Road rage

[loCAtek]

We have our first Flame War™, ladies & gents, somebody break out the champagne!



vs.

[Andrew D]

In fact, requiring vehicles traveling on public roadways not to impede the flow of traffic on public roadways is entirely sensible. You constantly resort to personal attacks, because even you realize that your position is indefensible. By now, no one is surprised.

I'm not sure if you are deliberately being a lying dipshit or are truly unable to comprehend simple English. Actually, I suspect both.

Translation: "I have nothing of any substance to support my position."

[Jarlaxle]

Look...I know I have exposed your position as, at best, disconnected from reality, and at worst, moronic. Instead of flinging flaming bags of dogshit, please use the OTHER tactic you tend to employ when someone points out that your position is nonsensical. That being: take your ball and go home in a snit like a 5-year-old.

[Andrew D]

The incontrovertible fact remains that Jarlaxle has posted exactly nothing to the contrary of what we all know is the truth of the matter: Vehicles that cannot proceed on public roadways without impeding the flow of traffic on public roadways should not be allowed on public roadways.

All of us know that that is true. Contrary ad hominem fulminations amount to nothing.

[Crackpot]

only if you want to grind the country to a halt.

[Jarlaxle]

Come on, Crackpot...reality intrudes on Ange's mind only on rare occasions. Anything that might, concievably, inconvenience him must be prohibited.

[Andrew D]

If reality had intruded into my mind only once, that would still be a number infinitely greater than the number of times that reality has intruded into the desiccated turd which passes for Jarlaxle's mind. Of course, debating right and wrong with someone who, like Jarlaxle (as he has proved repeatedly on an array of subjects), has no morals has a strong tendency toward pointlessness.

But to address a point made by someone who can actually think, I have no desire to "grind the country to a halt." When I drive around here and there, I see trucks all the time. Almost all of them drive at (or, quite commonly, over) the posted speed limits. That is true even when I am driving on a highway that has only one lane in each direction (e.g., most of California Highway 12 between Rio Vista and Lodi).

Almost the only trucks that impede the flow of traffic are dilapidated rust-buckets like Jarlaxle's "work truck". And even then, only when they are driven by people like Jarlaxle who are convinced that no one else matters.

Of course, all long-haul deliveries should be done by rail, not by truck. Rail is both far more efficient and far less polluting. And if it hadn't been for the efforts of the automotive-industry complex -- not just the car makers, but also the petroleum producers, etc. -- we would still have a comprehensive rail system in this country.

But that would interfere with Jarlaxle's having anonymous sex with other truckers at rest stops. And considering that that is his only sexual outlet, that would be a bad thing: He would take the next step in his moral devolution and become a sexually sadistic serial killer.

[loCAtek]

Whoa, take a time out there AndrewD... maybe you should go out and enjoy the sunset, or get a dog.

[Andrew D]

Jarlaxle epitomizes the total absence of morality, loCAtek. Don't take my word for it; take his. Look at his postings (here and at the Other Place) about Gitmo. And about Iraq's oil. And about Afghanistan.

His solution to all of those problems -- as well as to just about every other problem -- is simple: Slaughter everyone who is, even unintentionally, in the way of his getting whatever it is that he wants.

He doesn't care whether there are innocent people incarcerated at Gitmo; just kill them all. He doesn't care about the millions of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had absolutely nothing to do with attacks on the US or on US soldiers or on US allies or anything else; just kill them all.

His I'm-going-to-take-my-piece-of-shit-truck-on-the-road-and-whoever's-travel-is-impeded-can-just-fuck-off attitude in this thread is an example in miniature of his attitude toward everything: He matters; all the other people on the planet do not.

And that is the very essence of being a sociopath.

He has no empathy. Hence his publicly stated position that if he were to encounter someone lying on the sidewalk beaten, bleeding, and desperate for help, he would simply walk on by; and to him, that would be the right thing to do.

Hence also his publicly stated positions that we should summarily execute all those incarcerated at Gitmo without the slightest regard to whether they are guilty or innocent, that we should murder a host of innocent Iraqi civilians in order to take Iraq's oil, that we should murder an even larger host of innocent Afghan civilians (in order to accomplish what, I don't know; apparently, just for the pure joy of murdering them).

