Idealog

I have no idea why, but for some reason every now and then (around once a month or so), I'll get some random person IMing me on my AIM account. Of course, since this seems to me to be on the same level as telephone spam telemarketing calls, but with less stringent quick-thinking requirements, I decided to have some fun.

So, here's a transcript of my most recent one:

warmhandsovenman: Have you ever read The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas?
Me: no
warmhandsovenman: Why not?
Me: insufficient time
warmhandsovenman: What type of books do you like?
Me: good ones
Me: of course, there have to be other incidentals
warmhandsovenman: Like Sci-Fi?
Me: e.g. the background and foreground colors have to be different
Me: a book can be the best book in the world, but if it's white type on a white page, I won't like it
Me: also, it should be made out of paper
Me: beaten copper looks nice, but it's too cumbersome to actually read
warmhandsovenman: I see.
Me: and engraved stone is right out
warmhandsovenman: How many books per month would you say you read?
Me: incidentally, why are your hands warm?
Me: do you keep them in gloves all the time?
warmhandsovenman: No, it's an inside joke with my friend.
warmhandsovenman: How many books would you say you read per month?
Me: lifetime average?
warmhandsovenman: Yeah.
Me: including the years where I was pre-literate (e.g. 0-3)?
warmhandsovenman: I see.
warmhandsovenman: Who's your favorite author?
Me: favorite in what sense?
warmhandsovenman: The author who you think writes your most enjoyable nooks.
warmhandsovenman: books*
Me: G.K. Chesterton
warmhandsovenman: Cool.
warmhandsovenman: What's the farthest you've ever ran non stop in your life?
Me: how picky are you about the definition of "run"?
warmhandsovenman: I mean what's the farthest you've ever ran/jogged in your life?
Me: how picky are you about the definition of "non stop" (and shouldn't that by hyphenated, i.e. 'non-stop'?)?
warmhandsovenman: Yeah, but I don't type in correct puncuation online. I mean non-stop like the farthest without walking.
Me: so would it count to run, stop (without walking), then start running again?
warmhandsovenman: No.
warmhandsovenman: Now can you answer it?
warmhandsovenman: How far?
Me: Not yet
Me: Are you defining 'life' in the secular sense of one time from fetus to corpse
Me: or do you allow for 'past lives', as in the hindu, budhist, or certain ancient greek conceptions?
warmhandsovenman: I ment life as in since you were born out of your mom in the hospital.
Me: if you look carefully at my question, you'll notice that within reincarnation schemes, that can be arbitrarily far ago
Me: but I presume that you mean the 1 fetus-to-corpse cycle
Me: counting any jogs one's mother took as being her runs, not your own
Me: correct?
warmhandsovenman: No.
warmhandsovenman: I mean how far have you ran non-stop in your life, the beginning being your way out of your mother's vagina.
Me: bear in mind that if you allow for reincarnation, the passage through one's mother's vagina (incidentally, this question doesn't apply to me outside of any reincarnative possibilities since I was born by C-section) arbitrarily many times, once per future life, so you're not asking a well-defined question (in the mathematical sense of the phrase "well-defined").
warmhandsovenman: GOD
warmhandsovenman: JUST F---ING ANSWER THE QUESTION.
warmhandsovenman: ROUGHLY.
warmhandsovenman: I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THIS WELL DEFINED S--T.
Me: I'm curious. Why do you think that being rude to me is going to persuade me to do you any favors, such as answering your questions?
warmhandsovenman: Because with all of your previous contradictions, I view you as a person that isen't normal and is an insecure nerd.
Me: How on earth does that lead you to the conclusion that being rude will induce me to do you favors?
Me: And, incidentally, what contradictions are you referring to?
warmhandsovenman: I asked you a question of how far you've ran. A NORMAL person would say "Oh, about so-so many miles..." and insted you contradict everything saying all this s--t that no one cares about and you haven't answered the question yet.
warmhandsovenman: So how many miles?
Me: Are you familiar with the definition of "contradict"?
warmhandsovenman: Here we go again.
Me: Allow me to be of service:
warmhandsovenman: You're a nerd with no life.
Me: Contradict \Con`tra*dict"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Contradicted};
p. pr. & vb. n. {Contradicting}.] [L. contradictus, p. p. of
contradicere to speak against; contra + dicere to speak. See
{Diction}.]
1. To assert the contrary of; to oppose in words; to take
issue with; to gainsay; to deny the truth of, as of a
statement or a speaker; to impugn.
[1913 Webster]

Dear Duff, I prithee, contradict thyself,
And say it is not so. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

The future can not contradict the past.
--Wordsworth.
[1913 Webster]

2. To be contrary to; to oppose; to resist. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]

No truth can contradict another truth. --Hooker.
[1913 Webster]

A greater power than we can contradict
Hath thwarted our intents. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

Me: Dude, I'm not the one IMing random people on a wednesday night
warmhandsovenman: How are you random?
Me: Well, you don't know me
Me: And, not knowing me, it seems far-fetched that you could have carefully selected me for this series of questions of highly dubious relevance to anything you might have learned about me prior to IMing me.
warmhandsovenman: Okay.
warmhandsovenman: You're cool.
warmhandsovenman: I'm sorry.

