bobbo has left the building

Regular readers of my blog have almost certainly come across some flavor of “bobbo”. He has changed his moniker somewhat over the years, most recently to “bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist”.

bobbo in all of his many moniker variations has been one of my most long term readers and, quite likely, my single most prolific commenter not including myself. He and I have had a number of very heated and sometimes infuriating (to both of us) discussions.

Well, it seems the last was too much.

I have always respected bobbo, even when I have not respected all of his opinions.

I will miss his presence on my blog and would welcome him back at any time should he decide to return. I am creating this open letter to him mostly in recognition of and thanks for his contributions here and the occasional thought provoking discussions. Most of us rarely change our strongest opinions. I am no different. bobbo has on a number occasions genuinely caused me to rethink my position, even though many of those times the deeper reflection resulted in a confirmation of the same opinion. Though, sometimes not.

That said, I will never apologize for expressing my own opinions on my own blog.

That is, after all, why I created an anonymous blog. I created it precisely to enable myself to have heated discussions and to express even my most radical viewpoints freely. Even my etiquette page describes the heated debates I have hoped for and the thick skin necessary to have them. Were bobbo to create his own blog, I would hope to be welcome there and would certainly follow his rules rather than my own. Thus far, however, our conversations have been mostly on either this blog or on the cagematch forum. The conversations that take place here take place according the the rules I have created.

I hope my rules are sufficiently lax to allow for free expression to anyone who wishes to comment. I have never ever censored a single post that was not obvious spam. I have once deleted a thread of conversation between two others by request of one of the parties.

bobbo, should you decide to come back, you are, as always free to express yourself. But, I must be free to respond as I see fit.

If anyone has a message they would like relayed to bobbo, please feel free to post it here. At some point, I will email bobbo a link to this post so that he will (hopefully) read this and anything anyone else chooses to add, whether or not he replies.

Fare well bobbo. We had a good run. I wish you well in all of your endeavors. You are welcome back at any time.

Advertisements

48 Responses to bobbo has left the building

  1. Cerberus says:

    This is truly a sad time.
    We may not have seen some things in the same way, nor walked the same path, but I for one will miss Mr Bobbo dearly. He always made our discusstions fascinating and shared some solid points in regards to many categories. I’m going to miss that, and you, Mr Bobbo.

    Mr Bobbo, if you read any of this, at all, I hope you read at least a little of this one, and know that I’d love to see you come back here so we all can hear your say again.

    Hell, I’m going to say it and don’t care what others here might think, so here goes.

    Mr Bobbo, you are very appreciated here, and I love ya buddy. Please hurry back. 🙂

  2. Cerberus says:

    Hi Scott,

    This is a very well written dedication to Mr Bobbo, and I just wanted to say that you too are very appreciated, both as a friend, and a great individual of very high intelligence that I have the utmost respect for, and want to thank you for everything you’ve done to help others.

    Peace buddy 😉

    • Thank you Cerberus. Your presence here is always appreciated as well. Ditto for ECA, Rodnikov, Expulsion of Gods. I hope I’m not missing anyone. This is just off the top of my head.

      I just felt the need to say this to and for bobbo since he has actively stated that he is leaving and has been extremely prolific here for a very long time, at least by the standards of this 7 year old blog.

    • And, of course, a big thanks and major appreciation go out to the late KD Martin and his alter ego BubbaRay. Though, he didn’t and I do not believe in any afterlife to which I could get the message. So, I’m basically just posthumously acknowledging his contributions here as well as his encouragement and partial moderatorship on cagematch.

  3. Rodnikov Magilovich says:

    Just maybe you are being a bit too magnanimous! I am not aware of the nature of said departure, and am not one of those who miss the cantankerous curmudgeon! I was of the opinion occasionally that Mr. Boffo, Booboo, or what ever, was less than sincere, and in fact on on some occasions deliberately insincere! We make the bed(s) we lie in! I was never in his fan club!

    • I understand. I find bobbo infuriating at times, as mentioned above. But, remember, I started this blog in hopes of heated discussions. Most conversations with him or anyone else, my opinions remain the same. My brain has begun its ossification process.

      That said, the conversations that do make me think are worth the frustration.

      Anyway, regardless of your opinion of him, there is no denying that he is second only to me in number of comments on this blog. When he and I get started, the conversation may go around in circles, may never come to a real conclusion, but it sure goes on for a long time with a lot of back and forth. And, sometimes it brings up some interesting topics that do make me think.

      And, thinking is the goal.

    • Cerberus says:

      Of course, you are correct in pointing out that Bobbo has been rather outright dishonest, but I have since forgiven him for this, and moved on. That’s what friends do – forgive – but I still fallow the rule of “screw me once, shame on you. Screw my twice, shame on me.”

      Rod, I might be rude to you at times but it is who I am as an individual, and still does not reflect how I look upon you or others here. Like it or not, even I value your friendship and opinions friend.

      You have a fan here. 🙂

  4. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Well, like you Scotty==I am a hedonist, only looking for my own pleasure. Like you, that can include heated discussions although my goal is to learn and change my opinions, not just to generate heat.

    I think when my mind is changed, I have a better idea than before: I have become a better (thinking/opined) person. I look forward to and earnestly want my mind changed. I want to be the best person I can be.

    Years of this attitude have honed and polished my ideas and arguments, so change doesn’t come as often as I would like. Pros and cons. Not a process of ossification, but rather of being better considered and nuanced than the previously considered and rejected positions.

    Is every opinion of mine this way? Of course not, I’m only human. But thats my goal: not to win an argument or to keep my opinions but to LEARN something new, to change something I think to make it better.

    I am always honest but I will “push” an opinion of mine to see how it fits. This is not trying to test or irritate anyone else, its a challenge to myself.

    I’ve never “made up my mind” to quit this forum…I just lost any pleasure in attending so I wasn’t motivated to return. The reasons have been plainly stated in the threads.

