Categories
antifeminism bad boys crackpottery evil women misogyny patriarchy precious bodily fluids reactionary bullshit sex shaming tactics sluts thug-lovers

100% Mathmatically Accurate! Manosphere blogger Dalrock on slut-shaming

"Kids Love it!" Another claim that is not 100% accurate.

The director of the first Human Centipede film – the one about a psychopathic doctor who sews three unwilling and unwitting captives together mouth-to-anus to make a sort of “centipede” — proudly declared that his film was “100% medically accurate.” That is, he found a  doctor who was willing to say that if one were indeed to create such a centipede, the second and third segments (i.e., people) would be able to survive, provided that you supplemented their rather dismal diet with IV drips to give them the nutrition they were lacking.

This dubious claim to 100% accuracy came to mind today as I perused a post by the blogger who calls himself Dalrock, a manospherian nitwit with a penchant for pseudoscientific defenses of old-fashioned misogyny. In a post with the whimsical title “We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan,” Dalrock argues that the best “solution” to out-of-wedlock births is some good old-fashioned slut shaming.

Here’s how he breaks down the (imaginary) numbers in a post that is “100% mathematically accurate” – which is to say, not accurate at all:

Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players.  The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel.  Now we introduce slut shaming.  It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all.  This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage.  This directly translates into fewer fatherless children.  This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier.  Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her.  After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on.  This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel.  You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.

Why not shame the fathers as well, while we’re at it? Dalrock explains that this just doesn’t make good mathematical sense:

Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players.  Now apply shame to the players.  Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them.  No problem!, says the Gilligan [the social conservative], at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts!  But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way.  The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts.  They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation.  Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first.  This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business.  This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.

Well, there’s no arguing with that!

Seriously, there’s no arguing with that, because it is an imaginary construct with only the most tenuous connection with how things work in the real world. “But … MATH!” doesn’t really work as an argument here, since human beings don’t actually behave according to simplistic mathematical formulas.

Film critic note: While the first Human Centipede film offered little more than a workmanlike treatment of a fantastical idea, the recently released sequel, which details the attempts of a deranged Human Centipede superfan to take human-centipeding to the next level, is actually sort of brilliant. If you like that sort of thing.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1285 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pecunium
8 years ago

Meller: As far as overturning the “Marshall rulings” on the Constiution, and overturning the “bedrock foundation of how our government operates”, wouldn’t that be an important priority for exactly that reason?

Except that it can’t be done without overturning the reified Constitution you claim to idealise. The Courts won’t do it, the Leglislature can’t do it (any such law would be unconstitutional).

That leaves dictatorial fiat by the executive. Please cite the Article and Paragraph which allows for that, and you intend to do this because…?

I have no idea, and neither does anyone else, if, upon doing this, the result will be a real constitution, a revival of the articles of confederation, a collection of “anarchies” around the North American continent more or less in trade and cooperation with each other, or–most likely of all– something we can’t even imagine now–replacing a discredited and bankrupt empire under a “constitutional” cover that we once knew a “the United States of America”.

Right, you intend to do it because you think Ron Paul is The Messiah. You claim no one has any idea what will come of completely overturning the republic by the dictate of one man; in the hope that he will restore the Glory That Was.

That was the argument for making Gauis Julius Caesar emperor. That worked out great for Republican Rome.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

So you’re just going to ignore the part about how just because you feel something that doesn’t make it universally applicable?

Keep on living in that imaginary world, sweetie.

zhinxy
8 years ago

My, that’s ominous. Yes, for now, And for a good long time to come, I would say. There will be bumps, there are dangers to our civil rights, etc, but this is not an end times scenario. Also, as I pointed out, a big, bloated, busy, possibly bankrupting goverment is quite possibly better for the anarchist and/or libertarian “opposition” than anything else. Bottom up, not top down, goes zhinxy’s particular broken libertarian record.

Pecunium
8 years ago

Meller One of the unpleasant features of electoral democrazy, is that only actual results are recorded.

Right… there’s not one newspaper account, not one single recorded debate between candidates, no record of the arguments for and against bills in the House and Senate.

What…? There are? Really? You say the Congressional Record covers that, and things like the Federalist Papers, and the Lincoln/Douglas debates were preserved?

Never mind.

Pecunium
8 years ago

Meller: No I didn’t! I simply was offering (one more) hypothetical scenario when civil government breaks down–as an inevitable outcome of Federal overrerach, “emergency powers, bureaucratic incompetence, currency collapse, and ordinary incompetence–how the military might respond, with or without Ron Paul.