And when I next said something to him, he was gone.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I corrected a typo in my last sentence from "serious" to "series" in the interests of readability. Also, I redacted the profanity of my unknown conversational partner.)

(In the interests of defending myself, that definition was copy-and-pasted from the unix program dict. As for the charges made against me in this conversation, I am most certainly not a nerd with no life. I'm a nerd with a beautiful girlfriend.)

Chapter 2

They stayed, staring at each other, for nearly a minute. It was Arcelia who broke the silence.

"Who are you? And what, exactly, have you done?"

"Call me Ramirez. What I've done, depending on how you would like to look at it, is avenge over two decades of brutality and barbarism or kill your parents and the seventeen men your father had hired as guards (incidentally, it is convenient that your maid visits her family every third Sunday).

"For what it's worth," he added, "I'm sorry for causing you suffering."

After a few moments, Arcelia broke the silence again, "And you want me to go with you?"

"I never said that I wanted anything. I made you an offer. I do think that you would be wise to accept it, but that doesn't mean that I do — or don't — want you to."

Almost impulsively, Arcelia asked, "Well, what do you want?" Like all human beings, she had the instinct to seize the initiative, even if she had no idea what to do with it once she had it.

John smiled, his eyes twinkling devilishly. "I want to be a dragon. I want a body the size of a school bus and a tail longer than a snake. I want wings the size of the sails on a ship, teeth sharper than a needle, and breath hotter than hell. I want to soar among the clouds like a bird and look down on all the beautiful world. I want to be more than a man and have none of Man's vices."

Arcelia didn't know how to respond. She wanted control of the situation, or the conversation, or something. She couldn't think of how to get it. Finally, she said, "Whether or not I accept your offer, if you're so concerned about my welfare, please don't joke with me."

"I was quite serious. That is what I want. That it's not terribly relevant to the moment is true, but it's your business why you want to know this now, not mine."

"Why are you being so literal?"

"Why aren't you?"

"Why have you offered to bring to me civilization?"

"Because you are in danger."

"Because of you!"

"Exactly."

"Well, then, if you were so concerned about me why did you put me in danger?"

"Because I could also get you out of it."

Arcelia paused and thought for a moment. His responses were all reasonable — but for an insane situation. Was it really possible that he did what he claimed? Was it really possible that her family and all of their guards were dead? She hadn't really started to believe it yet, but it was really starting to worry her that no one had come in response to her screams earlier. Enriqué should have come running within a few seconds. Could everyone be in the far side of the house for some reason? Could they have left her all alone in her room and this crazy stranger wandered in somehow?

"I take it that you won't mind if I walk around and make sure that you're telling the truth about my family?"

The idea that this strange man could have been telling the truth about her family had not really sunk in, and she was mostly concerned with keeping him calm while she found out what was really going on.

"That's as you please. I hope that you have a strong stomach."

It disconcerted her that he didn't mind. She had expected that he would find some excuse to keep her from looking around. Still, she had to find out what was going on and she couldn't be in any more danger leaving her room than she was staying there with "Ramirez".

Arcelia slowly got up and put on her night robe, keeping her eyes on Ramirez. She had no real reason for watching him — if he was going to jump her he could more easily have done that before waking her up.

She didn't admit it to herself, but she watched him because of his calm confidence. He had turned the world on its side, but he was standing upright in the tumult he caused. He was at once an angel and a devil, and whichever side predominated he seemed, at least, to know what was going on.

Arcelia slowly walked out of her room. She had half-expected to see corpses in the hallway, and was a little relieved that there was not so much as a bloody footprint. She walked past the two rooms reserved for her sisters when they visit and went to her parents room. Taking a deep breath, she pushed the door open. Scarcely a moment later, she shut her eyes and turned from the grizzly scene, driving her head into her hands as if she could undo what she saw if she just pressed hard enough.

"No... No..." she said, as if to someone. After a moment, she opened her eyes and looked for John. She felt many things, but above all she was confused. Grief, understanding, even anger — all these things had to wait until she figured out what was going on now.

