The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Let’s Call It ‘The Doritos Argument’

Posted on | January 14, 2013 | 10 Comments

by Smitty

Apparently, this tweet brought me to the attention of some folks on Twitter:

This triggered some fun back’n’forth:

 

The traditional thumb-wrestling over who owns the definitions culminated in:

 

Somewhere in the middle of the fracas, I got hit with this:


So, Tori seems to think that taxpayer dollars form a tidy, velvet-handcuff sort of entrapment. The Doritos Argument, as I’ll label it until I can find some more generally accepted name for the form, seems to be:

If you’ve eaten Doritos, you cannot go to the gym. The first agent-orange colored, star-destroyer shaped, infernally spiced, unnaturally crunching, finger-and-soul staining encounter with one of these diabolical digestives marks a human eternally. That marked person is precluded from ever prying themselves off the couch, liberating themselves from the torrid stigma of snack food, and burning off a few calories, despite the undeniably healthy consequences.

No, that’s daft. You can manage your caloric input/output ration, and you can continue to think clearly in the face of your government bribing you with the money of the as-yet unborn. As badly as the Progressives want to think they’ve successfully re-created man in the image of sheep, they fail.

Get bent, Tori.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • http://twitter.com/justfole Mouse Cop

    The “traditional thumb-wrestling over who owns the definitions” occurred
    because you refused to give a definition. So in this case, there’s no
    wrestling over a definition, the wrestling was me trying to get you to
    GIVE a definition. You are being very dishonest, both here and on Twitter.

  • M. Thompson

    There’s a vast chasm between the legitimate purpose of government (securing the God-given unalienable rights), and what the left wishes it to be. Thomas Jefferson’s argument in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence states the purpose of government is to secure those rights.

    Essentially, all governments have authority from their claim to a monopoly on force against their citizens. Their ability to protect the citizens from violence is of paramount importance. Mind you, it is impractical at times to assume representatives of government can do this instantly, but generally, it is satisfied with punishment of the violent against others and their property, both on a small (criminal) and large (war) scale. Trying to move a government past this is troublesome.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    Why not provide your own definition? Try to do it in a way that isn’t somehow assuming no one but a liberal could possibly care about things like poverty, the environment, and health.

  • http://theothermccain.com smitty

    @justfole nailed it with “A liberal is a person who believes __________”. I don’t think the spiritless nihilism of the modern liberal has ever been captured more beautifully.

    I could point him to any conservative thinker from Buckley on, and he’d still say “You haven’t defined liberalism correctly” because @justfole is actually conducting an un-funny variation on the Monty Python sketch The Argument Clinic.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    Indeed.

  • Finrod Felagund

    Liars are very often the quickest to accuse others of lying.

  • G Joubert

    As a conservative/small “L” libertarian, I reached my moment of truth way back in 1980 when I walked away from a lucrative government job because I could not tolerate the cognitve dissonance any longer. I chucked it in and have been self-employed ever since. But that’s me.