    There are more expressions and examples of the why than I have at my fingertips, but what comes to my mind is when I ask you simply if you can tell the difference between black and white and you answer that you can’t because everything is gray—or whatever. And what I said then was that that answer lack credibility. And that lack of credibility removes my pleasure from from the argument. I can’t learn anything if the opponent won’t admit they can tell black from white. As I didn’t come here to argue for arguments sake, nothing was in it for me…. and I lost interest.

    Scotty–you post some excellent subjects. I’m in fact interested in what theists might think of eternity. My initial thought would be that if an existence in eternity happens it wouldn’t be experienced in the same way we experience Earth Time reality right now. It would be some other variation/experience—otherwise after a few millenniums, I’d think it would become agony? And we don’t accept THAT!

    But I haven’t looked at it, because if I look at it, then I’m going to want to comment, and then that might draw me into a conversation, and I really don’t want to hit the black/white schism.

    Ohh—I just saw the side bar on 350. Yes–I have some new ideas on AGW I’m working thru===”we are all already dead, its just going to take a few generations to fall over.” Thats what the science tells me, but human nature is to deny reality. Bone shaking in its horror–the stupidity of it all, enough to turn one misanthropic.

    So…I have no interest in discussions where simple truths cannot be acknowledged. If I wanted that, I’d go to church.

    • Cerberus says:

      Hey Mr Bobbo,

      In my own opinion of things … Particularly the universe in general, I find many things in black and white.
      Our reality is shrouded in black and white, only our dreams are the real areas – thought – thought to either change our concepts to either a lie for the control of others, or to accept, willingly, that we are wrong in many aspects of truth. This is what life has brought to my attention that it is the unwillingness to change our scope in many avenues. This not to say that each one of us has no truth, but it does say that most only want to hear what they think how things are, but we all have it within us for change…..

      …..and the departure from religious belief is a prime example of this….for religion is nothing but a philosophical thought alone, something we wish to see within our minds eye and try to make it the reality, but the reality is still not the same that we wish it to be, why?

      Because it is black and white, and not shrouded in our gray areas.

      I love ya buddy. Peace. 😉

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        There is black, white, gray==and as many other colors as you wish to parse the spectrum. Right there is a nice memory for me. I used to say for years that there were subtle shades of gray to every black and white issue. The Ying and Yang of more sophisticated philosophy. Over time, though, I’ve concluded and think its better to think there are Black Issues, White Issues and Gray issues. I don’t recall right now what made me change my mind. Over time, perhaps really thinking some things were bad, bad, bad and associating that with the color black, there was no white or gray.

        Even at that, I think its ok for people to disagree about what subjects warrant the black, white or gray labels. Its the rule, rather than the application.

      • Cerberus says:

        Well said, Bobbo, and glad you’re still around.

        I think more in terms about the Ying and the Yang. To be sure, the only gray areas are our questions…questions that have only an answer of either yes/black, or no/white. And there is only one answer to the position/question that you hold.
        This is why I don’t see any shades of gray, for those shades of gray are only pondering questions that need a black or white answer.

        You remind me so much of EOG in that regard. She thinks much on the same wavelength as you do. 😉

        It’s alright to think in multifaceted terms and conditions, I have no quarrel with that. You’ve always had some solid points.

        Thanks for your time.

    • Years of this attitude have honed and polished my ideas and arguments, so change doesn’t come as often as I would like.

      It’s definitional. (Can’t resist.) But, that is exactly what I meant by ossified.

      Is every opinion of mine this way? Of course not, I’m only human. But thats my goal: not to win an argument or to keep my opinions but to LEARN something new, to change something I think to make it better.

      Me too. On topics I’ve not previously thought about much, I’m very likely to consider and come to a new opinion. On those I have thought about, as you note above, my attitude has become honed and polished and my ideas and arguments more firm. So, change is not easy, nor in my case do I necessarily want to come to a different conclusion. Rather, I would say that I would take the opinion out of the box, reconsider, and see if I still come to the same conclusion or not.

      what comes to my mind is when I ask you simply if you can tell the difference between black and white and you answer that you can’t because everything is gray—or whatever. And what I said then was that that answer lack credibility.

      See, this to me is offensive for two reasons. First, you obviously never really did consider my argument because you can’t spout it back to me with any degree of accuracy. Second, while you’re welcome to say that my answer is stupid/idiotic/moronic, saying that it lacks credibility implies that you do not think I am truly giving my honest opinion.

      I assure you that my answer is genuine.

      This is exactly what I mean when I say that I will not apologize for expressing my opinion.

      My opinion is that I cannot call Australian aboriginals “black” when they are more closely related to me “white” than they are to people living in Africa. And, I cannot lump everyone in Africa as “black” when there is far greater genetic difference between bushman, masai, and pygmy than there is between caucasion, asian, Australian aboriginal, and Polynesian.

      Further, I do not know why my sister’s kids (“black” dad; “white” mom) are “black” but my friend in college was “white” despite having a “black” mom and “white” dad. Our view of race makes no sense to me.

      You’re entitled to your opinion; You’re not entitled to tell me that I am not or that my opinion lacks credibility. I assure you that it is genuinely my opinion.

      Why rehash it? Why can’t we agree to disagree? Instead of hammering away at a conversation where we both have nothing more to say and will not convince each other, why not move on to more enjoyable conversations? It is you that keeps bringing this one up. I’ve been done with it for a long time. I know your opinion. I understand your opinion. I disagree with your opinion. Why can’t you say the same about mine?

      Scotty–you post some excellent subjects. I’m in fact interested in what theists might think of eternity. My initial thought would be that if an existence in eternity happens it wouldn’t be experienced in the same way we experience Earth Time reality right now. It would be some other variation/experience—otherwise after a few millenniums, I’d think it would become agony? And we don’t accept THAT!

      Thank you. You post some excellent replies. I’d love it if you’d post this on that thread so that we could discuss it. I think what you and I both need to work on is knowing when to just call it quits on a conversation. All conversations will become as dull as heaven if we do not let them end. Unfortunately, both of us like to have the last word and both of us always like to reply.

