Okay, here's an example of contradicting and confusing information: my dog likes to chase, catch and eat wild rabbits. Some sites say this is fine because running is wonderful exercise and dogs need a supply of fresh meat in their diets. Others say it's not healthy because they may contain worms and parasites that can make them very ill. Which is it?
Okay, Jon, here's how it works: By the time humans become adults, we usually have developed this thing called 'discernment.' It's a mental process by which we determine the qualities of different things based on our own judgement after having carefully weighed the factual information we've learned about them. Discernment is what allows us to separate rumor from fact, lie from truth, and reasonable conclusions from thoughtless or crazy ones.
Take your confusion over rabbit-chasing. The information that you said you've looked up is not confusing, it's simply that one side of the argument supports dogs chasing rabbits, and another doesn't. It should be noted here that Jon never posts any real examples of this contradiction; he merely whines that there are two sides to the argument and that he can't make up his own mind. Discernment would allow Jon to look at the sources of the argument, determine their scientific and medical legitimacy, then, based on that knowledge and his own experience with owning a dog that chases rabbits, come to his own conclusions.
But Jon has demonstrated in several different ways that he either enjoys or requires someone to show him how to think. His penchant for stereotyping and insulting liberals comes straight out of the Sean Hannity / Michael Savage playbook. He came here with that nonsense and we sent him away claiming defeat. He can't operate user-friendly technology without someone teaching him. We've even influenced his perspective on life despite the fact that he believes we're ignorant liars.
Jon simply cannot rationalize the world on his own. He apparently needs someone to hold his hand even then.
If I add you Kiwi morons into the mix, the levels of double-talk and gibbering increase dramatically. I've heard half a dozen theories on Ashleigh alone, each more bizarre than the last...
This is not true. The general consensus on "Ashleigh" was that she was troll.
@MrsFrizzle pointed out some factual information about the woman Jon
suspected was "Ashleigh," proving that he was heading in the wrong direction. I personally noted that Jon had written that she had called for his roommate. There is no double-talk here, and he does not post an example of the supposedly "half-dozen" theories.
What's going on is that Jon has an extremely poor memory for details. He forgets things, even if he writes them down. Moreover, he is possessed of a childish and myopic mindset that demands the world do what he wants it to, and be as he wants it to be. Jon
desperately wants "Ashleigh" to be real. He's never been in a romantic relationship. No woman has ever desired him, and it is very likely that no woman ever will. He's in the 41st year of his life, and nothing seems to have changed. He has no idea how to attract a woman, and the opportunity to ask one out probably never comes up. If "Ashleigh" was real, she was a font of sexual gratification and implied affection that burst up out of the ground unbidden. He would've hit the jackpot. But if she was just a troll -
- Incidentally, "Ashleigh"was just a troll; no one in college wanted him -
- then it meant that Jon never had, and never would have any luck with women. In fact, it would've meant that no one really liked him, and was pulling a prank just to be cruel. "Ashleigh" was just a phantom, and Jon was never seen as attractive or desirable by anyone.
... but not one of you has thought of, oh, I don't know, contacting her, uh, to get her side of things? I think I should at least know the truth about the girl I loved, the one my life was ruined over.
Speaking of contradictions....
So, once again, Jon turns into Begging Benny, telling the world that it needs to address his problems for him. If any of us has considered contacting "Ashleigh" (and for all he knows,
we may have done just that and not made it public...), we have no obligation to tell Jon at all. But then, since she was just a troll who pulled a nearly twenty year-old prank, we have no practical way of figuring out who she was.
But that's just Jon being the "fix it for me!" hobo that he always is. No, the bigger issue here is the contradictory tone he strikes. In the post above the previous one, Jon writes:
Sure,
the Web puts all the knowledge in the world at your fingertips... but half that information sharply contradicts the other half, which is confusing,
and whenever I repeat faulty or biased information, I get relentlessly mocked and savaged by numb peckerheads like you. Not worth it. Progress is disruptive, costly, and just causes trouble most of the time. Who needs it?
So here, we see that Jon seems to have trouble determining if information found on the 'net is legitimate or not, and that when he presents false information - something which has apparently happened quite a number of times, seeing as how he brought it up to begin with - he gets upset when he is rightly jeered at for it. What Jon doesn't seem to understand is that he doesn't merely post false information, but lives by it, and defends his ugly actions by it. We mock him because he's a detestable pig who is basing his hateful attitudes and dumb ideas on wrong information that he could've easily debunked himself if he had any sense of intellectual integrity. He's just stupid, and thus he gets mocked for being stupid, simple as that.
But here's where the contradiction comes in: Jon has no problem hurling invective at us, despite his tacit admission that we're smarter than he is. He
just admitted to repeatedly posting faulty or biased information. He also admitted that we are often capable of pointing it out. Jon is butthurt that we have far more intellectual capability than he does, and that he is able to understand that he is often wrong. But instead, he tries to insult our intelligence by using insults, because it's all he's got left.
Yet, despite the fact that he belittles our intellect and says that our perspectives are untrustworthy "double-talk and gibbering," he still writes:
but not one of you has thought of, oh, I don't know, contacting her, uh, to get her side of things? I think I should at least know the truth about the girl I loved, the one my life was ruined over.
This simply makes no sense. Jon wants us to get down to the "truth" about "Ashleigh," but does not think we can be trusted. He states that everything we've said about "Ashleigh" is a confusing mess, but then he expects, and apparently trusts, us to find this woman, talk to her, and then present her side of things clear of any bias, editing, or verification, for that matter. I mean, I could post an interview I did with "Ashleigh" later today, if I wanted. Heck, just give me an hour, and I could post a couple pages of a phone interview I did with her. It's really no problem. If Jon is that desperate, it wouldn't be a problem.
Of course, Jon ruined his own life. If one could argue he ever had a life, that is.
Progress means change. Change means rules. Rules means punishment, abuse, loss of freedom, revocation of privileges, denial or confiscation of liberties. Rules, rules, rules. Too many rules. Again, who needs it?
Well, this is not universal. It's just more of Jon's canned responses to the fact that he can't run his life by himself. Everybody needs progress, including him. Nobody else has to deal with these so-called "rules" and "punishments," just him. This is because he's an overgrown child whose life is maintained by his mother, and who could not defend against his younger sibling. It's just Jon, no one else.
However, Jon does not seem to understand that the benefits of progress don't specifically need to apply to him. Or, more accurately, society does not need Jon to benefit from anything.
If millions of people benefit from change, but Jon is left out in the cold, so be it. Jon freezes, starves, develops an illness and dies alone and broken - fine. No sweat. "Who needs progress?" is the wrong question. The proper question is, "Who needs Jon?" The answer to that is, "Nobody does."
Society will move as it always has, comfortably without a care for Jon Sweet. Society continues to enjoy the advances of progress, Jon ends up penniless and alone, his frozen, emaciated body discovered inside a refrigerator box behind a furniture store, the only shelter he could find in a failed attempt to keep warm during a brutally cold winter. Acceptable loss.
We exploit newer, faster, life-enhancing technology that brings the world closer together, Jon is buried in a potter's field, unsung and unattended, with no one to mourn him. Works for us!
Progress helps a lot of people, but it doesn't need to help Jon.
