Patrick McClarty, The Foolish Liar, Part 2

First, go read this post by Paddy McClarty: Pants On Fire

(UPDATE: Paddy has now deleted the post)

Done?

Great. Let’s discuss it. You form your own conclusions after my rebuttal, if you care or want or have a whim to form any conclusions, or even give a hoot about this.

When he’s not launching racist slurs against Catholics, Ian Scott enjoys the cop-out position of “libertarian”, where instead of encouraging group hatred of ethnic groups he turns to denouncing all states. As if libertarianism was only okay with group/racial identities, and not at all at ease with the state.

Racist slurs against Catholics. Right. I used the term “Paddy,” which according to some database, is supposed to be a “slur.” Funny that, among my friends from Ireland, it’s used quite openly in mixed company, and no one gives a shit. Goes to show you that “slur” is in the mind. What other “slurs” am I guilty of? Hmmm.. McClarty doesn’t say. He does however discuss that I once posted on a Roman Catholic doctrine which I find weird. Of course, McClarty doesn’t provide all the context – perhaps he himself doesn’t know all of the context, but it had to do with a commenter on my blog going on about Roman Catholicism in one breath, while going on about cannibalism in another breath, and making some strange comparisons.

“Well, even if libertarians were against the actions of the state, Ian would fail his own basic integrity test (it wouldn’t be the first). Here’s Ian on his own site:

Regarding the assertion that I said “Ireland should join the Commonwealth”:

This is an outright false misrepresentation of anything I have ever written about “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, or anything I have ever believed.

Here he is on my own site, not so long ago:

If the South could compromise, and agree to be within the “commonwealth,” I bet you’d find a lot of folks in the North more open to the idea.

My own sense says that might be the only hope in the long run.

So were you lying now or then?”

Uhhh… can anyone point to where I wrote as McClarty claims, “Ireland should join the commonwealth?” You won’t find that. Instead, McClarty twists my words in a discussion on one of his blogs in the comment section and magically, mystically, and insanely comes up with this assertion that does not exist.

Who’s lying, McClarty? In fact, I’d encourage you to read the complete discussion that McClarty links to. Isn’t it interesting that McClarty has chosen to leave out many of my words so he can try to justify his insane beliefs as being “fact?” For further context on what I wrote, where McClarty quotes me:

” I’d far prefer to see both the North and South get completely away from religion, see a growth of libertarianism in both parts of the island, and perhaps, even join together.

If the South could compromise, and agree to be within the “commonwealth,” I bet you’d find a lot of folks in the North more open to the idea.

My own sense says that might be the only hope in the long run.

Personally, I wouldn’t be against a “united” Ireland. In many realistic ways, it already is united. No hassles at border crossings in the quiet counties, business and trade go back and forth freely (even if regulations say otherwise – many are able to ignore the regulations freely).”

Ian Scott, at Renegades

Now there you have in greater context what was written. Can any sane thinker after reading that come to the conclusion that I was even attempting to say that Ireland should join the commonwealth? What I wrote was that if they did, perhaps more in the North might be open to the idea of a united Ireland. How McClarty can have the gall to to misrepresent me is beyond me.

Hopefully McClarty will have some integrity and not edit or remove any of my comments at his Renegades blog, and if you’re interested in really knowing what I wrote, please go check it out. Near the end of this discussion, McClarty himself writes,

“Okay, I should probably consider what I write with more, uh, scrutiny. I’m not trying to come off as hostile, but that’s kind of what it looks like I suppose. My bad.”

Yeah, McClarty, you really ought to write with more scrutiny. Check your insane thinking at the door as well, before you start to write and make assertions about what other people have written.

On this latest Shamrocks post, McClarty further shows his “insane thinking” when he quotes me and then offers up his own comment:

“So were you lying now or then? Fortunately, Ian has an excuse:

Unfortunately at this time, I am unable to locate the what I wrote

Oh yeah? What an amazing coincidence.”

Here’s the “amazing coincidence”: I’ve been blogging and commenting on blogs for over 2 years. I don’t recall upon which blogs exactly I have commented on specific subjects. On the day McClarty’s post came to my attention, I did spend some time trying to recall and search for my comments, including a search of the database on my former blog. Time restraints however, prevented me from continuing my search as I had a previous engagement planned. Amazing coincidence? Well I suppose in McClarty’s mind, but then McClarty seems to have a propensity for not pointing to reality, but to the fantasies in his mind.

McClarty’s insanity continues:

“How about his endorsement/defense of Rev. Paisley? Ian thinks that asserting his pro Paisley stance is a lie. Hmmm, really? Because that’s not what you wrote before:

Rathlin Island is 100% Catholic, and is Paisley’s riding. In all of the recent elections, he has received almost, and one time completely, 100% of the ballots cast.

Why? Because Paisley has taken a real interest in these people, and fought for things for them. If you base a man on his actions, and not just his words, then one must agree it’s hard to see how he thinks all Catholics are garbage.

He’s even met with Republic Islanders, who by virtue of their demographics, were Catholics, to give them advice and assistance politically, in dealing with their issues with the Republic of Ireland.

What qualifies as a ringing endorsement, Ian? How about that BS story about some old Catholic woman who voted for Paisley which was your defense of all his actions over the last 50 years.”