      How about if we work on learning when a conversation is just over and we move on?

      Ohh—I just saw the side bar on 350. Yes–I have some new ideas on AGW I’m working thru===”we are all already dead, its just going to take a few generations to fall over.” Thats what the science tells me, but human nature is to deny reality. Bone shaking in its horror–the stupidity of it all, enough to turn one misanthropic.

      I hope you’re right that we have a few generations before we fall over. I worry that it will happen during my or my wife’s life expectancy.

      As for basic truths, some are, some aren’t. We also need to be able to discuss when something humans take for granted is really not the case. For many generations, people took for granted that the sun went around the earth. There are cases where I think people still do think along those lines, such as with race. If my opinion is genuinely different, I will express that.

      Why is it so hard to deal with me pointing out that, as Heinlein said, ‘If “everybody knows” such-and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one. ‘

      What he meant is that if the best argument for something is that everyone knows it, it’s probably false. Consider this and your argument about race. Or don’t. I’d rather move on from that conversation anyway. But, since you keep bringing it up, I’m unable to let it slide.

      Damn my brain for making me reply about this again and again.

      We’d do much better to just agree to disagree and then talk about the fun stuff like the destruction of the biosphere and the human species or wishing for oblivion after a few billion years in heaven. Then when that’s no fun anymore, we can move on to another topic.

      We need to learn to let shit go.

      Can we agree on that?

      P.S. Did you know that idly fantasizing about catastrophic events is known as “disasturbation”?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        That is a most excellent response, on its own, in a vacuum.
        But the black/white was only the last example of what I called a “schism” or “black/white schism” as a label for when you simply are not credible to my way of thinking….and yes I do mean credible as going to your honesty. Not just on the racial issue, but on others like artificial intelligence, euthanasia, probably a few others. Responding about the actual colors used is just a diversion, I didn’t confirm the accuracy of that because it isn’t germane to the point I’m making.

        We can agree to disagree on particular facts and values but we can’t agree to find agreeable what we find distasteful or unpleasant.

        I don’t like heated discussions. I put up with them looking for that learning experience that may happen regardless of the heat. I call you not credible because that is exactly what I do think on the issue we were discussing, and you don’t like that thinking it is “heated.” But its not heat, its analysis. In response, you call me a cocaine addict. I doubt you actually do, its just your heated response. On its own, such name calling that your resort to doesn’t bother me…OTHER THAN… you don’t address the issue when you have reached a point that you really ought to be. So, the pleasure I would look for does not appear. If you changed your recognitions and were honest about being able to see the difference between black and white, then the attitudes, beliefs, values, and facts you have about racial issues would have a better chance to modify my own which IS what I am looking for. But my ideas will never grow when they are that far apart from your own–and you aren’t honest enough to deal with what “everyone” agrees on.

        Even though you have confirmed the apex of the pyramid, lets look at the base once again: can you pick out one black marble in a bag of 1 black marble and 99 white ones?

        Disasturbation. I remember when you first used that term here but I had forgotten about it. Urban Dictionary defines it differently but its hardly useful to argue about made up words. Still sounds funny just saying it. I vote it gets added to Websters—but given its probable UD meaning, not often use it. Perhaps your definition would be “2.”

  5. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Bad Dog==yes, you can apply a black/white gate to analysis but my point was that there are issues that are gray. Now…my point was that probably those gray issues do have some black and white points that can be determined just as you say, but they are called gray usually because the black and white points can’t be identified. Its ambiguous…but the issue is still there.

    My point is NOT to go all Black, or all White, or All black and white, or all Gray. Give each its due.

    Its funny with that Ying/Yang symbol while all about gray, its delineations about black/white are very distinct. I’ve always wondered if the gray coming from that symbol is achieved only by mental calculation/definition or if we are supposed to spin the wheel?

    I haven’t yet tried to find an answer to how that symbol is supposed to be appreciated. Not enough time in the day.

    • Cerberus says:

      I understand your viewpoint in relation to “gray areas” but it will still have an answer of positive or negative…you are correct overall upon the instance with which the human mind works, but like I said before, many of us try and make things fit our facts by one of wishful thinking (philosophy) even when there’s a yes or no answer. So once more, I recognize that you are correct to say that human thought is tethered in gray areas, but there are still black and white answers to proposed (gray area) questions.
      We only determine it by how we see it.

      We are both right.
      I hope.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Both right when we are disagreeing with one another?

        Thats rare, but possible. Of interest, my viewpoint is the same for all the colors. I said give black, white, and gray “all their due.” All the other colors too, but lets master black, white, and gray as a warm up?

        Along this line, I would say we are tethered by conclusions that some subject is black, white, or gray rather than identifying all colors according to their presence and being willing to accept the ambiguity of the gray and wait for more information.

        How close we are agreeing or disagreeing right now….its a gray area for me.

      • Cerberus says:

        Wow! Good answer!
        I think you have something there that we both are much in agreement upon. Thanks for that answer!

        Most of us have already conditioned ourselves with a predetermined set of answers, or rules in what’s more commonly known as (BIAS) that will normally set us up for failure. So yes, you and I are in much agreement in awaiting for more information to which we can best answer the question. And that’s where I was trying to get at, but you’ve described it perfectly! And we agree.

        That was rather refreshing. Thanks, Mr Bobbo.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Well thanks Bad Dog. Still a lot of gray going on. I’d actually like to find a subject between you and me, and interested others, on which we could put this color ying yang notion to a good demonstrative experience, but time has closed this opportunity.

        Stay curious. Read the dictionary.

  6. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Rod–most people find me just as you say. In my own mind, I directed nothing false your way, and nothing meant to be offensive, while I might recognize something would be offense that was only collateral to the point I wanted to make.

    You’ll have fewer disagreements with dishonest people. They don’t want an honest relationship…. they are after something else.