I have lots of disagreements with lots of people about lots of things. Most of the time -- as, for example, with respect to Lord Jim, whose politics and mine agree only very rarely -- I see my political opponents as moral beings striving toward moral courses of behavior. I disagree with them, of course, about what morality requires in particular situations; because of that, I sometimes find that their positions are morally bankrupt.

But Jarlaxle is a different kettle of fish. When we deal with him, we are not dealing with immorality -- a moral sense gone completely haywire -- but with amorality. When we deal with Jarlaxle, we are not dealing with a misguided or defective (or whatever) moral sense; we are dealing with the complete absence of any moral sense at all.

To Jarlaxle, slaughtering millions of innocent people is of no more moral significance than is stepping on a cockroach. Most people make decisions -- even decisions that result in many, many deaths -- within some sort of moral framework. My moral framework is not identical with theirs, so I often disagree about the decisions that they make. (And I lay no claim to perfection; it could be that they are right, and I am wrong. I don't think so -- otherwise I would change my mind (as I have many times) -- but I acknowledge the possibility.)

But judging by his postings (which are all that I have to go by), Jarlaxle has no moral framework at all. Slaughtering millions of innocent people is of no moral significance to him, because nothing is of any moral significance to him. He has no concept of moral significance. Good, evil, right, wrong -- to him those are utterly meaningless.

If we ever read about Jarlaxle in the national newspapers, it will probably be because he has kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered a host of young women (or young men or boys or girls or little old nuns or wherever his depraved tastes may take him). And when he is asked why he did it, his only answer will be, delivered with a pseudo-superior smirk, that he felt like it.

I may be crazy, but Jarlaxle is dangerous. Were I his neighbor, I would be building an electric fence.

(Edited to correct inadvertent grammatical/puncutuational errors having no effect on the substance of the posting.)

[dales]

Oh boy

[Jarlaxle]

Lemme get a pair of waders, because this is DEEP.

But to address a point made by someone who can actually think, I have no desire to "grind the country to a halt." When I drive around here and there, I see trucks all the time. Almost all of them drive at (or, quite commonly, over) the posted speed limits. That is true even when I am driving on a highway that has only one lane in each direction (e.g., most of California Highway 12 between Rio Vista and Lodi).

How many are running 60MPH up, say, The Grapevine? Or any other long grade? Trucks lose speed, sometimes lots of speed, on grades. It's simple physics.

Almost the only trucks that impede the flow of traffic are dilapidated rust-buckets like Jarlaxle's "work truck". And even then, only when they are driven by people like Jarlaxle who are convinced that no one else matters.

My work truck runs highway speeds (governed at 65) easily...like any truck, it loses speed on grades when loaded, and like all medium-duties, it accelerates ponderously. It takes something in the range of a quarter mile to reach highway speeds from a stop.

Of course, all long-haul deliveries should be done by rail, not by truck.

Impractical in many cases...and many deliveries ARE done by rail.

But that would interfere with Jarlaxle's having anonymous sex with other truckers at rest stops. And considering that that is his only sexual outlet, that would be a bad thing: He would take the next step in his moral devolution and become a sexually sadistic serial killer.

Gratuitous personal attack serving no purpose save to illustrate Ange's damaged mind.

Jarlaxle epitomizes the total absence of morality

This is REALLY getting deep. Let me switch the hip waders for a set of chest-high waders.

He has no empathy. Hence his publicly stated position that if he were to encounter someone lying on the sidewalk beaten, bleeding, and desperate for help, he would simply walk on by; and to him, that would be the right thing to do.

I have damned little empathy for most people. I will call 911, anything more simply is not worth the risk.

But Jarlaxle is a different kettle of fish. When we deal with him, we are not dealing with immorality -- a moral sense gone completely haywire -- but with amorality. When we deal with Jarlaxle, we are not dealing with a misguided or defective (or whatever) moral sense; we are dealing with the complete absence of any moral sense at all.

Projection. Seek professional help.

If we ever read about Jarlaxle in the national newspapers, it will probably be because he has kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered a host of young women (or young men or boys or girls or little old nuns or wherever his depraved tastes may take him). And when he is asked why he did it, his only answer will be, delivered with a pseudo-superior smirk, that he felt like it.

