October 02, 2005

FridaySaturdaySunday in the wild: September 23, 2005

Intentionally late with the end-of-week blog roundup this time, as I decided to focus on yesterday's Serenity write-up instead. But anyway, here we go.

The Pedantic Protestant did a lengthy and enjoyable series on narcissism and victimhood, starting with:

The Victim sees himself not as a responsible agent in the world, but, as the title implies, he rather sees himself as a victim. His identity, far from being wrapped up in positive endeavors, is wrapped up on himself: how he has been oppressed, how others have been mean to him, how large portions of the world are against him, and how people haven't done as good of a job defending him as they should. In turn, the victimhood of The Victim further victimizes The Victim.

The Victim aggressively seeks out opportunities to be victimized or feel victimized, and this in turn feeds the victim complex manifested by The Victim. The Victim can then publicly display his hurt, his pain, his pathos; he can beat his breast and wallow in self-pity, and he can lobby for the sympathy of others, whereby he can further expound his victimization.

[Read The Victim and the Narcissist]

Look out also for the continuation, and specific applications involving Martha Burk and academic leftism.

The Parableman posted a good one answering the presupposition that law is not based on morality:

Well, there go the laws against murder, theft, rape, and almost anything else that we legislate. They keep distinguishing between laws based on a moral code and laws against child porn. Why do we make child porn illegal? Because it's wrong! Why is rape illegal? Because it's wrong! Why is theft illegal? Why is murder illegal? Our laws are thoroughly based on a moral code. That's the primary justification for them. We might distinguish between different sorts of things that are wrong, enforcing some and not enforcing others, but that's not what these people are doing. They're trying to distinguish between the things we should have laws about and the the things that are moral matters. If there's no moral justification for preventing something, why bother having a law? It's just completely ridiculous to frame the debate this way.

[Read Moral Justifications for Laws]

The PyroManiac has recently begun posting messages he has sent to questions via e-mail. In this one, he takes issue with the ersatz "genuineness" that involves imitating the lowest common denominator of culture:

As you have described it above, body modification and combat boots are a significant and deliberate part - if not the very centerpiece - of your evangelistic strategy. You seem to imagine that if you try hard enough to fit into the punk culture, you might actually win people by convincing them that Jesus would fit nicely into their lifestyle, too.

But wouldn't you yourself actually agree that there is - somewhere - a limit to how far Christians can legitimately go in conforming to worldly culture? Surely you do not imagine that the apostle Paul's words about becoming all things to all men is a prescription for adopting every vulgar fashion of a philistine culture. Do you?

[Read Still more from the e-mail outbox]

Finally, Pecadillo of I Drank What? posts a rant about ugly dogs that is quite possibly, bar none, the most fall-down hilarious thing I have ever read on the Internet. And that's saying something.

Meanwhile, the googling weirdos have returned to their former glory:

Until next week . . . enjoy.