    Or not. Everything is fact specific and variable. I would hope you got “something” worthwhile? If not, nothing wrong at all in define my type as a type you don’t like interacting with. Its what standards and values and honest determinations are all about.

  7. bobbo,

    You’re working hard to make sure I won’t miss you. You say my response was excellent in a vacuum. Yours sucks in any context.

    But the black/white was only the last example of what I called a “schism” or “black/white schism” as a label for when you simply are not credible to my way of thinking….and yes I do mean credible as going to your honesty. Not just on the racial issue, but on others like artificial intelligence, euthanasia, probably a few others. Responding about the actual colors used is just a diversion, I didn’t confirm the accuracy of that because it isn’t germane to the point I’m making.

    I promise you that I am always honest about my opinions. My brain may work in such a way that you are so completely unable to understand it that you think I’m lying. But, I’m not lying.

    On race, which is our most concrete example of our complete disconnect, I can say that I could probably guess 80% or even 90% of the time whether you would call someone black or white. But, I know that I would be getting way more than 20% wrong in real absolute terms. I know you would also be getting it wrong on similar percentages. And, I gave very concrete examples about exactly why I feel this way.

    No bobbo. I am not lying.

    When you realize that, you’re welcome back. But, if you keep insisting I am lying, I will not only not miss you but may actually ban you from this blog. This paragraph above and your continuation of it through the post in question is more insulting than anything you’ve said previously.

    We can agree to disagree on particular facts and values but we can’t agree to find agreeable what we find distasteful or unpleasant.

    I didn’t say you had to find my views agreeable. You’re welcome to find them more than distasteful. You can say that you find them unconscionable, as I find your views on rape in marriage.

    But, you must accept them as my views.

    In response, you call me a cocaine addict.

    You called yourself a cocaine addict. I think you need to be reminded every so often that when you are known to have told at least one bald-faced lie, you lose a lot of credibility yourself.

    … you don’t address the issue when you have reached a point that you really ought to be. So, the pleasure I would look for does not appear.

    Please understand that whenever I am failing to address an issue it is because I failed to accept the premise in your statement. This is me getting stuck on A before moving on to B. So, when you give an example of a discussion with your wife during sex and her telling you to get off of her, I find the example so contrived and unrealistic that I find it hard to discuss such a premise. When I finally did address it, you didn’t like my response that of course the crime would have to be rape and couldn’t possibly be assault because there was no assault. You had created such a ludicrous example that the only crime left was forced continuation of the continuation of having sex, which had somehow started with consent despite your hypothetical preexisting argument.

    So, when you find that I am not addressing something, assume you haven’t gotten me past point A.

    And, you’re welcome to simply opt out of any conversation the moment it is no longer fun. That’s what agree to disagree means. It doesn’t mean you agree with the opinion expressed. In fact, it likely means that each of us finds the other’s opinion rather abhorrent. It just means that we both recognize that the abhorrent opinion will not change from either side. It just means that the conversation is over, not that agreement has been reached.

    Regarding disasturbation, we are simply using different dictionaries. Mine is deliberately humorous. So, you can win on that.

    http://www.davekrieger.net/Glossary/D.shtml

    Disasturbate, v.
    To idly fantasize about possible disasters, without considering their actual likelihood or the prospects for preventing them. Disasturbation, n.

    Though, I must say the two humorous definitions for disasturbation vary so greatly that they constitute wholly separate meanings. Perhaps the words are homographs?

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=disasturbation

    Even though you have confirmed the apex of the pyramid, lets look at the base once again: can you pick out one black marble in a bag of 1 black marble and 99 white ones?

    Yes. I can do this with marbles.

    But, I know that in a bag of 100 people where there are many assorted ethnicities and various tones of skin that I cannot perform the task of picking out the “black” ones with sufficient skill as to be worthy of discussion.

    If you feel that I am lying about this opinion you can fuck off and die until you are willing to apologize.

    For my part, I apologize for any times I have engaged in name-calling. But, I will never ever apologize for expressing an honest opinion. And, I expect that even if you call me an idiot for my opinion you will at least show me the respect of believing that it is indeed my opinion. I promise that it is.

  8. the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist
    This is pomposity out of control and off putting!
    Coining new terms, eg. Disasterbation / Disasterbate is a deviation from mainstream English, which may lose something in the definitioning!
    Being hung up on ethnicity/race is an American cultural flaw, that is not Canadian [which makes me more of an American than a Canadian to a degree]
    Why apologize? You wrote it, now wear it! Was it written in frustration or facetiousness? You are the looser no matter which way!
    As for Cocaine, it like all other chemicals, has its properties. It has some better pain relieving properties than other pharmaceuticals, I am told, but it just happens to be illegal! I have known a welder with long term back injury pain who would self medicate as required. Is he more or less stupid than the rest of us that suffer without? It has been known since the early 1950’s [articles in Saturday Evening Post] that the daily maintenance dose is less than a cup of coffee! So go figure! That also requires some sort of controls regards operating machinery, vehicles, yada yada!
    Why has ye olde English epithet of “Fuck Off” been so in vogue all these centuries, when it implies going out and getting some pleasure? When in reality the opposite is meant!
    Our species is therefore Homo stupidous!

    • Coining new terms, eg. Disasterbation / Disasterbate is a deviation from mainstream English, which may lose something in the definitioning!

      Why?

      Every single term in English or any other language was “coined” at some point, including this usage of the word “coined” where one is not literally minting a coin with the new term on it.

      Nauseous used to mean that which causes nausea. Now, it is proper English to say “I am nauseous.” It used to be that one would say something more like, “the nauseous motion of the boat made me nauseated.” So, a hundred years ago, to say “I am nauseous” would indicate that your presence caused nausea in others.

      New words are coined all the time. Language evolves quickly. Evolutionarily, languages evolved to change quickly over time and distance as a way of telling Us from Them. They talk funny.

      Look up shibboleth.

