?