ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Mailvox: the failed metaphor

Congratulations to A. Man, who is the 150th commenter in the last five years to announce that I have, yet again, jumped the shark.  It's amusing how often that metaphor has been heard from overly optimistic critics during the time when the readership has grown from 240k to 930k per month, especially when these critics are often the very same individuals who demand to know where they can find any indication of the economic and societal collapse I have predicted:
"Feminists are objectively worse than Nazis"

It's nice to see that you were able to fully clear the shark.

"This is what the feminist's vaunted concept of equality means. This is what it has always meant: the legal protection of a woman from all and any consequences of her actions. This includes a woman's ability to break any contract at will, to steal from anyone as she pleases, and murder even the most innocent without having to even hear a whisper of protest to make her uncomfortable."


The odd thing is that you know this isn't true, you know this statement cant be defended...and yet you make it still. How does that work? What kind of reconciliation do you do in your mind?
First, feminists are objectively worse than National Socialists.  I have demonstrated this in both logical and empirical terms.  The unborn and the recently born are much more helpless than international Jewry. The cost in human lives of feminism is quite clearly greater than the cost of National Socialism or Fascism ever was.  It could be debated whether feminism or communism has been more costly in those terms, but the mere fact that the matter is debatable suffices to prove what a terrible and evil ideology feminism is.

Second, the statement not only is true, but it can be easily defended. There is no reconciliation necessary to defend it because it is based on straightforward observation.  I direct the following questions to A. Man.
  1. Did American women not demand, and do they not presently possess, the right to break marital contracts at will?
  2. Have feminists not defended the right of women to kill men who abuse them?
  3. Does the feminist definition of abuse include non-physical abuse?
  4. Have feminists called for ban on actions that make a woman feel uncomfortable?

Labels: ,

165 Comments:

Blogger The Original George...or OG March 30, 2013 7:22 AM  

'As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.'
- VOLTAIRE

Blogger FALPhil March 30, 2013 7:23 AM  

Ha! Some men are terminal betas.

I suspect to turn him around, he would have to overcome decades of conditioning, and the feminizing of males in society is the most pernicious side effect of feminism.

Blogger Rantor March 30, 2013 7:33 AM  

I just saw an article in an Australian newspaper which stated that the government there is concerned aboutthelack of women in government. Of course their PM is Julia Gillard, atheist, abortion rights advocate, woman. And of course, her government is trying to blame the problems Australia faces on the men, not on her inability to build consensus or govern effectively, but on the lack of women in Parliament.

Hopefully the fall elections in Australia will result in one less woman PM.

Anonymous Holla March 30, 2013 7:46 AM  

Except of course that the Nazis promoted abortions for non-Aryan women. Which is why the Treaty Against Genocide specifically prohibits eugenic abortions.

So while pro-abortion feminists *may* be as bad as Nazis, they can't be *worse.*

Anonymous NorthernHamlet March 30, 2013 7:52 AM  

Vox,

Whilst a majority of feminist movements have subscribed to the positions you've outlined, not all of them have; some movements have outright opposed them. Why do you put your comments in terms of all feminism as if it were a singular social movement?

Anonymous Mr Green Man March 30, 2013 7:54 AM  

@Holla

Check Margaret Sanger's 1922 book at the foundation of Planned Parenthood; there's a reason that their biggest customer group by population percentage is black women.

@Rantor

No chance they will evict Julia. Australia's Right has tried and failed at that in the past; the majority of Australians are happy to be the tip of the spear of civilizational capitulation. It doesn't help that they are getting colonized by America's Left.

Blogger The Observer March 30, 2013 7:58 AM  

Whilst a majority of feminist movements have subscribed to the positions you've outlined, not all of them have; some movements have outright opposed them. Why do you put your comments in terms of all feminism as if it were a singular social movement?

"I'm a Jew-loving Nazi". See the illogicality of that statement?

I'm certain there are a tiny minority of feminists who oppose one or more stances, but even IF they were totally benign, by simply wearing the label "feminist" and strangely keeping silent and refusing to clean house, they are aiding and abetting the vile majority by lending them cover and legitamacy.

Anonymous Mr Green Man March 30, 2013 7:59 AM  

@NorthernHamlet

Don't you think that you've answered that yourself by saying that the majority subscribe to these things? Sure, there are those who claim to be Feminists for Life, but they're all about the enabling of any behavior women want to do, so that, even if they win on the "Life" issue, there would be no consequences.

In further proof that most Pro-Life women are useless and will pivot on a dime, ask them what the punishment should be if we succeed in outlawing abortion. They'll want the doctor (who they assume is male) to be jailed for life; no penalty to the women, poor dears, poor victims, just didn't want the burden.

Anonymous hardscrabble farmer March 30, 2013 8:06 AM  

The same type of people who applauded the President as he signed the Violence Against Women Act into law days after assigning women to combat will be able to understand your critic without bleeding from the ears.

I wish I had saved the quote about how having our "mothers and daughters in combat will make our forces stronger..." not 48 hours after promising to protect women from violence. So they are strongerer, but weaker. They will protect us abroad, but we must protect them at home. Enemy forces are no match for Mom and Sis, but sadly, they Need Uncle Sam to keep the neighbors at bay.



Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 8:13 AM  

Why do you put your comments in terms of all feminism as if it were a singular social movement?

Because I am not concerned with the fine distinctions of the various feminist equivalents of the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Marxists, Post-Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, I am concerned with the macrosocietal effects of the broader ideology.

So while pro-abortion feminists *may* be as bad as Nazis, they can't be *worse.*

Of course they are. The Nazis not only promoted it to a subset of those to whom the feminists promote it, they did not elevate it to the level of a human right.

Anonymous NortherHamlet March 30, 2013 8:17 AM  

The observer:

Edith Hahn Beer's husband. Language is not always logical nor fair.

Green man:

There are feminist movements that oppose all the positions Vox outlines. It's not accurate to say feminists support these positions, as all feminists don't. A majority does.

Anonymous Ioweenie March 30, 2013 8:17 AM  

Holla: So while pro-abortion feminists *may* be as bad as Nazis, they can't be *worse.*

Pro-abortion feminists (male and female) place no restrictions on who may receive an abortion; the only qualifier is female. Pro-abortion feminists place no restrictions upon when abortions are performed, including post-procedural, otherwise known as infanticide.

An estimated 11 million people died as a result of the Holocaust. Abortion worldwide kills more people every 2 months than the Holocaust did in 12 years (http://prezi.com/j3qlij4vpdlm/abortion/).

Abortion is hastening the failure of Social Security by eliminating future workers. When the program began in the 1930s, 42 workers supported each retiree. By 2030, there will only be two workers to support one retiree.

"Worse" is an appropriate qualifier.

Anonymous NortherHamlet March 30, 2013 8:22 AM  

Vox,

Because I am not concerned with the fine distinctions of the various feminist equivalents of the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Marxists, Post-Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, I am concerned with the macrosocietal effects of the broader ideology.

If you'll permit me to belabor the subject, can't a similar statement be made about religion and extremism? Don't the New Atheists argue something similar?


Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 8:29 AM  

If you'll permit me to belabor the subject, can't a similar statement be made about religion and extremism? Don't the New Atheists argue something similar?

No. Feminism is but one ideology of many. It would be a category error of an order of magnitude to do so. The New Atheists do argue something similar, which is why their arguments are a category error. However, their argument is also inept, because religion provides many benefits that significantly outweigh its costs, as do many religions, such as Christianity. The opposite is true of feminism.

The problem society faces is not with extremist feminists, the problem is with feminism itself. Keep in mind that feminism hasn't even made itself as dominant as communism once did, and yet has created a broad range of social ills and a body count that rival communism's negative accomplishments.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 8:32 AM  

There are feminist movements that oppose all the positions Vox outlines. It's not accurate to say feminists support these positions, as all feminists don't. A majority does.

You are wrong. It is correct to say "feminists support these positions". It would be incorrect to say "all feminists support these positions". Of course, I did not say that.

Not all communists support all ten pillars of the Communist manifesto either, but it would be absurd to insist that "it is not accurate to say communists support the Communist manifesto".

Blogger Remo March 30, 2013 8:34 AM  

1. Yes and they encourage that this action be taken by women

2. Yes, most assuredly

3. Yes, in fact they have gone on to assert that anything that makes a woman uncomfortable, even if pondered on LONG AFTER THE FACT, can be retroactively called and correctly labeled abuse.

4. Yes, including bans on public speeches or internet speech that they don't like, books or free expression they label 'misogynistic', and any form of written or electronic communication that displeases them. They have further have called for the firing and filing of harassment charges on anyone in the public sphere they dislike or who fails to defer to them as they see fit.

Anonymous Sigyn March 30, 2013 8:35 AM  

Prediction: He's going to tell you you're stupid, make a reference to poop, and refuse to answer three of your four questions.

Pattern recognition's a bitch, isn't it?

Anonymous jla March 30, 2013 8:36 AM  

No, northerHamlet. Your trying to use an exception to overturn the rule, while as Mr green man already pointed out, it actually proves it. Same thing with the new atheists.

Anonymous NortherHamlet March 30, 2013 8:36 AM  

Thank you Vox.

Anonymous ericcs March 30, 2013 8:39 AM  

The beauty of liberalism is that you are allowed to deform the language in whatever way you feel, so as to avoid ever acknowledging the horrendous real-world ramifications of your poisoned policies.