      Never mind. I’ll do it.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shibboleth

      shibboleth
      [shib-uh-lith, ‐leth]

      Word Origin

      noun
      1. a peculiarity of pronunciation, behavior, mode of dress, etc., that distinguishes a particular class or set of persons.
      2. a slogan; catchword.
      3. a common saying or belief with little current meaning or truth.
      Origin
      Hebrew
      Hebrew shibbōleth literally, freshet, a word used by the Gileadites as a test to detect the fleeing Ephraimites, who could not pronounce the sound sh (Judges 12:4-6)

    • BTW, George Carlin had a whole routine about fuck you where he used it to mean something good, which it literally does.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist
      This is pomposity out of control and off putting! /// No, its merely descriptive as a short cut instead of a bio. I will demonstrate: do you think I go to church on Sunday? If not, why not? How is that pompous?

      Coining new terms, eg. Disasterbation / Disasterbate is a deviation from mainstream English, which may lose something in the definitioning! /// Not my issue.

      Being hung up on ethnicity/race is an American cultural flaw, that is not Canadian [which makes me more of an American than a Canadian to a degree] /// I’m not hung up unless your definition of it is being willing to discuss it……. and having the human facility of being able to discern colors and the human failing of attaching non color attributes thereafter.

      Why apologize? // Where did I apologize?

      You wrote it, now wear it! /// “Most people agree with you.” thats wearing it.

      Was it written in frustration or facetiousness? You are the looser no matter which way! //// What is “it?” My response to you? Just being polite and recognizing your willingness to contribute.

      As for Cocaine, it like all other chemicals, has its properties. It has some better pain relieving properties than other pharmaceuticals, I am told, but it just happens to be illegal! I have known a welder with long term back injury pain who would self medicate as required. Is he more or less stupid than the rest of us that suffer without? It has been known since the early 1950’s [articles in Saturday Evening Post] that the daily maintenance dose is less than a cup of coffee! So go figure! That also requires some sort of controls regards operating machinery, vehicles, yada yada! /// Not relevant.

      Why has ye olde English epithet of “Fuck Off” been so in vogue all these centuries, when it implies going out and getting some pleasure? When in reality the opposite is meant! /// I don’t use it.

      Our species is therefore Homo stupidous! /// Certainly a mix, and the average is only 100 IQ….a subject of several threads.

  9. Thinking about this a bit more, though I don’t know why.

    If you put 100 human beings in a room and one of them is a different race than the others, yes, I can pick out the neanderthal. Though, the truth is that you could probably confuse me by throwing in a few of those open carry Texas guys.

    Sorry neanderthals. I know you’re smarter than that … and likely smarter than me and bobbo as well.

    So, I can probably guess 90% of the time whether you would call someone “black” or “white”. But, since these are not well defined and are not races, it’s not so much that you and I would both be wrong in our classification so much as it is that no such classification exists.

    Social construct attempts at these classifications are generally racist. Some small number may be pragmatic, such as in cases of forensics. But, the classifications of what you call race and I call ethnicity are too plastic and locally defined to have real meaning.

    So, yes, I can identify a human being at least 99% of the time, provided you don’t stack the deck too heavily with literally slack-jawed morons.

    BTW, if this is not genuinely my opinion, why am I going to all of this trouble to explain it to you?

  10. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    You’ve gone from can’t do it to able to do it 99% of the time.

    When your position was “can’t do it”–how was that credible?

    • Not if you read who the other one was in my 99% example. I can tell h.s.sapien from h.s.neanderthal 99% of the time. The open carry Texas assholes would make up the 1% that I might get wrong.

      From my post, check the following two quotes.

      If you put 100 human beings in a room and one of them is a different race than the others, yes, I can pick out the neanderthal. Though, the truth is that you could probably confuse me by throwing in a few of those open carry Texas guys.

      So, yes, I can identify a human being at least 99% of the time, provided you don’t stack the deck too heavily with literally slack-jawed morons.

      Sorry I ordered my post confusingly such that my discussion of whether I could guess who you would call “black” and who you would call “white” in the middle.

      I should also have been more clear in that second quote indicating that I meant an h.s. sapiens from an h.s. neanderthalensis, as these are two different races. Since neanderthalensis are (or were) human beings, my second quote is not as clear as my first.

      Sorry about that.

      P.S. I don’t like leaving my prior reply in an unclear state. I would correct it except that it would alter something to which you have already replied. So, it must stay in that unclear state.

  11. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Yeah, I know, just giving you another chance.

    You can tell neanderhals because of the way they look.

    Like color.

    • > Yeah, I know, just giving you another chance.

      So, not really being, in your terms, credible.

      > You can tell neanderhals because of the way they look.

      Yeah. Like real differences in bone structure and body proportions. And, when you look into the science behind it, you find that their genetics are different as well, that they are a distinct population, with the exception of a small percentage of the DNA of some Europeans (probably including myself) who may have up to 4% neander DNA.

      > Like color.

      Not at all like color.

      There are dark skinned Caucasians and light skinned people among whatever group you might choose to call black. I’m not even sure what term would be used for that ethnicity since there actually is no “black” ethnicity. Or, more accurately, there are probably hundreds of ethnicities and sub-ethnicities that you’d just lump as “black” even if some are more closely related to us than to Bantus.

      bobbo, your opinion is abhorrent to me. I strongly disagree with it. I fully understand it. There is no more reason to discuss it. I will never get you to accept my position since you have not yet even proven that you understand it. So, what more can I say?

      Now, will you please apologize for accusing me of lying when you now admit that I was not? I really would like to hear you say it. I found the accusation severely offensive. I take pride in my honesty.

      Then we can move on to the fun conversations. I agree that this conversation ceased being fun a long time ago. So, why do you keep bringing it up?

      Let the fucker die and let’s move on.

  12. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    The only position I have ever taken is that race is a social construct as real as all the other social constructs. Its not a biological or genetic construct beyond a few insignificant issues and no where near as damaging as the social construct has been.