She hadn't heard him come after her, but he was only a few feet behind her. He was just standing there, with a look somewhere between compassionate and curious, respectfully silent. Arcelia stared into his eyes. She swallowed and took a deep breath, preparing to speak. It was some minutes before she could speak, though. Every time she opened her mouth to try no words would come.

At last she said, quietly, "So it is true?"

"Yes," he said gently.

"Do I really have a choice?"

"Yes."

"Do you really consider dying in the jungle to be a choice?"

"Yes, though it is not certain that on your own, you would die. Nothing in this world is certain until it happens."

"You're quite the philosopher."

John spoke in the same gentle voice, but there was a hint of a smile on his face: "Yes."

Arcelia sighed. He almost laughed at the absurdity of her situation.

"What should I do?" she asked. "What would you do, if you were me?"

"If I were you," he said thoughtfully, "I would accept my offer.

"If I meant to do anything bad to you, I would surely have done it by now. If I wanted to harm you, there was no reason to wake you up. Even if i wanted to kidnap you and deliver you to some vengeful associates of mine — incidentally, there's no one that I know of who holds a grudge against you — even if I had wanted to kidnap you, I could have just tied your hands and forced you to walk behind me.

"So, all things considered, it wouldn't seem very likely that I was being deceptive in my offer, or at least, if I was, my deception would be too subtle to discover just by thinking about it. So I would accept.

"But what shall you do?"

Arcelia thought for a moment. "I'll come with you. So, what now?"

"You should pack some rugged clothing in a bag. Long pants and long-sleeved shirts, if you have them. Also socks, underwear, etc. Also, you'll want to bring money, as it will be useful to you once we get to town. I'll carry the bag for you, so it's OK if it's heavy, though please don't be ridiculous about it."

Arcelia did as John suggested and within half an hour they were off.

Eugene Volokh has discussed another of Slate's Kerryisms. The original quote, in response to the question, "Is abortion a great moral issue to you?", is:

Sure it is. Absolutely. And I think it's far more complicated than public life allows the discussion for. I mean, being for choice does not mean you are for abortion. Neither Teresa nor I are for abortion. Abortion should be rare, but safe and legal, as President Clinton said so often, and I think appropriately.

I think that it's really a question of who should make this decision, and how do arrive at it. But there is morality. Of course there's morality involved. And we should be talking to people in America about responsibility, about adoption, about other choices. And I want to have a better conversation than I think we've had on it. But it doesn't change my position on who chooses. And I will protect that right of choice.

Which Slate summarized, in their Kerryism fashion as, "Sure it is. Absolutely." (with the rest of the quote following as footnotes.)

Eugene then says:

If Kerry had said that, he would have been seen either as a fool (someone who thought the question called for a yes-or-no answer) or as evasive (someone who knew the question called for an explanation of his moral stand, but who chose to duck it by pretending that the interviewer was looking for a yes-or-no answer).

The problem is that I believe that Slate actually has a point here, though their format doesn't allow them to accurately summarize Kerry's quote. If one is not bound to use only his words, saying what he said more simply, it was, "Like so many Americans, I straddle this issue."

How, he said it like an idiot, but I suspect that this is primarily due to it having been in a live interview (with Larry King), and most people sound like idiots when you're reading a transcription of a live interview with them. However, to show my point, let's look at this:

Sure it is. Absolutely. And I think it's far more complicated than public life allows the discussion for.

Unfortunately, abortion is a very simple moral issue. Whether one is for it or against it, no one produces complicated arguments for their position. Indeed, relatively few people even hold their position on abortion as the result of a chain of reasoning, but rather hold it as a first principle. The arguments really do run the gamut from, "It's a human life, therefore terminating it is subject to the same constraints as terminating any other human life. QED." to "It's not, therefore it's not. QED." to "It doesn't really affect me and life is complicated enough, so I really don't want to discuss it. QED." That last one is usually phrased more like "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.", though it's sometimes phrased, "I believe that the morality of abortion should be left up to each person to decide for themselves."

(Incidentally, while there are pro-abortion and pro-infanticide positions which I could support (e.g. the Roman pro-infanticide position which essentially boils down to "I brought you into this world so I can take you out again if I want to") — though I don't — I find the personal choice statement of the apathetic route absolutely fascinating. People very rarely say things this stupid in other venues. E.g. "I think that the morality of beating a woman to death should be left up to each person to decide for themselves" or "I believe that the morality of stealing cars is decision which should be left between a man and his priest". "I think that securities fraud is a serious moral transgression but I believe that each inside trader should decide this for himself." Indeed, one rarely hears calls for car theft to be "safe, legal, and rare" despite there being a fair number of people who are apparently in favor of it, seeing as how many of them do it.

