Welcome ... to a thinking(?!) blog (with online shopping) in and for these ignorant and superstitious times we "morally superior" Americans (and, for that matter, the world) are living in. Speaking out on the issues and matters of the day Your Correspondent finds interesting and worthwhile, in its own gnarly sort of way.***As a matter of record (Fox Prolefeed types, take note), this blog is NOT a stereotype; understand this in advance.***Your support of this weblog would be greatly appreciated, be it through the online shopping component or even through sharing these posts through Twitter or other social-networking sites you may be associated with.***If you have comments or questions, don't hesitate to send me an e-mail when you have the opportunity. Better yet, why not leave a comment on these several postings (so long as it's tasteful and decent)?***BOOKMARK! BOOKMARK!! Oy vey iz mir!!!***Thanks for visiting today ... and I hope you can make this a regular habit, or reasonable facsimilie thereof.





iludiumphosdex
October 2nd
Male
Winona


qrcode

(The above, in case you're wondering, is a QR [as in Quick Response] Code for mobile phones equipped with the Kaywa QR Code Reader, which allows you to read The Exaggerator on mobile phones enabled to access the Information Stuporbahn. It's free to download. Now you know.)


Have you considered subscribing to the RSS feed for this weblog?

You can do so right here, come to think of it--by way of e-mail, RSS feed readers, social-networking sites, what have you:

Share/Save/Bookmark

Subscribe

(Remember that you can always cancel your subscription @ any time. I won't hold it against you.)





(part 1):

New shopping, new life: (Which is intended to help Your Correspondent supplement his disability benefits, for the most part, as well as Some Good Causes, foremost among them being Reduction of the U.S. National Debt):

Support This Site

Be sure to visit The Exaggerator eStore; offering such a selection of products as I find worthy of your consideration for their esoterica or their practicality.

Try Angie's List Today!

J&R Computer/Music World

6ave.com Brand Logo 120x60

Click for New York Transit Museum Gifts

Soda Club USA

Rubberband Logo 234x60

Shop Gevalia Today!

www.smallflower.com

Office Depot, Inc

SmartBargains.com

120x90 Static Logo Link

Trueshopping Ltd

Smarthome, Inc.

Sunglass Hut, The Authority on Sunglasses

Shop at Swell.com for your surf gear and surfing lifestyle!

Cal_logo_120x60.jpg

Logo 234x60

 Mr. Bluelight 234x60 May2007

Logo - 125x125

SwissOutpost.com

BargainCell.com Up to 80% off Cell Phone Accessories


(part 2):

If you're a blogger or webmaster looking to add value for money to your blog/website, please take a look @ these worthwhile options:

LinkShare Referral Program UK

Get Chitika eMiniMalls

Get Chitika eMiniMalls

LinkShare  Referral  Prg

And why not take a moment to look @ PayPal as a way to add online shopping to your website, or otherwise raise funds.

(But please: Use it for good.)






My blog is worth $8,468.10.
How much is your blog worth?

Add to Technorati Favorites


   

<< May 2008 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Social networking
With whom should I associate?

MySpace
Facebook
Twitter
MySpace+Twitter
Facebook+Twitter
It doesn't matter
None of the above
Wha-a?

ZardozZ News and Satire
Power By Ringsurf

Free ads


Lowes Coupon
How to Blog


Log in to your my-syte email here.


Voting for the 2009 Blogger's Choice Awards is now underway.

As before, you can vote for me in the categories of Best Blog of All Time, Worst Blog of All Time, Freakiest Blogger and Most Obnoxious Blogger (however, you will need to sign up first in order to so vote).

Thanks again for your support, or reasonable facsimile thereof; I could certainly use it.


Get your own free Blogoversary button!



Stay in touch Greeting Cards
Stay in touch Greeting Cards

Blogs.Comoj



Kartu-Pulsaku.com Solusi Bisnis Online Anda



Blogarama - The Blog Directory 

The Blog-O-Cuss Meter - Do you cuss a lot in your blog or website?
Created by OnePlusYou - Free Dating Site





My Amazon.com Wish List

My Zimbio
KudoSurf Me!