No, you didn’t. You said the question was if the Military would be smart, and wise, enough to realise that Ron Paul was our only hope.

Your clarification makes it more clear that a coup is just fine with you, “with or without Ron Paul” is a follow up to ? If there is a split, how many will be wise enough, and patriotic enough to see Ron Paul as our only hope?

Put those two things together, and you are saying you are in favor of a coup d’etat putting Ron Paul in charge. That is so in keeping with the Intent of the Framers, you betcha.

Pecunium
8 years ago

Sharculese: cato (probably the pseudonym of influential new york governor george clinton) was a staunch anti-federalist who opposed the ratification of the constitution because he though it would effectively obliterate the states through the creation of an all powerful federal government. if you told him that 250 years later people would use his name to argue that the constitution established a minarchist paradise you would have been laughed out of the room.

I think they are referring to Cato the Younger, and this seems to confirm it

zhinxy
8 years ago

You’re both wrong! It was the British Cato! John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, in real life, I believe?

“Founded in 1977, Cato owes its name to Cato’s Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power.”

Though, nobody really wins, cause there’s still a Cato Institute.

Sharculese
8 years ago

huh. interesting. still, considering their actual stance on the constitution, and the claims of reverence for the founding generation they have, you think they would have thought that name choice through a little farther. i’m sure i’m not the only person who’s made that mistake.

i can keep on viewing them as silly and irrelevant, right?

zhinxy
8 years ago

Oh yeah. Also make fun of their pants.

Sharculese
8 years ago

i actually outsource all my cato mockery to mark ames because hes oh so good at it, but i dont think i know about the pants thing?

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
8 years ago

When civil government disappears, especially at the National level, the most frequent outcome is a military takeover, or a civil war (where one side or another of civilians, takes over with the backing of the most powerful faction(s) of the military. You could, of course, have the total dissolution of the American polity, which is a possibility, but an altogether different one than what we are discussing.

The heir to the Framers, have very little case against it, considering how their “Constitutional Republic” was itself very much a centralizing coup d’etat against the considerably more libertarian arrangement that occured after the successful secession from the British Crown. Upon ratification, the first thing the centralizers did was put their former military Commander-in-Chief in the Presidency as a “civilian”, and he proceeded to crush local dissent such as. Shay’s “rebellion”, and to set up a “Bank of the United States”, with the help of a certain Hamilton in defiance of the very constitution that was just ratified!

At least this time, a military backing of Ron Paul–if he is supported, which is rather iffy-would be moving the USA “freedomward” in certain limited ways. There ARE precedents, although for obvious reasons, they have not been well explored. The most likely analog, if one applies, would be the takeover of Deng Xiaoping–with the army’s help–after Mao Zedong’s death in 1976. Deng then dismantled the communes, allowed the peasants to grow their own food on their own land, established more-or-less private handicraft and textile factories in the cities, freed up the population, where they were allowed to seek gainful employment without the permission of local party and police satraps, welcomed foreign investment, even news and communications investment into the country, first along the coast, and then in the interior, expanded travel opportunities for Chinese working or studying abroad, professionallized the bureaucracy–especially on local and provincial levels, along with getting rid of political commisars, reining in and punsihing corruption among police and party officials and setting up Party recognition of legal ownership of private property and exchange economy–Something that the USSR was never able to do, even under Gorbachev’s perestroika!

What about civil liberties? They have a way to go with that (as if we haven’t, especially after 9/11) and there are still far too many Chinese who are held behind bars, often in horrible conditions, for doing little more than speaking their minds in public. Chinese colonial treatment of Tibet, Chinese Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, and their non-Chinese people still rivals the worst in the Colonial heritage of the West, which had victimized Chinese for two centuries! But there is no longer the horrifying mass famines, the deliberately engineered mass exiles into uninhabitable regions, and mass lynchings of hundreds, even thousands of people suspected of dissent,or even insufficient loyalty–so-called self-criticism sessions–characteristic of Mao’s loathsome misrule! Even after the Tienanmen tragedy, Chinese civil liberties are immeasurably better than they were under Mao, and if you doubt that, try to imagine what would have happened within 24 hours of displaying a replica of the USA Statue of Liberty in 1969 in Beijing rather than 1989?