Therefore I fully expect A.Man and her emasculated zealots to take on Vox's position by...
- redefining terms via semantic games, including relegating Vox's positions to a lower category of something less-than-worthy of consideration;
- using overgeneralizations to the point that issues and categories are redefined to utter meaninglessness, i.e., deconstruct distinctions until they no longer exist;
- ignoring statistical correlations both positive and negative from real-world data, alternatively relying on statistical outliers;
- rewriting history both recent and otherwise in order to reframe their justifications and move the goalposts as many times as they feel it's convenient;
- using rhetorical arguments instead of those governed by the rules of logic and its associated common fallacies; simultaneously, using category errors and strawmen as part of their rhetoric.
- claim that their sacred feelings trump everybody else for all time no matter what SO THERE!
- if all else fails, fall back on name-calling and demeaning the opposition as something less than human.

The preceding list is admittedly not exhaustive nor even stated very succinctly (no doubt there are classification overlaps), but they or something like them have already inevitably popped up in this thread.

Now let's settle back with some popcorn...

Anonymous Anonymous March 30, 2013 8:46 AM  

Here's a question I have pondered for years: aren't the ruling class of men just as much to blame for feminism? Those men abdicated their authority. An invading army of feminists did not take over by force. I do not assign blame to the average Joe because he, like the average Jane, is bound by the laws from which the ruling class exempts itself. I would say if you want to get rid of feminism, try to persuade ruling class MEN that it's bad, so they will reclaim their authority, which they can do any time they please. Might may not make right, but it does make legal and political systems.

Anonymous The Next to Last Samurai March 30, 2013 8:49 AM  

Oops, that last comment was me; I forgot to do the name/URL thing. I humbly accept the Shame of Anonymous Commenting and promise to try not to do it again.

Blogger Rantor March 30, 2013 8:55 AM  

So I checked the feminists for life website. Other than their opposition to abortion, they are left wing fem. They want someone to provide them daycare at work or school, medical coverage, support UN feminist efforts, welfare expansion, etc. without stating it, they stand for women's rights to the detriment of the traditional family and the detriment of their children (who they will gladly warehouse in state run daycare centers).

So whose side wins their vote and ultimately what group advances based on their efforts?

Blogger The Observer March 30, 2013 8:56 AM  

@Next to last Samurai:

TPTB will never let go of feminism, considering it fits in perfectly with their agendas. Feminism is good for big business, as anywhere from 80-80% (depending on which economist you ask) of consumer spending is by women. It's good for big government because it gives it more excuses to make insane legislations and neutered men are less likely to resist. It's good for the elites, not so much for people and society, and the elites have inured themselves from most of feminism's toxic effects, even if one or two do get caught up in the traps they laid themselves.

If you believe in governmental involvement in feminism, then appealing to it to solve things isn't going to work.

The only answer is collapse, destruction and a hard reset. Hopefully a Dark Ages 2.0 as well.

Anonymous Holla March 30, 2013 9:17 AM  

Vox:

The Nazis promoted the "human rights" of one small racial subset over all others.

The modern-day Malthusians essentially promote the "human rights" of a privileged economic class over all others.

What's the overlap between the economic 1% and the Anglo-Saxon/Scandie/"Aryan?"

loweenie:

The Nazis were cut off at the pass. They embraced American eugenics whole-heartedly, and had they won, would have enforced that ideology with military might instead of the subversive tactics the Remnant were forced to employ.

Anonymous Outlaw X March 30, 2013 9:19 AM  

The ideology of the femists are clear. Legislators don't even know how to ask a direct question. A thirty something year old representing Planned Parenthood in a previous post was never directly asked. "Do you believe it is a good Idea to kill babies even after their born?" "At what age should it be legal to kill your child?" I'm not a doctor won't work, it is a question of ethics not medical neccesity or legistics. I hope the bitch burns in Hell but would still rather she had a come to Jesus moment.

Anonymous scoobius dubious March 30, 2013 9:19 AM  

"- if all else fails, fall back on name-calling and demeaning the opposition as something less than human."

What do you mean, if all else fails? Name-calling and demeaning are the opening gambits for the left. They are also gambits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 17 thru 356.

"if you want to get rid of feminism, try to persuade ruling class MEN that it's bad,"

Whoa, much too late for that: your ruling class men are now completely and utterly infested with Jews, and they LIKE that the goyim are being ground to bits by feminism. (And also by mass immigration, and miscegenation, and diversity law, and the cultural deconstruction of Christianity, etc etc etc ad nauseam.) That's what this particular mindworm was promoted for in the first place. Pay closer attention.

Anonymous E. PERLINE March 30, 2013 9:19 AM  

A man's role is to take care of his wife and family and especially to oversee his children. He must be taught to be the captain of his little ship. Women will not dispute that idea.

But when a man is not present, literally or idealogically, than feminism rises.

Psychologists don't understand why children cut themselves. Since there is no father to be be the disciplinarian, children in their inept way, do his job for him.



Anonymous Outlaw X March 30, 2013 9:21 AM  

Logistics I mean.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 30, 2013 9:25 AM  

The Nazis at least felt compelled to fabricate a set of crimes to blame the Jews with before killing them. Feminists are quite up front about babies being guilty of nothing more than being in the way.

More evil. Feminists have less of a conscience than Nazis.

Anonymous Paladin March 30, 2013 9:41 AM  

Ayn Rand. Feminist or not feminist?

Anonymous castricv March 30, 2013 9:50 AM  

1) Nazis -- killed certain ethnics, gays, gypsies, mentally ill on grounds of creating a perfect state for ethnic Germans and cleansing the Fatherland of undesireable.

2)Soviets -- killed millions of people in work camps, gulags, starvation of Ukraine, and millions more in an attempt to create a "fair" state for all with each according to their needs.

3)Paul Pot Cambodia -- systematic killing of lawyers, professors, etc. in the hopes of cleansing the nation of abusers and starting fresh under a prole all the same banner. Skulls by the hundreds of thousands.

4)Feminism --- millions of deaths of unborn babies of the same race, blood, and country, not to mention it is their own frikking child merely for the sake of not being inconvenienced by the blessing of having your own child. Western society crumbling is of no consequence as long as she can pursue an office job and a stable of weekly dickly.

Now what rational person cannot decipher which is more sick and destructive? The first three are immoral, misguided, and done by their elites for their own benefit mostly, but at least the idea was BETTERMENT of that particular society, country, race, humanity....

A woman who has been indoctrinated in this cult will literally destroy her future, her country, her race, and even her own helpless child to simply live a slightly less inconvenient materialistic life?? It is the height of narcissistic psychosis. Even my young wife of late has been saying that women over 40 start to go selfishly batty. And yet all of this is supposed to be empowering and cutesy inconsequential. Be dammed...

Anonymous Dan in Tx March 30, 2013 9:56 AM  

Isn't it funny how leftists are all identically programmed? Seriously, I always catch myself thinking that the latest leftist has simply changed their handle when a new one shows up. Whether it's A.Man, Tad or any of the others that have wandered through here they spew the exact same illogical nonsense, verbatim (oh and they always act as though they've just unleashed some sort of original earth shattering brilliance that you've never heard before). It's amazing how effective the institutionalized brain washing can be.

Anonymous Bohm March 30, 2013 10:02 AM  

Oh boy. I have only one issue with A. Man's comment: To intimate that VD 'jumped the shark' is to presume that VD had any credibility in the first place.

Let's remember that VD is currently 'campaigning' for the position of SFWA presidency ( or whatever it's called). This post is but one indication of a 'campaign' that can best be described as a slow motion trainwreck.

I, for one, have never witnessed a more inept and cack-handed 'campaign' in all my days. Imagine: VD has actually used this blog as a platform for his 'campaign' -and he thinks it prudent to post such 'thoughts' on feminism here as well for all members to see. I suppose it makes for passing entertainment (hence, perhaps, the increased traffic).

Laughable. I can only assume he takes his beating as understood.

Anonymous Pablo March 30, 2013 10:10 AM  

Okay, it has to be said: NAFALT!!
About as convincing as "Not All Nazis Are Like That".

Anonymous The Master Cylinder! March 30, 2013 10:19 AM  

"I, for one, have never witnessed a more inept and cack-handed 'campaign' in all my days."

I think maybe you need to look up the word "gadfly". Also, you may wish to see under "deliberate pain in the ass."

Not everybody who fights expects to win. Sometimes people just fight because they want to make a point.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 10:29 AM  

Oh boy. I have only one issue with A. Man's comment: To intimate that VD 'jumped the shark' is to presume that VD had any credibility in the first place.

Right, the reason congressional offices call me seeking interviews and various news sites have been inquiring if I'm interested in writing a column on their site is because I lack credibility.

Let me ask you a question: does John Scalzi have credibility in your eyes?

Laughable. I can only assume he takes his beating as understood.

Let's just say I'm not terribly concerned about the outcome. I gave them their choice. My conscience is now clear regardless of what they choose.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 10:31 AM  

I suppose it makes for passing entertainment (hence, perhaps, the increased traffic).

The SFWA-related traffic is trivial. And about 98 percent of the increase predated both my campaign and the McRapey affair.

Anonymous Krul March 30, 2013 10:36 AM  

Scoob and ericcs said:
"- if all else fails, fall back on name-calling and demeaning the opposition as something less than human."