    You are lying right now about not being able to tell the difference between the races. I only think that to the degree I think you can tell the difference between a black and a white marble. That distinction is also not genetic.

    I make it an issue because it crops up in too many conversations: you not admitting to simple truths. You say otherwise….. but there it is. “Everybody” can tell the difference between black and white. Silly to deny that because you don’t like the consequences that flow from it.

  13. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    It bothers me too, so I will add: It was my “initial” position that any real genetics were not valid regarding racial issues and that it was purely a social construct. It was only as we argued that I discovered several highly qualified geneticists DO claim race in humans is a valid construct. Richard Dawkins as I recall and EO Wilson among them.

    So==you have the dictionary definition of the term but you don’t accept social construct so you go forward as if it doesn’t exist. You disagree with the qualified geneticists who do say there are human races (as defined==not a sub group as with other species) so you go forward as if that doesn’t exist. I would call you stubborn and a bit blinded by your preferences and values if that was it.

    But you go one step further and say you can’t SEE any difference between the races as commonly defined…. all the can’t tell combo’s to be put aside as mixed. THAT is incredible.

    The part that you do in other subjects is the former–being stubborn and blinded, not accepting definitions that you can read in a book. And, we can “say” to drop it, but neither one of us will.

    Its not fun any more for either of us as we have reached this impasse as to what rule of intercourse we will follow. There should be some growth of some kind for both of us in this. I know I will look for it.

    • Numerous people have made the argument that race exists in human beings. Most were motivated by extreme racism. None. Read that, not a single one. No one has ever successfully gotten a definition of race through peer review and to the point of having named subspecies of humans.

      Why?

      Because we’re all “black”. Some of us also happen to be leucistic.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Because race is not a subspecies.

        Its in the inbetween spaces. You have to admit there are changes between the species and the subspecies. Thats where human racial identified characteristics are as noted by the Extreme Fascits Racists Dawkins and Wilson.

  14. You are lying right now

    You’re asking to be permanently banned right now.

    One more time is all it will take. I’ll start researching how to do it as no one has ever been quite the asshole on this site that you are being right now. So, I never needed to figure this out before.

    Its [sic] not a biological or genetic construct beyond a few insignificant issues and no where near as damaging as the social construct has been.

    It’s not a biological concept, period.

    Therefore it is not race, period.

    Therefore I cannot determine a person’s race other than human, period.

    I can guess what you would call “black” or “white”. But, I refuse to accept this definition as race. Without heredity, it will never ever meet my definition of race.

    Why are you unable to fucking shut up about this and move on?

    Why must you be a total dickhead and accuse me of lying?

    You lump as “black” a whole host of ethnicities that have no relation to each other. That is not race. It is not heredity. The only thing they have in common is the human default level of melanin. Therefore, it is me, and likely you as well, though I don’t know, who have the non-default state. We are leucistic, the term for a member of a species with less dark pigmentation.

    But, it doesn’t matter since every single human on the planet was “black” before we left Africa.

    So, we’re all “black”, but some of us are “leucistic blacks”. And, we can define everyone on the planet as “black”. Then we can say that there are sub-races (hey, let’s call these ethnicities, which is exactly what they are) that have evolved a gene or set of genes to reduce melanin. Some of these ethnicities have more or less melanin, but most have less than the default state of human beings which is … “black”.

    Leucistic is not a race.

    Remind me again why when I suggested just properly using the word ethnicity you were so fucking adamant about calling it race.

  15. You know what bobbo. Ditch this topic. Whatever you say next, you can have the last word. But, please please please apologize for calling me a liar.

    Or, are you really such a total fucking asshole that you actually believe you know what is going on inside my brain better than I do? I’m sure I have no fucking clue what goes on in your brain.

    I didn’t tolerate that from an actual friend in meat space; I certainly won’t tolerate it in an efriend.

    Remember, you are in my living room here. It’s not as if you’ve ever had the balls or commitment to create your own blog where you can set your own rules and where you invite people into your living room only to have them shit on the floor. Clean up your fucking mess.

  16. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Why do you care so much? I haven’t gotten upset with you telling me to Fuck Off, that I’m a cocaine addict, that I am a racist..whatever else I didn’t pay enough attention to remember but you want to be thought of so noble that you cant tell there is a Black TV channel and Motown Records.

    Its said that Seeing is Believing, but you refuse to do that. I am using the race subject because it is more objectively true, as defined by Social Construct, Dawkins, Wilson, and common life in the USA, rather than the other subjects that raise near to the same issue but are slightly more subtle….and because it will come up every other subject.

    You like to think you are honest, so do I. What should I do when I think you are doing something so against simple reality as to defy explanation?

    Can you see black vs white? Its not “you” that I think is lying who deny this, its EVERYBODY and anybody who does that.

    I would be dishonest myself to dance around the label just because your feelings get hurt. Right next in line is a short discussion on how much you love heated discussions.

    I suspect, but don’t know or think for sure in the categorical sense I call on just above, that when you say you can’t understand B and C until you understand or can accept A what you are sometimes doing is completely understanding B & C so you go out of your way to not understand A so as to avoid the consequences.

    Ossified.

    Yes, thats what it is. add in a dash of overly self righteous and hypocrisy too. Pro tip==when certain words and idea are your Kryptonite, don’t draw attention to it. some assholes will harp on it for that reason alone. Note the use of “some.”

    You don’t have to ban me from your forum, although I’d think you would want to go ahead and figure out how. Information is a good thing, knowledge is power.

    All you have to do is stop inviting me to come back.

    So, for the third time: I withdraw. I will do this comfortably knowing that my lack of pleasure and its probable continuance was given a full and complete confirmation. Should you ever crack what “its definitional” means, please feel free to send me another email. I’d be happy to know you have achieved this level of sophistication, whether I’d be invited back or not.

    Actually…… simple, basic stuff.