This isn’t to say that a Ron Paul revolution–with or without military support–would follow a Chinese “Deng Xiaoping model”, (although both in 2008 and today, his Presidential efforts have more support both from active duty personnel and from veterans, and both from enlistees and Officers, than ALL OTHER CANDIDATES COMBINED! See his campaign for details, or websites that keep track of contributions to different candidates for more information. It certainly COULD, and if so, the American prospect in the XXI century may still surprise pessimists among us!

On the whole, I would rather hope that civil government rather than a military takeover would be sufficient for a peacerful, more-or-less legal and even ‘democratic” transition. But your crystal balls Pecunium and Zhinxi, are just as cracked and opaque as mine, and you have no more of a reliable map for guidance in this altogether uncharted political and economic territory than I have. Or even that Ron Paul himself has!

zhinxy
8 years ago

Don’t worry, the pants thing isn’t “a thing,” I just threw it in there. 😉

zhinxy
8 years ago

they probably do wear dorky pants, though.

zhinxy
8 years ago

Ron Paul is not literally trying to lead a revolution. It’s just a campaign slogan. You know that, right?

Sharculese
8 years ago

is it just a revolution now or is it still a rloveution?

zhinxy
8 years ago

I think it’s still a rloveution. I try to avoid it as much as I can.

Oh, I was meaning to ask, Sharculese, since you are so very full of knowledge in this area – “If libertarians want to advance a view of the constitution that restricts federal power, i think there are frameworks that support that and i’m all for novel constitutional arguments.” – Is there any way that you can you point me in the direction of what you think are the best frameworks/arguments for such? I’d like somewhere to point saner/nicer constitution types, even if it’s not my bag. 🙂

P.S. Meller, if you’re now sort of… err… kinda with me, (?) I guess(???)… on the “Constitution was a federalist mess” thing, why have you claimed that Ron Paul is getting us back to it, and that that is a good thing?

Ami Angelwings
8 years ago

But your crystal balls Pecunium and Zhinxi, are just as cracked and opaque as mine, and you have no more of a reliable map for guidance in this altogether uncharted political and economic territory than I have. Or even that Ron Paul himself has!

Not being psychic doesn’t make every single analysis of the world, and likely events equal Mellertron xD

FOR EXAMPLE

I’m going out to get a coffee. Me getting a coffee is quite likely, me running into traffic at this time is less likely, but possible. Me going through a wormhole and running you over as you leave your house for more tinfoil because the old roll was getting dandruffy, is pretty unlikely. xD

darksidecat
8 years ago

coup d’etat

Do you know what that phrase means? The second Constitutional Convention was a Constitutional Convention, with representatives from every state and every single state voted to ratify it. It wasn’t like Washington just showed up in Philly with it and declared himself President.

I don’t like this false dicotomy that supporters of the two big parties set up. Supporting a candidate is not the equivalent of opposing their opponent, it is an active thing. It means giving your approval to them and their platform. If you vote for a horrible candidate, don’t pretend you are doing something praiseworthy because their opponent was more horrible, you are still supporting and giving consent to the former’s badness. What you are doing when you advocate supporting terrible candidates because you feel like you have no choice and voting is passive, what you are doing is feeding voter’s feelings that their vote doesn’t matter and that voting and political advocacy is useless.

zhinxy
8 years ago

was itself very much a centralizing coup d’etat against the considerably more libertarian arrangement

Seconding that it was not a coup d’etat I suppose I don’t believe it was “legitimate” (And of course, that is largely because I’M AN ANARCHIST,) but it was not a coup d’etat. Also, the articles were not that great either, and the libertarian-ness varied from state to state, and in all ways left a lot to be desired.

Sharculese
8 years ago

zhinxy, how much do you know about law bloggers? are you familiar with the volokh conspiracy? ilya somin in particular has written things on constitutional limits of federal power i think youd find interesting- http://volokh.com/author/ilya/

the whole crew is generally interesting and insightful, with notable exceptions *cough* randy barnett *cough* but be warned, theyre righties, so expect a decent amount of second amendment and ‘freedom to be white in public’ stuff

zhinxy
8 years ago

zhinxy, how much do you know about law bloggers? – Not too very much! I have heard of Volokh though! Thankyou.

‘freedom to be white in public’ stuff

Ah, but of course. Ty 🙂

Pecunium
8 years ago

I am mixed on the Volokhs’ philosophy, because I know them personally. Also, Eugene has said we should practice public tortures, and allow victims/families to perform it as part of public executions.

Pecunium
8 years ago

Meller: When civil government disappears

But that’s not what you were talking about.

If Civil Gov’t disappears, there is no one to give those, “orders” you were talking about in the first comment.

The heir to the Framers, have very little case against it, considering how their “Constitutional Republic” was itself very much a centralizing coup d’etat against the considerably more libertarian arrangement that occured after the successful secession from the British Crown. Upon ratification, the first thing the centralizers did was put their former military Commander-in-Chief in the Presidency as a “civilian”, and he proceeded to crush local dissent such as. Shay’s “rebellion”, and to set up a “Bank of the United States”, with the help of a certain Hamilton in defiance of the very constitution that was just ratified!

Shay’s rebellion was under the Articles of Confederation. It was that gov’t that asked Washington to take charge and put it down. Washington led no troops in the field while he was president.

And how the constitution came to be isn’t as you describe it. It came about from a convention; the states sent delegates because the Articles of Confederation weren’t working.

The “coup” you are decrying was the acceptance of the Constitution you were praising so fulsomely in those very posts. You are arguing that a coup to forcibly re-impose that constitution on people who no longer want it.

Very libertarian of you.

But your crystal balls Pecunium and Zhinxi, are just as cracked and opaque as mine, and you have no more of a reliable map for guidance in this altogether uncharted political and economic territory than I have. Or even that Ron Paul himself has!

The difference is, I’m not using a crystal ball. I’m looking at past happenings (here, and abroad), and I’m reading your words.

You are saying, “We have no idea what Ron Paul will do, but if things fall apart we need him to do it.”

That’s not reason, that’s religion: blind faith in your leader, irrespective of his ability, or your expectations. You refuse to admit you have any. Taking you at your word, you are saying you think the best thing for the nation is to elect someone whom no on has any idea of the results to come from that selection.

That’s stupid. That’s no more than wishful thinking. It’s blind faith in him, not expectation of successful policy. You are following a man, not a philosophy.

zhinxy
8 years ago

Shay’s rebellion was under the Articles of Confederation.

– AAAARRRH! HOW DID I MISS THAT! Meller is such a wall of text, you miss even the obvious howlers sometimes!~

Pecunium
8 years ago

Meller: When civil government disappears

But that’s not what you were talking about.

If Civil Gov’t disappears, there is no one to give those, “orders” you were talking about in the first comment.

The heir to the Framers, have very little case against it, considering how their “Constitutional Republic” was itself very much a centralizing coup d’etat against the considerably more libertarian arrangement that occured after the successful secession from the British Crown. Upon ratification, the first thing the centralizers did was put their former military Commander-in-Chief in the Presidency as a “civilian”, and he proceeded to crush local dissent such as. Shay’s “rebellion”, and to set up a “Bank of the United States”, with the help of a certain Hamilton in defiance of the very constitution that was just ratified!

Shay’s rebellion was under the Articles of Confederation. It was that gov’t that asked Washington to take charge and put it down. Washington led no troops in the field while he was president. It predates the constitution.

And how the constitution came to be isn’t as you describe it. It came about from a convention; the states sent delegates because the Articles of Confederation weren’t working.

The “coup” you are decrying was the acceptance of the Constitution you were praising so fulsomely in those very posts. You are arguing that a coup to forcibly re-impose that constitution on people who no longer want it.

Very libertarian of you.

But your crystal balls Pecunium and Zhinxi, are just as cracked and opaque as mine, and you have no more of a reliable map for guidance in this altogether uncharted political and economic territory than I have. Or even that Ron Paul himself has!

The difference is, I’m not using a crystal ball. I’m looking at past happenings (here, and abroad), and I’m reading your words.

You are saying, “We have no idea what Ron Paul will do, but if things fall apart we need him to do it.”

That’s not reason, that’s religion: blind faith in your leader, irrespective of his ability, or your expectations. You refuse to admit you have any. Taking you at your word, you are saying you think the best thing for the nation is to elect someone whom no on has any idea of the results to come from that selection.

That’s stupid. That’s no more than wishful thinking. It’s blind faith in him, not expectation of successful policy. You are following a man, not a philosophy.

Pecunium
8 years ago

Crap… I am still not at my mental best… I blame the drugs :).

The Whiskey Rebellion was while Washington was President, but he didn’t take the field.

And yeah, with the amount of stuff Meller puts out it’s easy to lose track of something which was close, but not quite.

Sharculese
8 years ago

I am mixed on the Volokhs’ philosophy, because I know them personally. Also, Eugene has said we should practice public tortures, and allow victims/families to perform it as part of public executions.

they’re both clearly at least a little bit nuts, and i don’t take anything sasha volokh says seriously. he’s one of the reasons i’m glad i decided not to apply to emory law. (i’m in atlanta, and i wanted to stay there, so i had to choose between emory and georgia state, and i think i made the right choice). but eugene volokh’s commentary on the first amendment is still great.

still, i think somin and orin kerr are the real treasures of that site.

Sharculese
8 years ago

ugh that came off more aggressive than i meant it to. sorry.

Pecunium
8 years ago

Sharculese: No problem here. Sasha is, in some ways, the more radical of the pair. He spent several years as an in house writer for reason, between his BAs, and going on to his Masters (econ: I don’t recall if he finished it, but probably), and then Law.

Given that Eugene has been teaching ConLaw since he got done clerking for O’Connor, I understand why his commentary is decent. I am also not sure that my personal knowledge of his opinion, as opposed to his statements, doesn’t color that (and I am not in contact with him in the way I was 20-30 years ago).

But I am glad that I don’t see either of them likely (at this point) to be able to get a seat on the Supreme Court, because they are, in a lot of ways, more on the Paulist end of Libertarianism, than anything else.

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
8 years ago

Ron Paul “getting back to the Constitution” is a good thing–as a first step! Hopefully, once this is done, IF it can be done, libertarians can go on from there, if possible on a local, municipal, or country basis (or State, although as the several States have been so thoroughly subsumed by the usurpers on the Patomac since 1865, I am not even sure that the “States” would be even recognisable once the Feds were reduced to their legitimate constitutional limits.

Nevertheless, it is possible, and perhaps even practical, that dissolution of the leviathan be devolved through the several “states” if possible, and through recognised Constitutional means.

I too, am looking at the past, including Ron Paul’s past, as part of my guess as to what may happen in the future. However, I am keenly aware of our current situations, both domestically and around the world, and my “hedging” is due to the extraordinary levels of uncertainty we are encountering even in the short term. What would the consequeces be if, e.g.

1) Greece, and perhaps Italy default on their debt, leading to the collapse of the Euro, and American banks and pension funds invested in Euro denominated assets?

2) A military (perhaps a nuclear) pre-emptive strike on Iran by Israel, the USA, or both?

3) China, Japan, and the Saudi and Gulf Royal families liquidating their debt holdings of US treasury bonds and other Dollar denominated assets, partly to satisfy short-term obligations, and partly to shield what is left of their economies and fortunes from the remnants of the US Dollar?

4) Admittedly not likely, but certainly flat-out impossible–Anti-American terrorists acquire (probably by theft or even by purchase, especially when the Dollar evaporates–see point 1 and 3 above) a “small” thermonuclear bomb c. 100-300 KT yield) and use a large city here for target practice–kind of like 9-11, but several dozen times bigger?

5) Any of the above freezes the US banking system for an indefinite period, leaving almost everybody, both personally and businesses, cashless and broke?

All of these (except perhaps #4,) are almost daily fare in the news, both outside the mainstream, and mainstream. It is certainly not “religion” or “treating all possible events as equally likely” whatever that is supposed to mean. I am not advocating a military takeover in the event of a Ron Paul Presidency, Pecunium, I have no idea, as I think I have even communicated on other posts, if we will have a functioning military after the collapse hits–and not only because of infestation by women–but where will the officers’ loyalties, lie? Where will the troop’s loyalties lie? Who will pay them and in what,or will the “armed forces” degenerate into a rabble of heavily armed street gangs looting and attacking the very people they are supposed to defend? If a large battalion of (say) black soldiers are sent to quell a riot by fellow blacks in a large urban center (make it Washington DC, just for the hell of it), and the majority of “soldiers”, already infuriated by the cancellation or default on veterans benefits, decide to join the rioters, what happens then? Somehow, I think that my doubts regarding the viability of the United States acquires a logic all its own, doesn’t it?

My idea of a military takeover to support Ron Paul was–and is–hypothetical. It has nothing to do with what I want to happen, or what I even think is possible. All I know is that there would be better chances for more people if Ron Paul were President, then if Obama, Romney, Gingrich, or for that matter, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, or Hillary Clinton…

As far as what would happen to women “soldiers” in a disintegrating government(?)-that clearly had trouble governing in far more normal times–an,armed forces whose members are all desperate, demoralized, heavily armed and out-of-control, and economy–not even going THERE–, you were in the Army, Pecunium. You tell us!