What do you mean, if all else fails? Name-calling and demeaning are the opening gambits for the left. They are also gambits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 17 thru 356.


Then Bohm said:
Oh boy. I have only one issue with A. Man's comment: To intimate that VD 'jumped the shark' is to presume that VD had any credibility in the first place.

Swing and a hit.

Of course it's no surprise, since the tactic is explicitly spelled out in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", rule number 5:

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Anonymous Dan in Tx (aghast at the fact a rabbit has found the campaign hq) March 30, 2013 10:37 AM  

Bohm: "I, for one, have never witnessed a more inept and cack-handed 'campaign' in all my days."

As opposed to McRapey's F bomb dropping comments relating to publishers. Add to that the fact that Vox's campaign is, how should I put this, like most everything he partakes in around here; for the most part simply for his own amusement.

Anonymous Daniel March 30, 2013 10:38 AM  

I think A. Man was genuinely concerned for Fonzie, donned his footie pajamas and tuned in for both part one and two.

"Cool Man! Did you see Vox jump that shark! Best. Episode. Ever!!!"

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 10:45 AM  

millions of deaths of unborn babies of the same race, blood, and country

FWIR, 38 percent of all abortions performed are on black women. Since black women rarely have sex with anyone but black men this would indicate at at least 38 percent of abortions kill of future black adults. But there's something else to consider: lots of non-black women get pregnant by lower class black men. What portion of abortions sought by white and hispanic women are for pregnancies by black men? Probably a significant chunk.

I'm going to guess that between 45 and 50 percent of all babies killed via abortion are black. Most blacks living in the US are not "our people", meaning they don't have any allegiance or sentimental attachment to western culture and civilization.

The idea that abortion is the primary cause of the collapse of pension-type programs is ludicrous. Those programs were ponzi schemes from the start and having a tens more millions of savage blacks running around the US isn't likely to have made SS any more solvent.

Anonymous zen0 March 30, 2013 10:49 AM  

Bohm opines: I, for one, have never witnessed a more inept and cack-handed 'campaign' in all my days.

You left out "innovative" and "entertaining". I am sure it was merely an unfortunate oversight, otherwise one might become suspicious that you lact "discernment".

Blogger Baloo March 30, 2013 11:08 AM  

I've been reading you for some time now, and any sharks you jump damn well have it coming. I've riffed on this (with special reference to leftism/feminism-as-immaturity), quoted, and linked here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2013/03/femi-whatzies.html

Anonymous LL March 30, 2013 11:08 AM  

I give exhibit 1, wherein the article and comments show that the women who got these abortions are not held accountable for the fact that they were seeking abortions very late in their terms, up to the point of viability outside of the womb and yet the debate is about more legislation and failure of the state to "police" this abortion clinic. I thought the pro-choice group wanted legal abortions to make them safe for women? So they don't have to go to "back alley abortionists?" And yet they willingly go to a place that is so filthy, I would not even look at the building. Yay for legal abortions and women making good choices for themselves due to feminism!

I give you exhibit 2, wherein a woman's choice is so paramount that if a baby survives the knife or suction tube, she STILL should be able to terminate.

Yes, feminism is doing our world a great bit of good. /snark

Anonymous Krul March 30, 2013 11:27 AM  

As an addendum to my previous comment, I would point out that Alinsky was wrong. As our resident trolls demonstrate on a regular basis, there is a near unassailable defense against ridicule, and that is simply to not take the mocker seriously. Confronted with a combination of apathy and amused contempt, the mocker's continued ridicule only serves to erode his own credibility and relevance.

Anonymous MendoScot March 30, 2013 11:30 AM  

OT: Well this sounds like fun.

Gursant Singh Khalsa, a practicing Sikh for 35 years, charges in the lawsuit filed this month that California’s laws banning military-style, semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines violate mainstream Sikh doctinre requiring Sikhs “be at all time fully prepared to defend themselves and others against injustice.”

Anonymous The other skeptic March 30, 2013 11:36 AM  

Gursant Singh Khalsa, a practicing Sikh for 35 years, charges in the lawsuit filed this month that California’s laws banning military-style, semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines violate mainstream Sikh doctinre requiring Sikhs “be at all time fully prepared to defend themselves and others against injustice.”

I predict that they will rule that since he is a heterosexual male his arguments are irrelevant.

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 11:40 AM  

@ Krul

As an addendum to my previous comment, I would point out that Alinsky was wrong. As our resident trolls demonstrate on a regular basis,

This observation is only correct within the microenvironment that is VP. Outside of VP the ridicule you see is highly effective. Let's see you take the positions in common currency on VP in polite society - I assure you that the standard response will be ridicule and that this ridicule will be effective.

Anonymous Ioweenie March 30, 2013 11:49 AM  

The Next to Last Samurai & The Observer

Agreed; men have colluded with (if not conceived of and promoted) feminist ideals since women didn't have access to legislative or media power until recently (and apart from consumer/voter power, still don't have much clout). Unfettered access to sex without consequences and material provision that feminism advocates to men and women alike not only sounds too good to be true, they aren't true. Sex and sloth are powerful motivators.

Even if you don't think more born people is better than more dead people, the cancer of feminism is in its promotion and legislation of behavior based on no more than female whimsy.

Blogger mmaier2112 March 30, 2013 11:54 AM  

Let's see how the pigs react when I call them for DV on me from my female live-in.

"So she hit you?"
"Well.... no, but she yelled at me, called me a 'loser', said my dick was too small and really made me feel like she COULD hit me! AT ANY SECOND!"

Blogger mmaier2112 March 30, 2013 11:55 AM  

Holla March 30, 2013 7:46 AM

Except of course that the Nazis promoted abortions for non-Aryan women. Which is why the Treaty Against Genocide specifically prohibits eugenic abortions.

So while pro-abortion feminists *may* be as bad as Nazis, they can't be *worse.*


Of course pro-abot fems are worse.

They advocate murder OF THEIR OWN CHILDREN! Not "undesirables".

Anonymous Inane Rambler March 30, 2013 11:57 AM  

"Let's see you take the positions in common currency on VP in polite society - I assure you that the standard response will be ridicule and that this ridicule will be effective."

Absolutely. To the outside world, 98% of the commenters on this blog are insane at best, evil monstrosities at worst.

Blogger Doom March 30, 2013 11:58 AM  

Telling the truth is not ever going to make you popular. It is a lot like telling three year olds that Santa doesn't exist. And, honestly, other than citing others, you can't really prove it. Even if you could, and I would argue that you can't, get every adult to admit the truth, some children will absolutely refuse to hear it. Keep jumping those sharks!

Me? I've got popcorn, enough for about a year, for when those sharks eat the people. I won't share. Mostly because I'm going to be laughing myself to tears and that doesn't sit well with the believers who will be crying. Well, and dealing with the distraught who hate the truth, then deal with the truth as poorly as they do, ends in rotting corpses, and I'm lazy that way. It's all good.

Anonymous Will Best March 30, 2013 12:00 PM  

Feminism is only worse than national socialism or communism in the sense that it has been given more time left unchecked than either. It is more insidious but no more evil.

Anonymous Anonagain March 30, 2013 12:04 PM  

Nazis were capable of creating and maintaining the infrastructure and order. Feminists are ignorant, lazy, self-absorbed creatures who would have it all fall down around their empty heads and destroy everyone in the process of proving their superiority over men.

Feminists can offer badly constructed mud huts, disease from unsanitary conditions, starvation, and privation of all other necessities. But, they will fight unceasingly for a woman's right to murder her own babies, and do whatever the hell else she pleases without taking any responsibility whatsoever for the consequences, while blaming it all on the evil patriarchy.

Nazis were evil. Feminists are evil, stupid, and useless. Nazis are indeed the lesser of the two evils. And to those who would argue that feminists would never try to take over the world, it wouldn't be for lack of desire. Every feminist has the uttered a variation of the following sentiment, "If women ruled the world, it would be a much better place", to which I sneer back something along the lines of, "You stupid bitch. Women are vicious, cold-blooded cunts who would start wars over the pettiest reasons."




Anonymous Red Comet March 30, 2013 12:10 PM  

Whilst a majority of feminist movements have subscribed to the positions you've outlined, not all of them have; some movements have outright opposed them. Why do you put your comments in terms of all feminism as if it were a singular social movement?

I've literally never met or seen a feminist that wasn't about what Vox outlines. Any who claimed to be as you say were quickly proven frauds and really all about women not having to face any consequences when the right subject was brought up (paternity fraud, alimony, take your pick).

I suggest you start bringing these subjects up and seeing these people for who they really are before they drag you further down the rabbit hole.

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 12:11 PM  

It seems that the regular commenters on this blog seem to place a great deal of currency in the Bible. So, here's a challenge: where in the Bible is there any indication of a societal institution of retirement?

Think of all the young women who get hustled into education degrees and then spend their fertile years babysitting juvenile delinquents. Wouldn't it make more sense to have people of what we currently call retirement age doing that sort of thing? The very notion of retirement is an abomination.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 12:17 PM  

Nazis were capable of creating and maintaining the infrastructure and order. Feminists are ignorant, lazy, self-absorbed creatures who would have it all fall down around their empty heads and destroy everyone in the process of proving their superiority over men.

A salient point and another way to demonstrate that feminists are even worse than Nazis.

Anonymous Bohm March 30, 2013 12:20 PM  

"does John Scalzi have credibility in your eyes?"

Anyone with the slightest political nouse will know that that question is beside the point. What matters is YOUR credibility. And you have demonstrated comprehensively -whether you like it or not - that you have none, by your own words. Anyone who embarks on an electoral campaign with the express intention of losing that campaign is obviously a monumental waste of everyone's time.

Losing an election does not prove a point - rather the opposite. You might wonder at your acolytes who find the spectacle so 'innovative' and 'entertaining' -that can't be encouraging.

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 12:20 PM  

@ Inane Rambler

I regularly get away with taking the sorts of positions seen on VP. The reason I can get away with it is that I am just far better at it then this lot is.

There is a perfectly salable response to the "nazi" slur that leftists throw around: if what the Nazis had said about Jews had been true the Holocaust would have been justified. Clearly, the implication is that I disagree with the Nazis about Jews on factual grounds, so I can't be a raving anti-semite. Further, the Nazis claims were that Jews were involved in a project to destroy the civilization that gave them place. Is it really unreasonable to eliminate a group of people whose existence is built around destroying civilization, the civilization that makes their lives possible? I can usually get most people to agree to that.

The problem with the ilk-types isn't their positions but that they are so incompetent at arguing for them. If you are coming from a perspective that challenges the dominant narrative, which is leftism, then you have to adopt a posture of coy playfulness, not of imperious arrogance.

Anonymous castricv March 30, 2013 12:22 PM  

ASHER ---

castricv -- "millions of deaths of unborn babies of the same race, blood, and country"

Asher -- "FWIR, 38 percent of all abortions performed are on black women. Since black women rarely have sex with anyone but black men this would indicate at at least 38 percent of abortions kill of future black adults. But there's something else to consider: lots of non-black women get pregnant by lower class black men. What portion of abortions sought by white and hispanic women are for pregnancies by black men? Probably a significant chunk.

I'm going to guess that between 45 and 50 percent of all babies killed via abortion are black. Most blacks living in the US are not "our people", meaning they don't have any allegiance or sentimental attachment to western culture and civilization."


While you numbers may in fact be correct, they do not address my point in the slightest. The complete shocking evil of it all is that a woman will kill her own child (who of course is her own race) for trivial reasons. And yes this feminist ideal leads to destruction of families, nanny states, loss of self and soul which lead directly to the destruction of our civilization regardless of color. Please keep n mind that while many aborted babies are black, most of the mothers eventually can't help but pop out kids later that will most certainly be wards of the state. If she were to have been in the right mindset in the first place (and society as well), she would already have her kid without any abortions and be too busy raising it properly in an intact home to worry about this nonsense.

Because a woman no longer feels bound to her children (even their basic survival) she is free to pursue fake non-productive careers, socially devious behaviors, and vote and promote accordingly. Families are broken and children are now monsters. Abortion merely shows the utter degradation and consequences of this insidious theology.

When Kipling spoke of those who must be kept, he could not have possibly considered the real "children" who needed watching all around
him. I firmly believe that the behavior and essence of modern women would shock any 19th century person more than anything the NAMs can get up to.

Anonymous David March 30, 2013 12:27 PM  

"The odd thing is that you know this isn't true, you know this statement cant be defended"

A. Man explicitly demonstrates what is, unfortunately, all too often the mind-set of people today who are half-educated with a strong set of opinions but have never bothered to look too deeply into what they believe.

If they find that you disagrees with them, they actually think that, secretly, deep down, you actually know they are correct and don't even believe what you are saying. And therefore you must be arguing just to spite them and refuse to admit you are wrong.

It never even crosses their mind that you may have arrived at your conclusion through logic and reason, and believe the opposite conclusion just as much as they believe theirs. Let alone that your conclusion is more objectively grounded in actual observations and/or research.

Anonymous castricv March 30, 2013 12:31 PM  

Bohm, do you even read the vomit you actually write?

"Anyone with the slightest political nouse will know that that question is beside the point. What matters is YOUR credibility. And you have demonstrated comprehensively -whether you like it or not - that you have none, by your own words. Anyone who embarks on an electoral campaign with the express intention of losing that campaign is obviously a monumental waste of everyone's time."

So standing up in the only LEGAL way left for decent people to protest idiots and corruption (i.e. elections) even when you are a severe underdog means you have no credibility?? Perhaps getting out the word that some people still have integrity and that you don't have to be silenced by the thought police will inspire a few people.

By YOUR own words you would think more highly of VD if he went around fellating all the fat, estrogen laced herbs with tales of glorious diversity and true piety to the altar of pc. filth. You are the epitome of new age trash and you don't even realize it.

And for what? So he can be the head of a sci-fi writer's group full of said herbs???? Imagine what depths people like you would sink to win an actual political election.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 12:33 PM  

Anyone with the slightest political nouse will know that that question is beside the point. What matters is YOUR credibility. And you have demonstrated comprehensively -whether you like it or not - that you have none, by your own words. Anyone who embarks on an electoral campaign with the express intention of losing that campaign is obviously a monumental waste of everyone's time.

Your thinking is befuddled. I don't intend to lose the campaign, I merely expect to do so. My objective was to give the SFWA one last chance to survive and remain relevant if I happened to be wrong about the membership and there turned out to be sufficient forward-thinking members of the organization less concerned about equalitarian ideology than the fate of science fiction.

If my vision is rejected, so be it. I'll be sure to remind them of that once they start crying about it coming to pass anyhow. I find it amusing that you claim I have no credibility when you have absolutely no idea what is taking place even as you post here.

Anonymous Mr. B.A.D. March 30, 2013 12:35 PM  

The thought occurs to me Vox that you could celebrate this momentous occasion by jumping a jet ski or motor cycle over a tank filled with 150 sharks.

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 12:46 PM  

@ castricv

The complete shocking evil of it all is that a woman will kill her own child (who of course is her own race)

Then why bring up sociological considerations? Evil and sociology are two completely different categories of analysis. If abortion is some timeless, universal evil then argue against it on that ground. If abortion has negative sociological implications then argue for it on those grounds. Why the need to jumble the two together.

Note to Vox: this is an example of the "straddle" where empirical and metaphysical arguments are straddled to fill in each others' weaknesses. Jeffrey Friedman's "libertarian straddle" is not something unique to libertarianism and is a general straddle going back to Aristotle.

most of the mothers eventually can't help but pop out kids later that will most certainly be wards of the state. If she were to have been in the right mindset in the first place

They can't. They're black and their evolutionary history is of prehistoric savages. Vox's pig-headed rejection of evolution eliminates this analysis from his arsenal.

she is free to pursue fake non-productive careers

I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood where abortion was frequent. Trust me, those women weren't out pursuing careers.

Abortion merely shows the utter degradation and consequences of this insidious theology

Oh, okay. Now abortion isn't some cause of degradation but an effect of it. Yeah, I agree with this point but, then, why waste a bunch of time and energy railing at the effect of degradation rather than its cause.

Abortion isn't the cause of rebellion against God but its effect. Vox, the ilk, and broader Christianity are obsessed with the effects of degradation and often seem oblivious to its causes. HINT: there is a reason for this. Any guesses why?

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 12:48 PM  

The concept of "nous" meant thoughtfulness, understanding or presence of mind. Not sure what "nouse" means.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 1:01 PM  

Vox's pig-headed rejection of evolution eliminates this analysis from his arsenal.

For someone who prides himself on his intellectual precision, Asher, you are reliably careless. As I have pointed out on at least 10 occasions already, I do not reject evolution, I am an evolutionary skeptic.

Only an ideologue or an ignoramus could accept TE(p)NSBMGDaGF as fact given the growing number of revisions and epicycles now required by the "theorum". And to claim my position is "pig-headed" is simply stupid.

Anonymous castricv March 30, 2013 1:04 PM  

Asher, now you're nitpicking. My original post was in the context of how the Big 3 Evil examples I gave were motivated by killing the degenerate "other" (whether it be race, class, etc.) Feminism's unique evil, and thus a support for VD's position, is that a woman commits similar evil acts without the provocation or motivation of said other; but instead against her own children. This of course then moves into the family, society bit. The levels of evil are indicated by one guy who hates Blacks because they raped his wife killing other blacks and one pyscho who kills random people because it's just a thing to do for him. There is no "straddle" here except one you are desperately trying to create to bolster your position with other posters.

I wish I could link like in the older version of this blog, but I was most certainly not talking about black women pursuing fad careers, but was speaking as to the feminist woman's motivations as presented by they themselves. While I agree with you on the inate problems with blacks that are not correctable, one only needs look back to before feminism to see drastically higher rates of intact black families (again the blacks were not really the main emphasis of my post). Black women stayed home and raised kids at levels even with the current white intact families now. Yes black violence, promiscuity, and lower intel. has always been around, but it was by far better contained and not only simply with segregation.

As to your final rebuttal, "Yeah, I agree with this point but, then, why waste a bunch of time and energy railing at the effect of degradation rather than its cause.", it's a simple answer.

BECAUSE THAT IS THE DAMM TOPIC AT HAND.

I could post on SBPDL any day of the week on that issue if I wanted to.


Anonymous Matthew March 30, 2013 1:07 PM  

"Asher, now you're nitpicking"

Now?

Anonymous Bohm March 30, 2013 1:08 PM  

Intend = expect.

