If you'd bothered to read my comment, you'd have seen I already posted this story. As for your implied equation "Genocidal mass murderer"=George Bush, it's par for the course for the sicko pinko mind.
it's not the pinko mind tec. only a dwindling few americans don't see it like this. You might think or yourself as a kafkaian character - sane but surrounded by a world of crazies, but it's more likely that you are the one confused.
Confused by what? Of course, I'm confused by lack of logic. It's not like in Kafka's Castle at all -- more like, trying to argue with a 10-year old about basic algebra. But even that doesn't come close to capturing the problem -- the little kid, with some effort, and an open mind, will learn something, hopefully. Perhaps a better comparison would be like talking with an old fart commie apparatchik about the joys of Stalinism. It's then a dialogue de sourds. But you see, mon cher, the situation is not symmetrical -- this is not some Lacan/Foucault moral relativism we're talking about. One (the old fart Stalinist) is just spewing nonsense, whereas the other guy (moi) has a coherent message, grounded in solid logical thinking. Get it?
4 comments:
If you'd bothered to read my comment, you'd have seen I already posted this story. As for your implied equation "Genocidal mass murderer"=George Bush, it's par for the course for the sicko pinko mind.
it's not the pinko mind tec. only a dwindling few americans don't see it like this. You might think or yourself as a kafkaian character - sane but surrounded by a world of crazies, but it's more likely that you are the one confused.
Confused by what? Of course, I'm confused by lack of logic. It's not like in Kafka's Castle at all -- more like, trying to argue with a 10-year old about basic algebra. But even that doesn't come close to capturing the problem -- the little kid, with some effort, and an open mind, will learn something, hopefully. Perhaps a better comparison would be like talking with an old fart commie apparatchik about the joys of Stalinism. It's then a dialogue de sourds. But you see, mon cher, the situation is not symmetrical -- this is not some Lacan/Foucault moral relativism we're talking about. One (the old fart Stalinist) is just spewing nonsense, whereas the other guy (moi) has a coherent message, grounded in solid logical thinking. Get it?
Of course you do, tec. Of course.
Post a Comment