Blog Directory

D-List Blogger

 

Submit URL free

Personal Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Promote Your Blog

Blogs All Over the World!
Earn money with Scour!




rss feed



10.5.08
According to Rev. Rod Parsley, "No Good Christian would go on welfare"

(as posted by iludiumphosdex @ 01:02 UTC on 10.5.08)

RIGHT WING WATCH AND BRAVE NEW FILMS WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING VIDEO of recent remarks from the "spiritual advisor" to The Terrible-Tempered Mr. Bang of Indecision 2008 (otherwise known as John McCain) as invoke His Name to discredit those on welfare, as well as imply that "no Good Christian would go on welfare," let alone put themselves @ risk of moral lapse if they went on welfare:

Which, methinks, is up there with a popular illogical fallacy of equivocation and begging the question commonly known as the "No True Scotsman" such, the workings of which Wikipedia thus explains:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

Flew's original example may be softened into the following:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

In putting forward the above rebuttal one would be employing an ad hoc shift in argument. The proposer initially treats the definition of "Scotsman" as fixed, and says that there exists no predicated case that fall inside. When one such case is found, the proposer shifts to treat the case as fixed, and rather treats the boundary as debatable. The proposer could therefore be seen prejudicially not to desire an exact agreement on either the scope of the definition or the position of the case, but solely to keep the definition and case separate. One reason to do this would be to avoid giving the positive connotations of the definition ("Scotsman") to the negative case ("sex offender") or vice versa.

Formally the argument is an informal fallacy if the predicate ("puts sugar on porridge") is not contradictory to the previously accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

As another example, a layman may be debating the merits of different video camcorders. He might assert that: "Any video engineer will tell you that the Matsushiba KYX300 format is vastly superior to the Magnasonic VBX2000." If someone points out, many engineers are on record as saying that the VBX2000 is actually the superior system, the original speaker may modify his premise to state: "Any video engineer who knows what they are talking about."

This is really another form of begging the question. His assertion is essentially self-nullifying, in that, not being an engineer, he is hardly in any position to judge the credentials of people who are.

This is connected to the widespread attempt in debate to assert that positive terms (good, decent) imply, naturally or by definition, the characteristics argued for (opposition to capital punishment, pornography, smoking in public), rather than actually making an argument why they are connected. "No decent Scotsman" can be considered the moral (practical) equivalent of the theoretical "No true Scotsman".

For example, it may be asserted that "No decent person would support hanging", "watch pornography", or "smoke in public". This is an abbreviated form of the fallacy: compare "he may take salt in his porridge, but no true Scotsman would" and "(some people may support smoking in public), but no decent person would." Often the speaker seems unaware that he is, in fact, coercively (re)defining the meaning of the phrase "decent person" to gain tactical advantage in the argument. The use of this technique shifts the debate away from the merits of hanging, pornography, or smoking (or whatever controversial subject that may be at issue) by attempting to establish, without basis in logic, that anyone disagreeing with the speaker is, in fact, "indecent".

The word "real" may be substituted for "true" and still commit the same fallacy in different plumes. For example, when General George Patton said, "All real Americans love the sting of battle" to his soldiers, he was implying that they were un-American if they shrank from combat.

Which is enough to wonder if John McCain's attutude towards the Lower Classes is nothing but one of contempt and revulsion, preferably as objects of sick humour. And enough to start thinking about pushing mutual self-help initiatives as one towards helping these same Lower Classes help themselves against such a shift in welfare policy.

Unless, however, such can be shown as "perpetuating dependency" as opposed to "industry, self-reliance, personal responsibility, thrift based on cash economy and a Wholesome and Simple Home Life."



glitter-graphics.com

Previous Entry Home Next Entry
weblogUpdates.ping The Exaggerator http://exaggerator.blogdrive.com/