<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Darby Clash</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/64ea5ae0bb9a7a8bf78782be0deb3ad0/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:13:44 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Douthat-Carter Continuum</title><link>http://willwilkinson.disqus.com/the_douthat_carter_continuum/#comment-721937</link><description>I'd like to see the words "can be" used instead of "is" in a lot of places, and this is one of them.  If a man should use pr0n as a way of avoiding engagement with his spouse, there would seem to me to be a similarity with adultery.  I think this is bolstered by the human ability to form a "personal" relationship with purely notional persons---pixels, text, a notional deity's kid, corporations, nations, to name a few---which makes it possible for a "relationship" to partially or fully displace a relationship with an actual person.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the other hand, this assumes a  pseudo-{zero-sum} relationship:  as one loves the third party more, one loves the party of the second part (or "Chico") less, or that the second party devalues the equal love felt for them [sic] because it is not exclusive.  My polyamourous friends assert that this is not the case for them when all such activity is super mensa...I'd say, "I'll believe it when I see it," but I'm not interested enough in them or the practice to look, so instead I'll take them on their word for now.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the whole, though, I'd avoid the word "adultery" because it's nuclear.  I once in 2002 had an e-mail correspondence with a local, half-reasonable radio talk-show host over his use of the term "treasonous" to describe some opponents of Bush's Iraq policy.  In the end, he retreated to calling them "morally treasonous", to which I objected on the grounds that using the word "treason" automatically brings more juice to the offence than consideration might well deem reasonable.  It's used more as a way of deciding the outcome of an argument, rather than of arguing, tantamount to circular reasoning.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Darby Clash</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:59:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: We&amp;#8217;ve been maveRick-Rolled</title><link>http://thecynicsparty.disqus.com/we8217ve_been_maverick_rolled/#comment-3055078</link><description>McCain was maverick-rolled (I thought of it too, you beat me to it) because he clicked on a link that he thought would lead to a reformer who would energise the Chrisitans and attract some moderate suburban women, but instead got a whole song-and-dance from a  power-abusing nut-job  who seems intent on  making us remember McCain as "the guy whose supporters were reduced to a would-be lynch-mob".</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Darby Clash</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:13:44 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>