Got that? Pointing out facts is a “ringing endorsement” in McClarty’s mind. No, let’s not concern ourselves with more information that might motivate us to be rational in our beliefs, or end up writing such things as “Okay, I should probably consider what I write with more, uh, scrutiny. I’m not trying to come off as hostile, but that’s kind of what it looks like I suppose. My bad.”

McClarty claims that I offered up my experience in a Belfast restaraunt as a “defense of all his actions over the last 50 years.” My response? See this post of mine. Pointing out experience that doesn’t fit the “generalizations” is now, in McClarty’s mind, a “defense of all of someone’s actions. What a nonsensical logical leap, that is.

McClarty’s insane thinking continues:

“But if Ian misrepresents himself or his positions, or is in any way inconsistent in his “recollections”, it might be because of his inferior community college education…”

*Yawn* My “inferior community college education” now is somehow worthy of McClarty’s interest. Do I even need to comment on this statement by McClarty? But let’s carry on here… because now McClarty shows himself to be a liar extraordinaire:

“… or the muddying of his mind over the years he spent beating helpless people in “protecting property”:

Want to know the most efficient way to wake up an alkie that is seeking refuge from the bitter cold in a lobby somewhere, and sleeping his drunkeness away? You really want to know?

Ok.. here’s how you do it. You stand about 2 feet away from the sleeping alky’s feet. You make sure his feet are standing upwards, with the heels on the ground and his toes pointing upward, if you can.

Yep. So by Ian’s own words, Libertarianism is:
1) Claiming that group politics are illegitimate
2) …but ok in the attack of Catholics
3) Group sanctioned violence in defense of a state is wrong
4) …but beating the crap out of sleeping bums for money is acceptable.”

So McClarty quotes me (out of context again) in regard to a method I have seen used in waking up flea infested drunks sleeping in the lobbies and common areas of private property, drunks who were so inebriated, yelling at them was not going to wake them up. Granted, I should have written “One of the most effective ways…. There is another effective way to wake them up, and that is to use smelling salts, but you have to get so close to the person, you might put your own safety in jeaopardy if the drunk wakes up, swinging.

But regardless, because I write that it is “effective,” McClarty has the gall to assert that I believe “beating the crap out of sleeping bums for money is acceptable.” This is not the first time McClarty has made this sort of assertion about me.

What is truly disgusting to me is McClarty’s assertion that I beat helpless people. I wonder if McClarty recalls that Commandment about bearing false witness? This is an absolutely disgusting, outright false, and one of the most vile assertions McClarty makes. Absolute despicable rubbish. I suppose it is one thing to take one’s political or philosophical opinions out of context, but to make accusations such as this is simply beyond the realm. McClarty has a very sick sick mind for him to even remotely justify this wild and despicable lie that he puts forth.

In fact, where he gets this from is a post I wrote a year or so ago, maybe more, that I subsequently removed from my old blog because I wasn’t sure I had made the point I was trying to make and I had plans to revisit the post at a later time. When I first discovered McClarty’s assertions that I personally had beat up bums, I sent him a private email with the full contents of my post, and invited him to show me where I had ever written such a thing. Once again, he responded with some out of context quote.

The fact of the matter is, I saw this “technique” for waking up inebriated, flea infested bums used, and despised it. But I’m certainly not questioning it’s “effectiveness.” I also wanted to engage McClarty in a discussion about justifiable use of force according to law when removing trespassers from property, but that never came about. Instead, McClarty just wanted to explain how he formed his belief that I actually supported and engaged in “beating the crap out of sleeping human beings.”

All the more outrageous, from my own personal point of view regarding McClarty’s assertions is the fact that for years, I was one of a small group that often had to put up with character assassinations by others because we stood up when we saw outrageous actions done against those who were “helpless.” Because we wouldn’t put up with it or be a part of it. In one of my later years in this occupation, my annual evaluation was marked poor because it revolved around the idea that I did not “make good use of legislated authority.” Needless to say, my evaluation was conducted by another insane thinker who’s idea of “good performance” was that of making arrests, getting into fights, and charging people. My philosophy was entirely different and as far as I’m concerned, worked quite well.

I can relate a number of stories about my later years (yeah, when I was young and green, I didn’t have the same courage and foresight or confidence that I had after a number of years of experience under my belt) when I threatened my “back up” with arresting them if they didn’t lay off immediately. I wasn’t about to put up with shit from “bad people” who were criminals, and I certainly wasn’t going to put up with shit from egotistical law enforcement folk, either. I can relate to you about a number of times when I’d have to tell my partner to “Back off!” or face me arresting them for their actions.

The downside of that of course, was that often when I needed back up or assistance (which was seldom compared to many others), it was slow in coming depending on who I was working with. I would have no issues with arresting an asshole, whether they were a citizen, or someone wearing a uniform if they were assaulting someone. I might not have had the respect of everyone, but I had the respect of those that mattered – those I was serving. So McClarty, you can go take your lying assertions and stick them up your ass.
McClarty, let me remind you once again, about your own statement:

” Okay, I should probably consider what I write with more, uh, scrutiny. I’m not trying to come off as hostile, but that’s kind of what it looks like I suppose. My bad”

Not only scrutiny, McClarty, but with a sanity check as well.