    Ha, ha. Right now, I’m kinda happy. Arguing always gets the juices flowing. I’ll be sadder……. tomorrow.

  17. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Whats is sad? We agree on B & C. Ain’t that a kick?

  18. bobbo, the banned says:

    As what may be my last post here, unless someone posts back in a relevant way, and I haven’t been banned otherwise, for the first time ever I googled (“definitional argument”) and as always, I was heartened to learn (shirley I knew this in the past, so I am only reminded…good stuff, no wonder the term/notion stuck with me), some details and additional depth.

    The very first link is http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sjsu.edu%2Fpeople%2Fjulie.hawker%2Fcourses%2Fc1%2Fs1%2FDefinitional%2520Argument%2520Slides.ppt&ei=m4MnVIbGMMuOyATs6YDYCw&usg=AFQjCNF5QIRKm_25oSXPgVoGUYoc-54wVg&bvm=bv.76247554,d.aWw

    which is a power point presentation, the first sentence of which is “These arguments are particularly powerful in that they help determine what something or someone is. Thus they can result in inclusion or exclusion.”

    Blows me away how on point that is for our discussion about race, and my participation on this forum. I do assume its talking about some other aspect than actual group identification, I didn’t catch it in the few subsequent slides I looked at.

    So, more pedantically, I added (define “definitional argument”) and got this:

    What is definitional argument? – Yahoo Answers
    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid
    Nov 10, 2010 – A definitional argument sets up a definition of a term and then examines a specific, contested case to see if it matches the definition.

    Still not really what I want but its good to see that some more (hours) of the Google might get to this point: we have to define our terms as it goes to the basis of how we think and more practically: what we think.

    Demonstration: “If you say a tail is a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” ///// I think Mark Twain or someone said: “The dog still has four legs because what you call something doesn’t change what it is.” This is the Scotty position. With religious fervor and inflexibility with a mind made up something “is” what it IS, and what it IS is what I say it IS.

    Linguists, thinkers, and bobbo recognize the truth of the statement that words mean only what they have been defined to mean and the dog now has 5 legs because legs have been defined to include the APPENDAGE previously identified as legs and tails. Can you see how that works? That words, even to a large degree, the ideas they describe, are totally definitional? If the first question was: “How many appendages does a dog have, most would answer 5, some might ask what sex the dog was?”

    So, do races exist? Scotty says no because he knows what a race IS and he uses a biological genetic based definition of a group of qualified geneticists who define race as a sub species of a group. Other qualified geneticists define race differently and do use the term. The dictionary basically states the term is not useful to most in the genetic field (less than .0000001% of the population) but is a social construct used by the remainder of the population.

    How many legs, appendages, races you have is PURELY definitional.

    Perhaps that analysis is too sophisticated for ossified brains to wrap around as “everyone knows” a dog only has 4 legs. Its that simple. Well, ok, such people miss the beauty and insights that flow from applying a definitional approach to a subject.

    I enjoy the definitional approach. Indeed as the power point slide says: it “helps determine what something or someone is.”

    Honesty in argument/thinking often based on simple insight or flexibility is definitional too. EVERY argument/thinking process is definitional. You can define the words formally, or just assume those definitions without thinking…………………..without thinking.

    What would I do if I found myself mouthing the words that only .ooooo1% of people might even agree with? ((ie–even those genetic scientists who say race is not useful in genetics probably recognize and use the social construct of race===because we are social creatures)) I would recognize I probably have something wrong and think about very clearly why I think what I do and whether or not I should change.

    I certainly wouldn’t think that someone agreeing with 99.9999999 of the people were thinking something “abhorrent.”

    If you aren’t blind, you can tell the slope of a forehead and the general build of a person. This is the basis for recognizing the category of neanderthal or any other category of man wants to construct for whatever reasons there are. Color of skin is one such characteristic. That doesn’t mean neanderthals are better or worse or completely the same as anyone else. Those terms must be defined and applied as well.

    Simple. Those who claim they can’t do this……. need to do better.

  19. bobbo. I have long said that I understand your point. I disagree. I just reject the social construct definition. It’s not race. If anything, it’s ethnicity. But, the more I think about this the more I realize that it isn’t even that. “Black” is the default skin color of humans. It does not indicate a group of people. In a definitional discussion, we discuss what we can agree as the definition of race. Well, we’ve come to an impasse. We can’t agree on the definition.

    You say, “he looks different; therefore that difference is real.” I do not accept this premise. I didn’t claim I don’t see those differences. I said I can’t classify people by race. If I don’t accept your definition of race, I am not lying; i am not being less than credible. I’m simply disagreeing that what we’re looking at is race. What you call black is the default condition of humanity. What you call white is leucism. These are not races. I can tell a leucistic human from a normal human. I can also, unlike you, see all of the colors of the rainbow. I can see people whose skin is so dark it’s blue-black. I can see light skinned normal people that are lighter skinned than dark skinned leucistics. What I don’t see is a coherent definition of groups of related people.

    [edit] Oh crap!! Albinos bobbo!! Albinos!!!!! I’m sure you know an albino when you see one. Are albinos a race?

    Let me try one more tack.

    By social construct, the sun revolves around the earth.

    Yes. Really. It still does by social construct in direct contradiction to science. We still speak of “sunrise” and “sunset” despite the demonstrably true fact that the earth revolves around the sun.

    Do you think the sun revolves around the earth?

    Be credible.

  20. bobbo,

    I just realized something important. Please read this very carefully.

    You think I’m lying because you think I’m saying I can’t tell a leucistic person in a room full of normal people. This is not the case. I can see the difference in skin color, but would still get way too many people in the “wrong” category to be meaningful. But, what I’ve said most strongly is that I don’t think these are races. So, no. I can’t tell race.

    Let me show you why.

    If you put an albino in a room full of 99 normal (“black”) people, I can tell the albino.

    If you put an albino in a room full of 99 leucistic (“white”) people, I can still tell the albino. Even among leucistic people, I can do this with much higher accuracy than I can pick out leucistic from normal.