Something you want to confess to, Ange? Seek professional help.

I may be crazy, but Jarlaxle is dangerous. Were I his neighbor, I would be building an electric fence

Were you my neighbor, I'd probably be calling a realtor. Well...that, or cutting firewood with a chainsaw, cutting my lawn, running my weed-wacker & leaf blower, and tuning my Gremlin with the header caps off at about 7:30am.

Oh boy

Yeah, pretty much.

[Andrew D]

Jarlaxle's postings advocating mass murder at Gitmo, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan are (unless he has altered or deleted them) there for all to see. Which position more urgently demands professional help -- advocating mass murder or objecting to it -- is a determination I leave to others.

Edited to add just one example of Jarlaxle's total lack of moral development:

I agree: shoot all the prisoners at Gitmo, pull the troops out and then blanket Afghanistan with nerve gas and neutron bombs, maybe pull out of the parts of Iraq that do not have oil, occupy the rest and simply TAKE the oil.

If anyone can articulate how that set of positions might be morally defensible, I look forward to reading it. But I won't be holding my breath.

[Andrew D]

Adverting to the subject of slow-moving vehicles' impeding traffic, Jarlaxle offers us this:

How many are running 60MPH up, say, The Grapevine? Or any other long grade? Trucks lose speed, sometimes lots of speed, on grades. It's simple physics.

The Grapevine is, of course, a freeway with multiple lanes in each direction. (It is a stretch of Interstate 5 that crosses mountains north of Los Angeles.) If slow-moving vehicles stay to the right, as the law requires, they will not be impeding traffic.

I have no objection to slow-moving vehicles' being on the roadways if they do not impede the flow of traffic. So that's the end of that.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Oh brother. More crap held over from the CSB. There's an ignore/foe button boys, use it.

[Andrew D]

Anyone who wishes to ignore damning evidence of Jarlaxle's sociopathic orientation is, of course, free to do so. But ignoring evidence does not unmake it.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Anyone who wishes to ignore damning evidence of Jarlaxle's sociopathic orientation is, of course, free to do so. But ignoring evidence does not unmake it.

What I and many wish here is for you to take your ongoing issues with Jarlaxel elsewhere and keep it off this board. It's not about taking sides or who is right or wrong. It's about keeping this board a peaceful place without ad hominem nonsense, not make it a repeat of the same crap spewed on the CSB.

[dales]

No one ever wins at a pissing match.

[The Hen]

Golden shower aficionados do.

[Andrew D]

It's not about taking sides or who is right or wrong.

But it is very much about right and wrong. In my judgment, advocating the slaughter of innocent people -- as well as advocating killing people for trivial reasons -- is wrong in the truest sense of the word: It is evil.

I would make the same response to anyone who advocated killing God only knows how many innocent Iraqis in order to take Iraq's oil. I would make the same response to anyone who advocated slaughtering some 33 million innocent Afghans for whatever reason. Etc.

It just so happens that Jarlaxle advocates such things more often than do others. Here, for example, is Jarlaxle recommending -- on this board, not at CSB -- that people be automatically shot for speeding:

That, of course, is the best solution for the traffic cameras: a good match rifle. Maybe try for a thousand-yard patch.

So forget about Jarlaxle. The point is that advocating the killing of speeders, the killing of prisoners at Gitmo regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty, the slaughter of innocent Iraqis in order to get Iraq's oil, and the extermination of an entire nation (for whatever reason) is evil. And that evil is a manifestation of the same thing as is the "if I impede the flow of traffic, tough shit for everyone else" attitude that we have seen here: Absolute self-centeredness.

If anyone can provide a moral justification for that set of positions -- regardless of who has advocated them -- reading it should prove fascinating. If, instead, people want to divert attention from the substance of those positions and harp mindlessly on who has posted what rather than focus on what has been posted, I can't stop them. But the total lack (thus far) of any attempt to justify the positions themselves should tell us a great deal about who is addressing serious issues and who is blathering about identities rather than issues.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Would it be possible to tell him how wrong he is without saying he likes to fuck truckers? Surely you are intelligent enough to come up with a way?

Is it possible to not ruin this board with all that crap and nonsense?