Thursday, September 11, 2008

Just in case

Just in case its removed for being "offensive," I thought I would share my comment (EDIT: posted on the Washington Post's site) on this opinion piece :

"All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others"

I hope the good Professor Doninger will join my continuing campaign to overturn any laws that make it illegal for me to kill those who annoy me. After all, what right does anyone have to force a belief about the immorality of "murder" on me? And besides, "Though shalt not kill," is one of those "Ten Commandments." Thus, not allowing me to kill those who annoy me is equivalent to imposing religion upon me.

Such laws also violate my constitutional rights. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America states, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that I have, "the right to define [my] own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." I do not believe that those who annoy me are human. Nor do they, it follows, possess human life. To keep me from killing them is to impose upon me a view of "the mystery of human life" that is contrary to my own, which is a grievous violation of my constitutional liberties.

I hope all who read this article are convinced by the sound argument presented and join me in my campaign for my moral and Constitutional right to kill all those who annoy me.

Have I "reducio"-ed enough to make the "absurdum" obvious?


Anonymous said...


No need to engage in further needless mockery.

Would you kindly inform me where my attempt at irony at W4 went wrong, constructively speaking?

It appears I may have made an egregious error(s) in its construction that may have inevitably led to such derision.

Unless, of course, that is too demanding of Christian charity.


brendon said...

No need to engage in further needless mockery.


This is the comment I actually posted on the Washington Post's site. I thought that would be clear. I'll edit the post to make sure.

I expanded it from my first comment at W3tW. And I used the latter half of it as a further illustration when I thought someone (you?) was playing Devil's advocate for Prof. Doninger.

But I really posted it here because I was not sure that it would remain on the WaPo website. Their rules on comments boil down, at least as far as I can tell, to: "If it might make someone feel bad, don't post it." Since reductio ad absurdum arguments often make people angry, since it demonstrates that their positions lead to consequences they find abhorrent, I figured someone might complain and have it deleted.

Just check the timestamps on the posts if you do not believe me:

1st comment at W3tW: 2:24 PM

This post: 2:42 PM

2nd comment at W3tW: 3:15 PM

I meant no mockery with this post besides the mockery of Prof. Doninger's absurd reasoning.

Anonymous said...


I meant the repeated expressions at misunderstanding my comments at W4.

"I appear to be having an "off" day. I'm usually better at picking up such things. I apologize to you again for misunderstanding you comments."

If you truly meant them (as opposed to being sarcastic yourself in your comments here), my sincerest apologies.

While I'm not the best in expressing myself in the English language, let alone, in arguments and, worse yet, at irony; I would like to improve myself if folks can allow me the generous benefit of their assistance.

Simply put, I thought my subsequent after yours was accentuating the point you were making.

If there is/are any flaws that suggest otherwise, I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks.

- ari.

brendon said...

I meant the repeated expressions at misunderstanding my comments at W4.

I really did misunderstand. A lot of that is a matter of tone, which I am usually pretty good at correctly reading into comments. But today I misread the tone of your comments and thus misunderstood them. I really was just having an "off" day. I meant my apologies with sincerity, since I had misunderstood you.