    If you put a blond in a room full of brunettes, I can tell the blond.

    If you put 99 brown-eyed people and 1 blue-eyed person in a room, I can tell the blue-eyed person.

    If you put a curly-haired person in a room with 99 straight-haired people, I can tell the curly haired person. Though, where does wavy fit in?

    If you put 100 naked people in a room and only one of them has a penis, I can pick out the lucky son-of-a-bitch with the penis.

    If you put 100 people in a room and only one of them has a big nose, oh wait, there are “shades” of big. I might say there are five big-nosed people while you might say there is only one.

    The point is that none of these things that we can all clearly see are actually races. Albinos are not a race. Blue-eyes are not a race. Curly-hairs are not a race. Penised people are not a race. Big-noses are not a race. And, normal skin colored people are not a race.

    We live in a time when the vast majority of the people on the planet truly believe that the sun revolves around the earth race exists in living human beings. I’m just ahead of my time in realizing that the current state of human opinion is false.

    Social construct does not make the sun go around the earth.

    Social construct does not mean races really exist in living homo sapiens.

    As for race being equal to subspecies it is exactly that in every species except humans. Why do you believe humans are so special as to be exempt from the rule we use for the other millions of species on the planet or even merely the tens of thousands of vertebrates?

    For me, I’m too hung up on consistency. I’m too whole hog or none. I can’t make an exception for humans. For me, race always implies heredity, even in humans, just as it does in all other animals.

  21. bobbo, the banned says:

    As we require our own teeth to be pulled to make progress, we leave ourselves toothless.

    You are still failing to approach the situation definitionally, as in getting what appreciating there is from all the definitions, not just one, not just yours.

    You are viewing a large subject matter and picking out one color rather than giving all their due. Color here being a metaphor for the various definitions of what applies.

    You deny you can make racial applications and distinction when it is easy to do so because you know there are hard cases where the determination could not be more, or once made would be wrong. I’ve said about 4 times to throw those mixed race folks into a different category…and that one day we would all be in that category.

    Of course you can define a race as anyone that is albino. THATS the definition of the race. Thats why its a social construct. If you could discuss and appreciate the social construct of race, then we could discuss whey albinos have not been made into their own race. But that subtle and interesting discussion is lost to us.

    Are you ahead of your time…or stuck in the bias of your own time in an extreme politically correct way. What would you tell Richard Dawkins?

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/05/richard-dawkins-accepts-the-usefulness-of-race/#.VCgK2BadXpI

    Imagine you are in a doctors office and he crawls out on his broken crutches saying he gave a poison to his last patient, an African Man who can still be caught if you run down to the lobby right now and stop him. Would you do it, or let the African Man die because you don’t see race? Don’t quibble.

    “Social construct does not mean races really exist in living homo sapiens.” //// Of course they do. BUT for the first time ever it hit me. You know the worn out example of how science views “theory” differently than does non-scientist or those who want to deny the value of scientific theory? Well….. the same thing is going on with “race” as you want to use it. You want to use it as “some” geneticists do, while the rest of humanity uses the same word in a totally different way. Race was being used way before formal science was even a subject different from curiosity and philosophy.

    Its been said already 15 times that human race is NOT genetic sub species. Its not even interesting that science describes scientific race differently in humans from what the rest of humanity does.

    Again, its a failure to appreciate what language is. A system of symbols applied to ideas based on perception. Lots of squish in there.

    You can have your own values, but social constructs exist whether you agree with them or not. Slaves did not agree with race theory either, but they lived for generations in chains.

    I will say it expressly: I think dividing humans up into races is a stupid hideous thing that we need to work against, just like most other “isms.” ((Side==why are isms almost all bad?)) But I’m not so far off the deep end to ignore the reality of their use.

    Side #2==reading something else, I came across the nugget that male sperm whales have no mammary gland or teats of even the most remote residual/vestigial kind. The comment was made by strict application of the definition, they should not be considered mammals. Mostly a joke, and I didn’t read it further. I assume male sperm whales do have a mammary early in their zygote stages and it gets absorbed fairly early?

    Why hang up on and not drop the issue of race?===because the lack of definitional appreciation is present in most if not nearly all subjects where we have disagreed. Its a “key” to being able to argue/discuss/understand just about anything, as opposed to cherry picking a position one wishes to hold and resolutely sticking to it regardless of facts opposing it.

  22. I understand and appreciate your definition of race perfectly bobbo. I just reject it.

    Does the sun revolve around the earth?

    Side 2: monotremes (platypus and echidnas) have no nipples. They just squirt milk from a hole. I imagine the males of those species also have no teats.

    I have not studied this about sperm whales in particular or indeed about any mammals. But, my understanding is that all mammals are categorized as mammals for the females of the species.

    Perhaps it’s a recognition of Heinlein’s opinion.

    ‘Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, “equality” is a disaster.’ – Robert A Heinlein

    P.S. Mammals suck; cetaceans also blow.

  23. bobbo, the banned says:

    I woke up dreaming and thinking about this. We can never know the mind of another. I’ll never know if you are rejecting the definitional state of man’s understanding of the Universe, or if you just don’t get it.

    There is a Great Distinction between rejecting the ideas and values of a stated belief system versus rejecting the notion that that belief system exists. I support the former, and reject the latter.

  24. I believe people believe race exists in humans. I believe they are wrong. I do get it. I fully understand your point. You have nothing to add. You will not convince me.

    You are incapable of understanding my point. I have nothing else to add. You will never get it.

    That’s why I say we’re done with this conversation.

    You won’t even answer whether you think the sun revolves around the earth. You probably don’t even see the parallel.

    sunrise sunset
    sunrise sunset
    swiftly flow the years.

    one season following another
    bobbo and scott never reaching an understanding on race.

  25. Back to mammals and sucking and blowing ….

  26. The Expulsion Of Gods says:

    Hey, I remember you. 😉
    I’ll be seeing you today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: