report this user
Dec 6 Corydon commented on Jesus Saves....
Incidentally, the mere existence of contradictions doesn't necessarily invalidate one's philosophical framework as a practical matter.

General relativity and quantum mechanics are contradictory (although we're trying to find ways to reconcile them); that doesn't mean that they aren't both useful concepts.
Dec 6 Corydon commented on Jesus Saves....
@42 That's all well and good, but any Catholic seminarian (which is what, IIRC, Dan was considering) would be able to pick out the theological flaws in his post in a heartbeat.

Strawman arguments don't suddenly become valid when they're made against someone we dislike.
Dec 6 Corydon commented on How Seattle DIY Event Organizers Can Avoid a Tragedy Like Oakland's Ghost Ship Warehouse Fire.
@3 That sounds suspiciously like government regulation which, as we all know, is nothing but a burden on job creators.

I suggest that a healthy round of tax cuts could easily have avoided this problem.
Nov 29 Corydon commented on Seattle Police Steadily Increasing Diversity of Force With New Hires.
@7 Riiiiiiiiight. Because studies from Ivy League researchers that examine actual data are clearly racist if they don't say what we want them to.

That's some A+ Sarah Palin grade reasoning there, bucko.

Nov 28 Corydon commented on Seattle Police Steadily Increasing Diversity of Force With New Hires.
The multilingual ability is something that ought to be rewarded (though I suppose, grudgingly, I'd grant my pretty strong Latin ability probably shouldn't be rewarded; Seattle doesn't have legionaries massing on the borders, does it?)

What's the value of rewarding time in the Peace Corps again? Why is that important?

Also, how is the racial policy being implemented? Do you get points for being non-white? Assuming all else is equal do you go with the non-white candidate? Is it more a matter of removing barriers that other races previously faced so everyone's treated equally?

Oh and this:

The police force should strive for diversity because it "conveys a sense of equity to the public" and increases the likelihood that officers will understand the perspectives of minorities, the commissioners said, urging a more intensive push for minority recruitment.


Black officers were 3.3 times more likely to shoot than white officers (P = 0:01). While substantial public concern comes from shootings involving white officers and black victims, this study shows that white officers are more than three times less likely to discharge their firearms compared to black officers on the scene of the same incident. This finding is consistent with previous research showing black officers killed felons at much higher rates than white police officers in a national sample (Sorensen et al., 1993) and that black officers shot black suspects at substantially higher rates in Chicago (Geller and Karales, 1981). This study makes no judgment on the appropriateness of the shootings or whether the findings in New York would be consistent in other communities.

I guess my question is, are you really fixing the problem you think your fixing? Or is all this really just window dressing and political theater meant to mollify political interest groups?
Nov 18 Corydon commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Help! I'm Being Sext-Shamed By My Asexual Ex!.
Technically, your ex is the pervert, since she's channeling her sexual energy (whether by choice or by nature) in non-normative directions.

No, you do not need to defend your behavior. Certainly not to her. The only point where it becomes someone else's business is if you choose to enter into a new romantic relationship.

Let us define your relationship with your ex. She is your friend. Do you share your sex life with all of your friends? I hope not; that would be creepy. So yes, you are entitled to have secrets from her if you wish. She is also your roommate. You most certainly do not share your sex life with roommates. On the contrary, most roommates go to great lengths to keep their romantic relationships private and respect each other's privacy.

The problem is that you describe this as a "semi-relationship". There is no such thing. You consider it a friendship. She seems to consider it a relationship. You need to very clearly (but of course respectfully) disabuse her of that notion.
Nov 16 Corydon commented on Stop Reading Facebook and Go Watch Moonlight.
@23 said "Isn't it also important for leaders (not just the executive, as you point out, but congress and state leaders too) to be able to accomplish things though?"

This was actually a really good reason to vote against Clinton. Let's suppose she won. What's next?

The Republicans in the Senate were already talking about never confirming any of her Supreme Court nominees. The House would have continued doing what it was doing. The stasis we've been living under for the last 6 years would have continued for at least 2 more and probably 4.

How might Clinton respond? Well she might continue doing what Obama in his frustration has done: keep seizing more and more executive power to act unilaterally. Do you think that's a good thing? Or should there be limits on what the President can do on his own? Answer the question in light of President Trump.

Let's face it: the reality is that there would have been no honeymoon. Congress would have been doing its utmost to hamper her from day 1. Starting with all kinds of Congressional investigations of emails and Benghazi and who knows what. She probably would have been impeached within the first half of her term. And the status quo would have continued.

Trump has this virtue: he breaks the logjam. He puts responsibility for the country's welfare squarely in the hands of the GOP. They have to govern now. And they'll probably do a crappy job. But at least someone will be doing the job now.

Now for me, that's not enough to justify a vote for him. But it's one rationale I might potentially have bought into.
Nov 15 Corydon commented on "Awash in False Conspiracy Theories and Petulant Immaturity, Liberals Put Trump in the White House".
@74 I disagree. She lost Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by 1% or less. And, lest we forget, she was ahead in the polls for most of the election. There was nothing at all inevitable about this election. A stronger candidate, a better strategy, a real agenda beyond "my opponent's scary!"...any of those things could have tipped the balance.

She figured she could win by saying, "If you vote for Trump, you're deplorable!" Just as I keep telling people over and over again—Surprise!—telling people they're idiots for voting however they do isn't exactly a recipe for success.

I've noticed there are a hell of a lot of liberals who seem to think that doubling down on their fantastic name-calling strategy is exactly what they are determined to do.
Nov 15 Corydon commented on "Awash in False Conspiracy Theories and Petulant Immaturity, Liberals Put Trump in the White House".
Incidentally, pointing out the weaknesses if a poor candidate who was running on a pro-Wall Street, pro-corporate, status quo agenda does not constitute "infighting on the left"
Nov 15 Corydon commented on "Awash in False Conspiracy Theories and Petulant Immaturity, Liberals Put Trump in the White House".
All the handwaving cannot obscure the facts that:

1) Clinton was the nominee, and

2) Clinton failed to close the deal.

Why do you keep making excuses for her? Is this what feminism means, that if a Democratic woman runs, she's owed the office? Because that's what it sounds like you're trying to sell.

If that's what you think, then frankly, you all deserve President Trump.

Clinton was the leader. Clinton lost. Her responsibility.