So, you didn't intend to lose, you merely expect to lose. Am I to suppose that accounts for the conduct of your campaign? What difference would that make, I wonder?

"you have absolutely no idea what is taking place even as you post here".

You're right and yet I have an inkling that you will lose. And then, the entire genre of science fiction will be bereft of your forward-thinking vision, having relinquished its last chance of relevance - its fate, if you will. Excuse me will I grip my sides.

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 1:11 PM  

@ vd

“theory of evolution by (probably) natural selection, beneficial mutation, genetic drift and gene flow.” Of course, the acronym’s originator omitted HGT, genetic “draft” (hitchhiking), and a number of other mechanisms.

It's really simple: either the average difference between whites and blacks is due to God or natural causes. Which is it? the label "evolutionary skeptic" is just sophisticated hand waving in addressing that question, and I've been asking "evolutionary skeptics" that question for many years.

I place the words "evolutionary skeptic" in scare quotes because I haven't been able to get a straight answer on what the hell that label means. Care to give it a shot?

Anonymous Cat McClusky March 30, 2013 1:13 PM  

This topic greatly illustrates the moral blindness and outright stupidity of the Godless feminist/atheist argument that a people can be "good without God".

Any psychopath can be perfectly "moral" when the definition of morality changes to suit whatever whims the person or the society have at the time.

Cretinous liberals conflate "morality" with being law abiding.

By the standards of the Third Reich, a Nazi murderer could have been an exemplary citizen, a pillar of his community and perfectly "moral".

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 1:23 PM  

@ VD

For myself, when I use the term "evolution" all I mean is the following:

The best possible physical explanation for the vast variation we experience in types of life.

Now, when I encounter "evolutionary skeptics" I always ask them whether or not the vast variation we see in humans is due to God-causes or natural causes. It's either one or the other and there is no possible third category of explanation.

But when I encounter "new atheist" types I present the vast array of evidence for biodiversity within the human species and ask them to provide an alternative natural explanation. They, of course, cannot do this, so they are laughably stuck posting "social causes", whatever the hell that means.

So, what is evolution, Vox? Evolution is the best available theory that attributes physical causes to the variations of life we see on planet earth. Is that the theory of evolution that we see common currency? No. Is that better than completing explanations? Yes.

Your "evolutionary skepticism" is an obstacle to the most effective and efficient assault on the new atheists. The problem with your "evolutionary skepticism" isn't that it's wrong but that it is ineffective in achieving its goals.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 1:33 PM  

And then, the entire genre of science fiction will be bereft of your forward-thinking vision, having relinquished its last chance of relevance - its fate, if you will. Excuse me will I grip my sides.

As I said, you have no idea what is in the works, much less what the consequences are going to be. The identity of the gatekeepers is in the process of changing and I'm already one of them. The amusing thing is that the publishers clearly recognize this while the authors are still scoffing.

Which, of course, is why I have been thoroughly amused throughout the process. As you yourself will bear witness, I called the shot.

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 1:35 PM  

@ Cat McClusky

Any psychopath can be perfectly "moral" when the definition of morality changes to suit whatever whims the person or the society have at the time.

Um, no. Psychopathy is the inability to work within a social framework with others and form alliances. Psychopaths stab their "friends" in the back at the first possible opportunity. Ted Bundy was not a psychopath. Neither was Pol Pol. Nor Hitler, James Holmes, Adam Lanza, the Green River Killer, etc.

Psychopaths kill you if you are an obstacle to their immediate physical gratification but, other than than, psychopaths are not killers. Basically, psychopaths like to f*ck and get high. The sort of evil that does not involve f*cking or getting high is not psychopathy.

By the standards of the Third Reich, a Nazi murderer could have been an exemplary citizen, a pillar of his community and perfectly "moral".

Except "murder" is within the category of legality. Nazis who killed Jews were not murderers and were not psychopaths. Certainly, I don't want to live in a nazi society but that doesn't require my calling Nazis "murderers" or "psychopaths" to reject Nazism.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 1:35 PM  

It's really simple: either the average difference between whites and blacks is due to God or natural causes. Which is it? the label "evolutionary skeptic" is just sophisticated hand waving in addressing that question, and I've been asking "evolutionary skeptics" that question for many years. I place the words "evolutionary skeptic" in scare quotes because I haven't been able to get a straight answer on what the hell that label means. Care to give it a shot?

The meaning is plain. It is not hand-waving of any kind. If you can't figure it out, that's your problem. And, as I've already pointed out, you're observably wrong.

You're also off-topic. This is not a post about evolution.

Anonymous Krul March 30, 2013 1:40 PM  

Outside of VP the ridicule you see is highly effective. Let's see you take the positions in common currency on VP in polite society - I assure you that the standard response will be ridicule and that this ridicule will be effective.

I respectfully beg to differ. Look at Objectivists, Tea Partiers, and Truthers; these groups have continued to grow and thrive despite constant ridicule.

Hell, look at Christians, Mormons, and Scientologists as counterexamples. There is a point where mockers realize they're banging their heads against a brick wall and resort to ignoring rather than attacking the target group. Meanwhile the group continues to grow.

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 1:40 PM  

@ VD

If you can't figure it out, that's your problem.

A comment worthy of Amanda Marcotte. Jezzie, much? Pure effeminacy on your part Vox.

I know exactly what "evolutionary skeptic" means ... which is nothing. It's the VP equivalent of feminists screeching about "patriarchy" - it doesn't mean anything.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 1:49 PM  

I'm going to give you one opportunity to rethink that last comment and retract, Asher. Otherwise, be advised I'm going to take you at your word and treat you exactly the way Amanda Marcotte would.

I will also note that you are wrong. Again. Evolutionary skeptic means precisely what the dictionary would indicate. No one but you has any trouble understanding the concept.

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 1:49 PM  

@ Krul

Look at Objectivists, Tea Partiers, and Truthers;

I can't believe you lumped these three groups together. Tea Partiers are just mainstream conservatives. Objectivists are weirdos with an inability to explain themselves and their movement has not grown for decades. Truthers are also weirdos who ignore Occam's Razor and their numbers have trailed off over the past few years.

Anonymous Cat McClusky March 30, 2013 1:55 PM  

My point being that if a society gets to define what it's own standards of morality will be, then it will define morality according to it's own convenience and ends. Atheism. feminism, Marxism, environmentalism all chime in about how traditional morality needs to be redefined or revised, even to the point that the term "morality" losses it's meaning.

It's a simple point, really.

Sorry I didn't meet your exacting standards of pedantic perfection.

Anonymous FrankNorman March 30, 2013 1:55 PM  

The phrase "Rabbit's gonna rabbit" has stuck in my mind. It makes me imagine a sort of pink Energizer Bunny tap-dancing with oversized feet.

Anonymous FrankNorman March 30, 2013 1:58 PM  

And Asher's gonna asher...

Asher March 30, 2013 1:49 PM

@ Krul

Look at Objectivists, Tea Partiers, and Truthers;

I can't believe you lumped these three groups together. Tea Partiers are just mainstream conservatives. Objectivists are weirdos with an inability to explain themselves and their movement has not grown for decades. Truthers are also weirdos who ignore Occam's Razor and their numbers have trailed off over the past few years.


No, the other poster was not equating those groups with each other. Merely giving them as examples of movements that have continued to find support despite ridicule.
That does not mean they have anything else in common.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 30, 2013 2:00 PM  

Please, Asher, refuse to apologise. Do not change your lovely spots. My wife just made some popcorn and we are watching with great anticipation...

And in response to your coming riposte of "Jezzie": Fool.

Anonymous Asher March 30, 2013 2:00 PM  

@ VD

precisely what the dictionary would indicate.

If you use a dictionary to understand language then that is like using training wheels to ride a bicycle. You're not tall enough for this ride.

No one but you has any trouble understanding the concept.

The common understanding of the concept is incoherent. Yeah, people "understand the concept" in the way that everyone understood that the world was flat, an understanding which included lots of high IQ people.

I'm going to give you one opportunity to rethink that last comment and retract,

I reflected on my comment before I made it. You are too smart and too talented a thinker to engage in such misleading commentary. I know you know better and I know you do this because you lack the patience to provide proper guidance for the ilk. You want a quick and dirty way to gain rhetorical supremacy that will work against the left but the problem is that what works for someone with your intellect will not work for them.

Your problem is that you seem to think that rhetoric is "bad" when it is an inextricable part of human communication. There is no pure dialectic, no communication that is free from the "taint" of rhetoric.

Your type of argumentation works when arguing against average or slightly above average leftists but it will get obliterated when arguing against another leftist with similar intellect. This is not because their arguments are better than yours but because they control the narrative.

When the ilk see you eviscerating leftists in this environment they think "oh, this is easy. I can go out there and do this myself." What they don't realize is that this blog is not the real world and that the narrative and power structure out there is far different from what it is in here.

be advised I'm going to take you at your word and treat you exactly the way Amanda Marcotte would.

A not so subtle allusion to banning. Bitch move, but it's your blog.

Blogger Baloo March 30, 2013 2:02 PM  

I'm a Darwinist, because I accept Darwinism as the best explanation. But I guess I'm also an evolutionary skeptic, because I'm open to any better explanation that might come up. I say that because Darwinism is a scientific theory, and to be scientific requires skepticism. Without skepticism, you have not science, but "scientism," a term Vox coined some time back, and which I blogged about here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2013/03/femi-whatzies.html

Anonymous Krul March 30, 2013 2:03 PM  

You would be able to believe it if you understood the simple fact that the content of their beliefs is irrelevant to the point being made, Asher. Incidentally, I disagree that Tea Partiers are "mainstream conservatives" considering the marked differences between their positions and those of the Republican party.