What I, or other people want is totally outside our control now, from the Presidency on down! I think that Ron Paul’s lapses–if they even are lapses–from liberty notwithstanding, he is vastly better as a person, as a libertarian, and–if this means anything anymore–as an American–than the truly dismaying choices we are offered by a degerate and criminal establishment! If you disagree, that is certainly your privilege, but forgive me if I don’t see Paul Ryan as an improvement!

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
8 years ago

ps- on point #4- I meant to say ” but NOT flat-out impossible.

Sharculese
8 years ago

@pecunium- there’s no question eugene volokh has made some valuable contributions for the law. when i was taking employment discrimination, the section on religion was all ‘for more on this topic, read this article by eugene volokh’. but yeah, i don’t see either of them picking up a lower court judgeship, much less the supremes.

Pecunium
8 years ago

Meller: Nevertheless, it is possible, and perhaps even practical, that dissolution of the leviathan be devolved through the several “states” if possible, and through recognised Constitutional means.

Care to expound on those, “recognised Constitutional means” of dissolving the Union?

I too, am looking at the past, including Ron Paul’s past, as part of my guess as to what may happen in the future.

Nope. You said no one could know the future if Ron Paul were elected. That was one of the selling points you were touting. You argue, “Elect a Democrat or a Republican, get the same old thingl; elect Ron Paul and no one knows what will happen, but it will be better because, “RON PAUL”!!!!!!”.

As far as what would happen to women “soldiers” in a disintegrating government(?)-that clearly had trouble governing in far more normal times–an,armed forces whose members are all desperate, demoralized, heavily armed and out-of-control, and economy–not even going THERE–, you were in the Army, Pecunium. You tell us!

Why? The last time I told you, you pretended I was saying get rid of all male soldiers.

Short answer, you have no idea and your fantasies (all of them) are crackpot nonsense.

What I, or other people want is totally outside our control now, from the Presidency on down! I think that Ron Paul’s lapses–if they even are lapses–from liberty notwithstanding, he is vastly better as a person, as a libertarian, and–if this means anything anymore–as an American–than the truly dismaying choices we are offered by a degerate and criminal establishment! If you disagree, that is certainly your privilege, but forgive me if I don’t see Paul Ryan as an improvement!

If the first is true, then why bother?

You’ve not actually defended any of Paul’s positions, merely said, “If you don’t vote for Paul you are DOOMED!”

And I don’t know why you decided a question on my part, which you haven’t really answered), i.e. what do you think of Paul Ryan equals either an endorsement, or encouragement to you to endorse him.

I think he and Paul are, in more ways than one, peas in a pod, and I agree with you, I don’t see Ryan as an improvement over Paul; but I don’t see Paul as any better than Ryan. The lesser of two unmitigated evils is still too evil to have in charge.

Pecunium
8 years ago

Sharculese: Eugene is smart (though he has some blind spots.. sometime when we are in person ask me about his the first test he gave on equal protection), but there was a time I thought, given the way he is seen as, “moderate” by the left, and “libertarian” by the right that his position in Academia might, in conjunction with his clerkships, have him considered as an, “outisider”.

Alphalady
Alphalady
8 years ago

I love this quote from David: “The blogger who calls himself Dalrock, a manospherian nitwit with a penchant for pseudoscientific defenses of old-fashioned misogyny.”

This dude and his manospherian minions are like something out of Medieval times (or the 1950s, at the very least). One of his cronies actually went as far as to say that feminism deprived women of their “soft landing,” namely their ability to contentedly enter amorphous grandmother-hood after they reach the dreaded age of 50, a non-negotiable, definitive social death sentence when they are “no longer sexually desirable to men.” Conversely, guys will continue to have their pick of young super model facsimiles into their dotage.

Another presented as “fact” that women who do not pursue the traditional role of marriage and stay-at-home mommie-hood were doomed to wind up alone and in poverty in their old age. Every single last one, without exception, is destined to experience this fate.

Whenever I or anyone else attempted to counter these preposterous notions with actual facts and real-life anecdotes from the actual real world the women were attacked and automatically assumed to be fat “old maids” who must spend their nights sleeping with their cats, while the men were deemed “manginas.”

What a bunch of tools!

I am so happy I found this blog…

1 24 25 26