I can understand that people really don't want to deal with divisive issues which don't affect them personally, but it really would be better if they just admitted their apathy instead of dressing it up as some sort of principled position. If the state is to be put in charge of any matters of morality — that is, if there is to be a state — the only principle under which it can operate is that all matters of morality which can be accurately judged by the state should be. There are many matters which can't — for example there's no good way (in general) to find out when people are lying (that wouldn't drag society to a halt), and even less of a good way to determine how severe their lie is and how it should be punished fairly. We must get on with the business of living, and give up the state making people tell the truth in all but very exceptional circumstances because it's not feasible to do otherwise. Even Soviet Russia, with its networks of spies, informants, and secret police, never aimed that high — they stopped short at the far more achievable goal of punishing all speech against the state — and they never did a very good job even at that.

Abortion is comparatively easy to determine, and admits of no greater variation in severity — if the thing is immoral at all — than murder does. And we all agree that the state is competent to prosecute murder.

No, these understandable people want to leave abortion to individual aborters not because the state can't deal with it, but because they don't want to have to figure out whether the state should.)

Continuing:

I mean, being for choice does not mean you are for abortion.

Being in favor of something never means that you want the accidentally certain results of it — people in favor of choice don't want abortion, people in favor of war don't want death, people in favor of property don't want poverty, people in favor of nations don't want war, people in favor of guns don't want people being shot, people in favor of cars don't want automotive fatalities (accidents). However, at some point we all do have to admit that we're comfortable accepting these results, and that in some sense we therefore don't think that they're so bad.

Being in favor of using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima does not mean that one is in favor of anything dying there, but it would be stupid to maintain that this somehow absolves you of enabling the foreseeable consequences. That Senator Kerry does not want abortions to happen does not remove whatever moral weight (if any) that hangs on him for all of the abortions that he has worked so hard to make possible (he has an extremely pro-choice record). In short, it's wonderful that he's only in favor of sweetness and light, but so am I, so is every man. The question is what comes when he tries to produce it.

I think that it's really a question of who should make this decision, and how do arrive at it.

Can he name any other issue of morality on which he believes this? Child pornography? Theft? Murder? Traffic violations? Parking Tickets? Could he name any other moral issue — grave or trivial — which the state could feasibly handle which should be left to individual judgement?

Oh, sure, there are all sorts of things which we don't consider immoral that we'll happily leave up to people who do to choose for themselves — sodomy and sexual promiscuity and eating pork and the use of modern medicines and so forth. Can he name something he thinks universally wrong, that the state could reasonably interfere with, that he wants the state to keep out of? Can anyone?

But there is morality.

Does this really mean anything at all? Even in context, this doesn't appear to be anything more than a general affirmation of the existence of morality.

Of course there's morality involved.

Now, this might mean something if it weren't followed by this sentence:

And we should be talking to people in America about responsibility, about adoption, about other choices.

A beautifully wishy-washy concept, whatever morality it is that's involved. Whatever it is, it's appeased by talking to people about other choices. What other importantly held moral beliefs does the senator hold which impose obligations which can be discharged merely by talking to people?

And I want to have a better conversation than I think we've had on it.

Imagine that! He's in favor of sweetness and light and cute puppies and apple pie! Who'd have thought?

But it doesn't change my position on who chooses. And I will protect that right of choice.

So, morality is involved, but not enough to matter.

Frankly, I think that Slate was doing him a favor by abbreviating his response so much. It would have been a bigger favor to leave the entire back-and-forth out entirely. I think that the fervently apathetic people on this issue can just safely assume that Kerry is safely non-committal and not need to be assured by him speaking out of both sides of his mouth that he doesn't intend to actually wake that sleeping dog.

Really, there's nothing more disgusting than strongly held moderation. Even evil is preferable to disdain for finding out whether a thing is good or evil. It's almost like finding a rock which is militant about its non-sentience. That a rock cannot find the truth because it cannot find anything is natural to a rock, but still a reason to pity the rock — or at least to be glad that one isn't the rock. When a man cannot find the truth, how on earth could he possibly be proud of this position?

Update: Yes, I was not in a happy mood when I wrote the above. I haven't read it again, but it's not in very temperate language. Anyhow, Frank J. said it better (and shorter) a while ago:

There is now a Centrist Coalition blog. I hate moderates... much more than even liberals. I bet Satan is a moderate; the best way to get evil accepted is to package it with some good. That's what moderates do; they're always like, "Oh! I'm so special because I don't take a firm stance on issues, and I see value in everyone's viewpoints." I bet right now a moderate is reading this and partially agreeing with it. Damn you!

Something just occurred to me in while I was in the shower:

The most important thing in philosophy is for a man to have the impudence to think himself an expert, or — better by far — the good sense to realize that all men are amateurs.