I'm curious about how you came to your conclusions about the number of Truthers and Objectivists - I googled it and couldn't find any statistics. A link would be appreciated.

But even that is beside the point. The fact that these movements thrived for a time despite heavy ridicule supports my argument, even if they are in decline now.

Blogger Baloo March 30, 2013 2:04 PM  

Oops. Wrong link. I blogged about it here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/01/science-vs-scientism.html

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 30, 2013 2:11 PM  

On the contrary. Your flailing attempts to insist that you have the right to enter a man's domain and insult, impugn, and annoy him to your heart's content will be highly entertaining.

Until he deletes them, that is. But if one catches them before they are deleted, it is rather like hearing the frantic squeals of protest from one's enemy before you toss him off a balcony:

"No! You can't do this! You'll never get away with this! I have rights! No! You'll pay for this! I'll get you, and your little blog too!"

Anonymous Sigyn March 30, 2013 2:18 PM  

Oh lawdy, Asher went and reminded His Lordship of the Millsburg Holiday Inn.

I mean, I wouldn't complain quite so much, but the idiot landed on my car. It's not something I like to think about.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 2:19 PM  

And Asher throws himself right into the spam trap. I can't say I'm the least bit surprised. I have never seen anyone less able to admit that he was wrong, even when it is conclusively demonstrated to him.

Anonymous castricv March 30, 2013 2:27 PM  

I don't read as much of his posts as I would like to form a complete opinion, but why does he insist on trying to corrected every little thing that doesn't need correcting or is he just a small childlike contrarian. Perhaps we should feel a TAD sorry for him. He does spend a lot of time addressing any little error or perceived slight he can find. I just don't get it. He seems to argue just to argue.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 2:28 PM  

If you use a dictionary to understand language then that is like using training wheels to ride a bicycle. You're not tall enough for this ride.

(laughs) The amusing thing is that Asher was claiming that the word had no meaning, when the dictionary quite obviously sufficed to prove otherwise. His argument was literally nonsensical.

The common understanding of the concept is incoherent.

There is nothing incoherent about the concept of "skeptic".

I reflected on my comment before I made it.

Well and good. He knew his fate and went bravely to it. Let us all salute the memory of Asher. He was simply too intellectually pure for this fallen, incoherent, dictionary-using world.

Bitch move, but it's your blog.

Hey, I just asked myself WWAD. What Would Amanda Do?



Anonymous FrankNorman March 30, 2013 2:30 PM  

castricv March 30, 2013 2:27 PM

I don't read as much of his posts as I would like to form a complete opinion, but why does he insist on trying to corrected every little thing that doesn't need correcting or is he just a small childlike contrarian. Perhaps we should feel a TAD sorry for him. He does spend a lot of time addressing any little error or perceived slight he can find. I just don't get it. He seems to argue just to argue.


I think Asher fancies himself as some sort of Sperg Cerebrate.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 2:31 PM  

why does he insist on trying to corrected every little thing that doesn't need correcting or is he just a small childlike contrarian.

Because he can't ever admit to being wrong and he is willing to go to any length to avoid having to do so. Notice how when I pointed out that he was factually incorrect about my "pig-headed rejection" of evolution, he tried to turn it into a discussion of the meaningless of the term skeptic. It was all an elaborate attempt to prove that he was right, even though he was observably wrong.

Anonymous A. Man March 30, 2013 2:42 PM  

"The unborn and the recently born are much more helpless than international Jewry. The cost in human lives of feminism is quite clearly greater than the cost of National Socialism or Fascism ever was."

The "unborn" are just that. Not born. Not People. They possess no inherent rights the way real living people do. Anyone who thinks abortions are the same as putting a 25 year old man or a 12 year old girl or a 65 year old wife in a gas chamber has lost all perspective, due likely to their lack of any empathy, one of the sure signs of the sociopath.

Your assertion is baseless, as I'm sure you know it is. Still you make it—another sign of one of two things: mental illness or heading in the direction of the sociopath.

Blogger mmaier2112 March 30, 2013 2:43 PM  

Assher (sic) is probably one of those dicks that drops into someone's home while there's a movie on and wants everyone to stop and explain to him what he's missed.

The archive search is wanting, but what you're looking for is there.

Anonymous castricv March 30, 2013 2:45 PM  

Did Asher and A-Man take a break from assh pounding to tag team this blog??? SOmetimes I would not be surprised if these types are just the same loony poster.

Anonymous Krul March 30, 2013 2:54 PM  

A. Man - The "unborn" are just that. Not born. Not People. They possess no inherent rights the way real living people do. Anyone who thinks abortions are the same as putting a 25 year old man or a 12 year old girl or a 65 year old wife in a gas chamber has lost all perspective, due likely to their lack of any empathy, one of the sure signs of the sociopath.

You claim that the unborn have no rights, that they are not "real living people", and then immediately accuse others of lacking empathy. Such pathetic irony.

Your assertion is baseless, as I'm sure you know it is. Still you make it—another sign of one of two things: mental illness or heading in the direction of the sociopath.

Your complete failure to correctly assess the mindset and motivation of those who disagree with you would further suggest that you are the one who lack empathy.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 2:55 PM  

Yes, Asher, you have correctly ascertained the situation. You are henceforth banned. You may request reinstatement in three months, should you so desire.

In any case, we shall watch your future career with interest.

Anonymous Anonagain March 30, 2013 3:05 PM  

Once again Asher positions and provokes himself right into the spotlight to showcase his brilliance - a tiresome rehashing of binary blather so confoundedly astute that everyone immediately runs away lest they be confronted with their utter ignorance, followed by advisement concerning his sagacious and uniquely invaluable contributions to the blog, followed by a mind-numbing effluence of pedantic scribblings - all while throwing stones at his perceived lessers.

Asher is panoply of psychological pathologies, but for all practical purposes of this blog, he's a complete bore. The narcissist tard would not be missed were he to be nuked.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein March 30, 2013 3:06 PM  

Asher instructed:

You need to learn the difference between a term and a phrase.


Word.


Didn't you mean to ise the word, "word"?


Heh.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein March 30, 2013 3:11 PM  

Ise.....use.
Damn Droid keyboard .....and advancing age.......etc.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein March 30, 2013 3:18 PM  

…panoply of psychological pathologies…

Nice. Fan of Spiro Agnew?

Anonymous Lulabelle March 30, 2013 3:20 PM  

"The "unborn" are just that. Not born. Not People. They possess no inherent rights the way real living people do."

The right to life is the first right; without it there can be no other rights.

The irony of those on the left who argue for "rights" of adult humans all the while denying the right to a life is well, unsettling. It has a slight tinge of stupidity mixed with a healthy dose of evil.

Anonymous Gen. Kong March 30, 2013 3:22 PM  

Anonymous:
Here's a question I have pondered for years: aren't the ruling class of men just as much to blame for feminism? Those men abdicated their authority. An invading army of feminists did not take over by force. I do not assign blame to the average Joe because he, like the average Jane, is bound by the laws from which the ruling class exempts itself. I would say if you want to get rid of feminism, try to persuade ruling class MEN that it's bad, so they will reclaim their authority, which they can do any time they please. Might may not make right, but it does make legal and political systems.

The ruling oligarchy is much more thoroughly entrenched, much more wealthy and much more powerful than they were before feminism's advent. As St. Gloria of Steinem (almost) stated in her response to Beelzebubba's numerous textbook examples of sexual harassment, the ruling elite are not bound by feminism's rules. Why would the oligarchy wish to dispose of what has surely been one its most effective tools?

Anonymous Beau March 30, 2013 3:22 PM  

Asher asks

It seems that the regular commenters on this blog seem to place a great deal of currency in the Bible. So, here's a challenge: where in the Bible is there any indication of a societal institution of retirement?


Numbers 8:23-26 (NASB) replies

Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “This is what applies to the Levites: from twenty-five years old and upward they shall enter to perform service in the work of the tent of meeting. “But at the age of fifty years they shall retire from service in the work and not work any more. “They may, however, assist their brothers in the tent of meeting, to keep an obligation, but they themselves shall do no work. Thus you shall deal with the Levites concerning their obligations.”

Question answered.

Anonymous Lulabelle March 30, 2013 3:30 PM  

Beau - good to know - I'd never noticed that before.

Anonymous Cat McClusky March 30, 2013 3:32 PM  

"The "unborn" are just that. Not born. Not people."

Strictly speaking wasn't the subject of this tread pertaining, at least in part, to those unfortunate "fetuses" that were forced out of the womb early still living (and now defined as "people") and then as they struggle for survival are systematically murdered?

What, by the way gives anyone the right to arbitrarily decree that the yet to be born are nonhuman and not worthy of compassion and the basic human right to life?

Oh yes, the G-d damned state.

Anonymous Krul March 30, 2013 3:36 PM  

The "unborn" are just that. Not born. Not People. They possess no inherent rights the way real living people do.

An observation. Many who support abortion-on-demand also support animal rights. They claim that non-human living things have rights that ought to be protected, including the right to life.

Now do the rights of animals exceed the rights of unborn humans? The answer is irrelevant, because even if you believe that adult animals have the right to life while unborn humans don't, you must agree that unborn animals have no more rights than unborn humans and can be killed at will for any or no reason. A poison that causes miscarriage would be an example of an "ethical" means of extermination.

If you claim that humans may not kill unborn animals because that is the sole prerogative of the mother, I remind you that this argument rests on the claim that the mother has sovereignty over "her own body". It therefore does not apply to any egg laying animal since an egg, once it has been laid, is clearly not part of the mother's body.

Blogger ray March 30, 2013 3:40 PM  

SFWA --

i published quite a bit of fiction, mostly spec-fiction, in the Eighties, but as it became increasingly obvious that feminism and identity trumped merit, i dumped fiction writing and the whole lit scene (mostly pretenders who thought dressing in black was edgy, but couldnt write for shit)

i'd get rejection letters from editorial boards, by women informing me that if only i changed the antagonist from a female to a white male, well, my chances of publication would much improve etc

LOL... usually they werent so direct, but the implications were always obvious

sometimes i'd get a separate rejection note from a male on the ed board, telling me the story was great but was rejected by The Group bc it didnt conform to the correct political and ideological diktat

between such incidents and the dominance of women/feminists in publishing, editing, english departments, writing departments, etc, it was clear that fiction writing had no more use for me than, well, the rest of Diversity Dipshitland

so jolly well Fuck Off to them all said i, to their inbred little sisterhoods fronted by gyno-grovelling mcrapeys, showing the poor downtrodden grrls what Big Strong Men they are

too late to fix it, but it's never too late to tell these cowardly assholes to rot in hell forever, aint nothing fictive about that

Vox Day for SFWA!

Blogger ray March 30, 2013 3:51 PM  

Beelzebubba's


oooh i like that, matches his Fly Guy look

and what IS it about Beelzebubba's mug that attracts so many fellow-travellers?

Anonymous Anonagain March 30, 2013 3:54 PM  

Speaking of Nazis and abortion:

Johns Hopkins Denies Pro-Life Club Right To Be A Club On Campus

This is the Leftist mentality - it seeks only to destroy because that's all it is capable of doing. Leftists can only destroy what their betters have created. In Western Civilization, their betters would be white, Christian men.

An ideology void of all virtue can never create a civilization from the ground up. In their support of everything anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian, Leftists are like foreign occupiers destroying the native inhabitants - their only opposition to the invasion.

Anonymous kh123 March 30, 2013 3:54 PM  

...And the Asher Show airs its final episode.

Which will leave him with more time to tend to his family rather than trying to correct the wayward Ilk with his tomes of brilliant and subtle commentary.

In the end, a small mercy for readers but a push in the right direction for him.

Blogger Longstreet March 30, 2013 4:26 PM  

Intend = expect.
I chuckled.

Anonymous Sigyn March 30, 2013 4:36 PM  

The "unborn" are just that. Not born. Not People. They possess no inherent rights the way real living people do. Anyone who thinks abortions are the same as putting a 25 year old man evenor a 12 year old girl or a 65 year old wife in a gas chamber has lost all perspective, due likely to their lack of any empathy, one of the sure signs of the sociopath.

Empathy. That's the ability to understand and vicariously experience the pain of others, isn't it?

So, since we have scientific proof that unborn fetuses experience pain, and you're dismissing that because "they're not really real people"...doesn't that make YOU the sociopath, by your own definition?

Your assertion is baseless, as I'm sure you know it is.

The power of science compels us. Sorry.

Still you make it—another sign of one of two things: mental illness or heading in the direction of the sociopath.

Well, now that you mention it...

1. You insult the deeply-held beliefs of others by comparing them to raw sewage;
2. You still haven't abided by Rule 2;
3. You're happy to jump in here but you've alienated just about everyone;
4. You jump on people aggressively for something so small as asking you a question you don't understand;
5. You've never indicated you're sorry for being an ass to anyone; and
6. You point the finger of blame at everyone else when you act out.

The World Health Organization says you're nuttier than squirrel breath.

Get help, please, before you get hurt.

Anonymous Freddy March 30, 2013 4:58 PM  

But as the text from Numbers stated, "this applies to the Levites," and the Levitical priesthood had finally been abolished in 70 AD at the Parousia of Christ's coming in judgement against apostate Isreal in the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.

Blogger Some dude March 30, 2013 5:32 PM  

I see it as part of the same process that created the Nazis.

It is part of a mechanism used to create a techno-fascist occult society based in large part on the insane concepts in Plato's Republic

I believe that many Christians are in error to assume the Nazis were only a Jewish problem, just as many people are in error assuming that the current nightmare is a Christian problem.

Anonymous Sigyn March 30, 2013 5:40 PM  

So, thus far he's called you insane and evil and not answered your questions. We'll see if he gets around to the poop jokes.

Second verse, same as the first...

Anonymous David March 30, 2013 5:51 PM  

The "unborn" are just that. Not born. Not People. They possess no inherent rights the way real living people do.

Wrong A. Man. You are clearly ignorant of fetal homicide laws which exist in some(but not all) states.

"Your assertion is baseless, as I'm sure you know it is."

Once again A. Man accuses everyone of secretly agreeing with him. A remarkably stupid thing to do considering I already called him out on it.

Anonymous VD March 30, 2013 5:54 PM  

You know the rules. Answer the questions posed to you A. Man. Or get thee gone.

Anonymous Anonagain March 30, 2013 6:00 PM  

Your assertion is baseless, as I'm sure you know it is.

A. Man is either the feckless faggot, Tad, or he employs the same MO of invalidating an argument on the basis of nothing more than his declaration of it being wrong.

Anonymous Sigyn March 30, 2013 6:04 PM  

Does that include mine from several days ago, Vox? It's cool if not, but now that it comes up, I thought I'd ask.

Anonymous The Next to Last Samurai March 30, 2013 6:09 PM  

Would that qualify as hip-hop?

While we're on the subject of rabbits--Happy Easter to all!

Anonymous Beau March 30, 2013 6:33 PM  

@ Freddy

Ashur, back so soon with a new pseudonym?

Anonymous Dave March 30, 2013 7:19 PM  

"But as the text from Numbers stated, "this applies to the Levites," and the Levitical priesthood had finally been abolished in 70 AD at the Parousia of Christ's coming in judgement against apostate Isreal in the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem."

Yeah, the oceans turned to blood and demonic locusts ravaged the unbelievers then, right?

Anonymous scoobius dubious March 30, 2013 8:58 PM  

"...And the Asher Show airs its final episode."

Let me guess. The Skipper, Gilligan, and Ginger and Mary Anne finally found a way to get off the island, but for some inexplicable reason they left behind the Professor and the Howells. Especially the Professor.





Anonymous A. Man March 30, 2013 10:40 PM  

"Did American women not demand, and do they not presently possess, the right to break marital contracts at will?"

NO


"Have feminists not defended the right of women to kill men who abuse them?"

CLAIMS TO THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE AGAINST PHYSICAL THREAT ARE UNIVERSAL.


"Does the feminist definition of abuse include non-physical abuse?"

I'M NOT SURE. WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED MANIFESTO OF FEMINISM.


"Have feminists called for ban on actions that make a woman feel uncomfortable?"

I'M NOT SURE. WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED MANIFESTO OF FEMINISM.

Blogger Longstreet March 30, 2013 10:43 PM  

It would appear a man and asher have been comparing notes.

Anonymous OCS March 30, 2013 11:36 PM  

I AM CAPS LOCKING.

Anonymous A. Man March 30, 2013 11:50 PM  

"1. You insult the deeply-held beliefs of others by comparing them to raw sewage;....
2....
3....
4....
5....
6..."

What a whiner you are, Sigyn.

Blogger The Observer March 31, 2013 1:30 AM  

@Sigyn:

Could you please link me the studies that show proof of fetal pain? My search only managed to dig up a 2006 study, and was wondering if there were newer ones.

Would be great ammunition to use against the pig-philosophers.

Anonymous Anonagain March 31, 2013 1:56 AM  

In any case, we shall watch your future career with interest.

With considerable interest.

Anonymous Toby Temple March 31, 2013 2:22 AM  

Asher's gone....

Alpuny god Loki! It's your time to re-shine!

Anonymous kh123 March 31, 2013 3:29 AM  

"I AM CAPS LOCKING."

No no; it's "I CAN CAPS LOCKING".

Anonymous Freddy March 31, 2013 3:30 AM  

Dave, check out Josephus and the Roman Wars ....and what happened inside the walls of Jerusalem as the Romans starved apostate Isreal into a grotesque and just deserved death

Anonymous kh123 March 31, 2013 3:32 AM  

"...but for some inexplicable reason they left behind the Professor and the Howells. Especially the Professor."

Not before several disparate threads are superficially resolved, but not really.

Lost.

Anonymous kh123 March 31, 2013 3:35 AM  

...But since it's the Asher Show, none of us will get it even when he's in the bottom corner of the screen translating for the hearing impaired, in both Classical and Koine.

Anonymous Sigyn March 31, 2013 9:30 AM  

@ Observer: I'd have to go hunt them up again; this is a new machine and most of my bookmarks were lost. I'm starting Spring Cleaning this week, so it may take me a while. If you're in more of a hurry than I can manage, you could look up the laws that require abortion doctors to offer anesthesia to the victim and backtrack; it's what I plan to do. I'm sorry I can't move any faster.

Anonymous Sigyn March 31, 2013 9:34 AM  

@ A. Man: Wow, that's one hell of a return volley. It burns and stings!

Anyway, you're the one who wanted to talk about people with dangerous psych disorders. Glass house, meet rock.

Anonymous Jim C. March 31, 2013 10:07 AM  

Hey Sigyn, A.Man still hasn't answered your questions either, has he?

C'mon, keep pushing for answers. It's hilarious to watch him whine and squirm.

Anonymous Sigyn March 31, 2013 11:07 AM  

"Did American women not demand, and do they not presently possess, the right to break marital contracts at will?"

NO


So you're saying that American women can't file for divorce, for any reason or no reason?

"Have feminists not defended the right of women to kill men who abuse them?"

CLAIMS TO THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE AGAINST PHYSICAL THREAT ARE UNIVERSAL.


You're saying that, if I feel like someone might hurt me in future and I'm too stupid to up and leave, I can proactively go take them out? And that if someone already hurt me, I can, after the fact, go kill them in revenge? And this is perfectly legal and justified?

"Does the feminist definition of abuse include non-physical abuse?"

I'M NOT SURE. WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED MANIFESTO OF FEMINISM.


You mean you're honestly not sure if most or even any feminists whatsoever have described "abuse" so that name-calling or "making me feel bad about myself" become abusive behaviors? Or are you saying that if ALL self-described feminists don't say it, No True Feminist has ever said it?

"Have feminists called for ban on actions that make a woman feel uncomfortable?"

I'M NOT SURE. WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED MANIFESTO OF FEMINISM.


Same as above: Are you saying that you honestly don't know if ANY feminist has called for this, or are you saying that if ALL self-described feminists haven't called for it, No True Feminist has ever called for it?

Not that I expect any answers. I still have two questions outstanding from an earlier thread that A. Man is afraid to deal with (which is really pathetic, because they're "what do you mean by X" questions and not trick questions). This is more for entertainment purposes.

Blogger The Observer March 31, 2013 11:08 AM  

@Sigyn:

No worries, thanks for the lead. I'll ask again at another time.

My usual response to the pain argument is that if responsiveness to pain is a suitable metric of humanity, all it would take to lawfully kill anyone was to anasthetise them or knock them out cold. However, if I can conclusively destroy the premise as well, I'll have a stronger argument.

Anonymous Sigyn March 31, 2013 11:35 AM  

@Observer, it's obviously not a metric of humanity. Even non-human creatures feel pain, but the idea of torturing an animal to death bothers most people and is even viewed as immoral in some cases.

Unless they're sociopaths. Like A. Man.

It's an observation that, whatever the fetus might be, this isn't an insensible mass of unresponsive tissue. He/she/it is sentient, whether or not sapient. ((Hubby explained the difference between the terms to me. I like to flaunt my education!))

Of course, there are some schools of thought that say it's okay to starve someone to death if they can't beg for food in any way you care to notice, so...yeah.

Anonymous A. Man March 31, 2013 1:49 PM  

"It's an observation that, whatever the fetus might be, this isn't an insensible mass of unresponsive tissue. He/she/it is sentient, whether or not sapient. ((Hubby explained the difference between the terms to me. I like to flaunt my education!))"

Careful flaunting that great education of yours because you've got it backwards. You mean to say, "he/she/it is sapient, if not sentient."

Maybe your hubby is just messing with you or maybe your education isn't all that.

Anonymous kh123 March 31, 2013 2:20 PM  

Not as authoritative if the caps lock isn't on.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 31, 2013 4:23 PM  

Or perhaps you, A. Man, are a moron, or maybe you are a deliberate liar.

Thank you for setting yourself up, though. I felt like deflating someone today.

Small wonder you avoid answering my wife's questions. You are well out of your depth in most every body of knowledge.

Anonymous A. Man March 31, 2013 5:45 PM  

"Small wonder you avoid answering my wife's questions. You are well out of your depth in most every body of knowledge."

Is your wife Sigyn? Wow.... God bless, man.

How come you didn't set her straight about the difference between sentient and sapient? Did you know she was going to go around making herself look stupid while trying to use semi-big words then blame you for it??

Anonymous Anonagain March 31, 2013 8:00 PM  

I support post-birth abortion for insensate miscreants, who usually take about 21 years to come to full term. Kaboom! Buh-bye little freaks.

Anonymous Gx1080 March 31, 2013 8:53 PM  

The guy that denies the humanity of a group of people tells others that they are sociopaths.

A. Man seems like the kind of guy that would be happy operating a Nazi oven. The kind of rationalizations that Leftoids engame to excuse their evil are sickening on the open. Hence all the Orwellian Newspeak.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 31, 2013 9:36 PM  

As we all know, the dictionary must bend to A. Man's expectations. So is it ever with the political Left.

Of course, he is a sociopath and therefore incapable of admitting when he is wrong--to the point of lying about someone else being right, even in the face of evidence to the contrary--so I am neither surprised nor annoyed. Such creatures must be what they are.

He sees nothing wrong in being what he is, so that help you bade him seek, Pet? He shan't. He will go on expecting the rest of the world to align itself to his personal whims, and he need no better reason to demand it than the whining plea of "But I want it!" To any who accuse him, he will simply point a trembling finger and shrill out, "No, YOU are!"

Alas, he will never be properly recompensed for his arrogance, for whilst he is a Mighty Warrior of Cyberspace, he is in truth a timorous, cowering rabbit, unable to make eye contact with someone who so much as says the word "no" to him.

That rumbling sound you hear about you, A. Man? That is no murmured approval. That is stifled laughter.

Blogger James Dixon March 31, 2013 10:25 PM  

> Could you please link me the studies that show proof of fetal pain?

A simple Google for fetal pain response gets me more his than I have time to look at tonight.

> Careful flaunting that great education of yours because you've got it backwards. You mean to say, "he/she/it is sapient, if not sentient."

She meant exactly what she said, and what she said is correct. The fact that you don't know what the terms mean and can't be bothered to learn doesn't mean the rest of us don't.

Anonymous A. Man April 01, 2013 8:33 AM  

"Of course, he is a sociopath and therefore incapable of admitting when he is wrong--to the point of lying about someone else being right, even in the face of evidence to the contrary--so I am neither surprised nor annoyed. Such creatures must be what they are.."

Now you are whining! Must you? It's simple. Either you don't know what the words "Sentient" and "Sapient" mean or you don't understand how the "if not" sentence construction is meant to be used. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's only a little awkward when the wife gets it wrong while bragging that you taught her how to use the words.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard April 01, 2013 9:39 AM  

Your insistence that you, in the face of Webster, are right and I am wrong is born of your wish to avoid any other matter before you.

And, by the bye, she wrote "whether or not", not "if not". You may have a far deeper neurological problem than mere stupidity.

Anonymous A. Man April 01, 2013 10:27 AM  

"And, by the bye, she wrote "whether or not", not "if not"."

Indeed she did:

"whether or not sapient..."

So she's not quite sure if the fetus is sapient?

That's funny.

Anonymous Sigyn April 01, 2013 11:18 AM  

"whether or not sapient..."

So she's not quite sure if the fetus is sapient?


Oh God, Asherosis is going pandemic.

Anonymous Toby Temple April 01, 2013 1:51 PM  

Is A. Man Asher?

Anonymous WaterBoy April 01, 2013 3:25 PM  

It would appear to be the case. The near-pathological aversion to the dictionary is a dead giveaway.

It's as if he is a lexical vampire and Mr. Webster's voluminous tome is his garlic.

Sigyn word-pwnd A. Man.

Anonymous Sigyn April 01, 2013 4:49 PM  

Sigyn word-pwnd A. Man.

Well, no. His Lordship taught me the words and showed him up.

But in the end analysis, guys like A. Man pwn themselves.

Anonymous A. Man April 01, 2013 7:21 PM  

"Well, no. His Lordship taught me the words and showed him up"

You are really sticking to your story that the fetus may or may not be human, but it's most certainly sentient?

Humorous.

Blogger James Dixon April 01, 2013 9:06 PM  

> Humorous.

Yes, it is. I think I'll quote a bit from a post above:

"The "unborn" are just that. Not born. Not People."

You're the one who said the fetus wasn't human, not Sigyn.

But then allowing a point for the sake of further discussion is rather beyond you, isn't it?

Anonymous Anonymous April 02, 2013 6:19 AM  

"Did you know she was going to go around making herself look stupid while trying to use semi-big words then blame you for it??"

The term is "multisyllabic vocabulary", not "semi-big words". The only way words can be "big" is if they are extremely bold or very tall,otherwise they are "long words" not "big words".


"Did you know she was going to go around making herself look stupid pretending to a multisyllabic vocabulary then blame you for it??" is a more quasi-literate way to put it.

"[S]emi-big words" sounds like something a sixth grader might say while groping in vain for a more suitable term for words with many syllables.If you're going to pretend to be intelligent,it helps to sound as if your verbal repertoire exceeds that of a 12 or 13 year old.

1=/=K

Anonymous Luke April 06, 2013 2:38 AM  

Asher, you're poorly informed on Objectivists. The sales #s on Rand's books keep going up. http://books.google.com/ngrams/chart?content=Ayn%20Rand&corpus=0&smoothing=3&year_start=1930&year_end=2008

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts