Man Boobz Troll (and Trollhunter) of the Year Awards: Send in your nominations!

So, your dolls are smarter because they can’t think. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

Who will look after the doll’s when Meller dies? Will they go on forever, unloved, unfed, unfragranced, getting dustier and dustier?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Also it’s “one never knows, DOES one”. English, learn it

The Stepford Wives was only a fantasy in 1972, but in 2072 or 2172–one never knows–do one??
…

I wondered if you didn’t think that movie was like a Disneyworld BEAUTIFUL WORLD OF TOMORROW reel.

*added fun in that for those who’ve seen the original movie.

If a fondled doll doesn’t have an orgasm and therefore nobody sees it, does Meller even notice?

Actually his level of disconnection from reality seems to be increasing. I’m starting to wonder if someone from social services should go check on him.

As I mentioned many times before, the only reason that I talk about my dolls or plush-fluffies, is to make it clear to youall how unattractive modern women really are, especially if they are feminists! Normally, I regard this as a largely private hobby, and really don’t like discussing it with people, least of all, modern women, who can’t even appreciate it!

I naturally think that women, properly cultured and trained, would be considerably better than dolls! However, they all have the delusion, promoted by feminists, that they are capable of human thought, and are about as much fun as a toothache! When youall are, in addition, trained to be archly competitive with men, and programmed to disagree with him at every opportunity, there is no joy in a relationship with the likes of any of you!

It does, however, serve as a release of pressure to post here and other feminists blogs once in a while, knowing that it irritates you!

You wouldn’t know this, but feminism has been more of an irritant to me over the past few decades, visible as it is EVERYWHERE, than my little posts ever could be to you manboobzettes!

” However, they all have the delusion, promoted by feminists, that they are capable of human thought, and are about as much fun as a toothache!”

If you honestly believe that women aren’t capable of human thought, why bother talking to us at all? I think you know very well that our brains work just fine, and that’s what irks you. You want so much for us to pretend to be brainless so that you can indulge in your creepy little fantasies, and it vexes you so much that we refuse to do so.

“You wouldn’t know this, but feminism has been more of an irritant to me over the past few decades, visible as it is EVERYWHERE, than my little posts ever could be to you manboobzettes!”

Oh no, we know EXACTLY how much feminism vexes you, and we find it highly entertaining.

What upsets you is that this battle is already long since over, and you lost.

@CassandraSays

Was there really a battle over lobotomizing female children at birth? The erasure of this history must have been Feminist conspiracy #609!! Where’s my red pill?!!!

Meller, for god’s sakes, all other things aside in your rambles, your notions of the libertarian critiques of egalitarianism and your notions of rights conceptions in such are as shallow as a kiddy pool for ants.

Not all feminists are EGALITARIANS!!!! IN THE SENSE EXPRESSED BY THE LIBERTARIAN CRITIQUE OF EGALITARIANISM INSOFAR AS IT IS ABOUT INEQUALITY OF OUTCOME.

Not about a lack of equality, but about how to define equality, and how to protect it.

But here’s a start –

http://mises.org/daily/804

I will quote some of the stuff relating specifically to feminism, but that’s a beautiful overview of how the critiques by Rothbard, et al of egalitarianism are, in a way that is not often recognized by either our liberal detractors, or racist/sexist/idiotic “supporters” only properly grounded because they are grounded in our own deep belief in Equality, in the Lockean sense.

”

[T]he meaning of equality differs within the feminist movement. Throughout most of its history, American mainstream feminism considered equality to mean equal treatment under existing laws and equal representation within existing institutions. The focus was not to change the status quo in a basic sense, but rather to be included within it. The more radical feminists protested that existing laws and institutions were the source of injustice and, thus, could not be reformed…. [T]heir concepts of equality reflected this. To the individualist, equality was a political term referring to the protection of individual rights; that is, protection of the moral jurisdiction every human being has over his or her own body. To socialist-feminists, it was a socio-economic term…. While Marxist class analysis uses the relationship to the mode of production as its point of reference, libertarian class analysis uses the relationship to the political means as its standard. Society is divided into two classes: those who use the political means, which is force, to acquire wealth or power and those who use the economic means, which requires voluntary interaction. The former is the ruling class which lives off the labor and wealth of the latter.[8] ”

From a libertarian standpoint, socioeconomic egalitarians turn out, embarrassingly enough, to be apologists for the ruling class.

That libertarian resistance to socioeconomically egalitarian proposals is itself based on an egalitarian ideal is seldom recognized. It is nonetheless true. The only socioeconomic egalitarian I know of who recognises this is Amartya Sen; yet Sen is the exception that proves the rule. For he too misses the point: he glosses libertarian equality as equality of liberty, an interpretation we’ve already seen to be inadequate. Here is how Sen sees the issue:

…

Inequality in authority is far more offensive, from a moral point of view, than mere socioeconomic inequality; hence, whenever the demands of socioeconomic equality conflict with the demands of libertarian equality, which they generally do, preference must be given to the latter.

So I assert. I think this claim can be argued for, not just asserted. But I shall not argue for it at present—both because my time today is limited, and because in a certain sense I do not need to argue for it. For socioeconomic egalitarians themselves show, by their actions if not their words, that they regard inequality in authority as a greater evil than socioeconomic inequality. Most socioeconomic egalitarians of my acquaintance would certainly be more outraged at being robbed or assaulted by a colleague than at learning that the colleague was receiving a higher salary. Hence in practice they clearly recognize which of these inequalities is the greater evil. Indeed, most socioeconomic egalitarians govern their everyday personal interactions by a scrupulous adherence to libertarian principles, and they expect the same treatment in return.

….

You can’t just scream and haw at me about Rothbard’s critique of egalitarianism and hold it over my head while you thrash. I agree with it.

Which means we are equal. Or should be. So there. :p

That libertarian resistance to socioeconomically egalitarian proposals is itself based on an egalitarian ideal is seldom recognized. It is nonetheless true.

…

PS, Sorry, but It really is, dude, so if you made a mistake and wanna leave, it’s cool.

Ooh, here’s another good expression of libertarian equality!!!

Both these guys are respected libertarian writers AND FEMINISTS who also agree with me that Rothbard’s critique of Egalitarianism is largely correct, and is so because of Equality, btw, so your little high horse lectures about it really could use at least a LITTLE polishing, no?

Maybe a little scrubbing around the edges?

http://radgeek.com/gt/2010/03/02/liberty-equality-solidarity-toward-a-dialectical-anarchism/

My task, then, is to explain what I mean by “equality, rightly understood.” I certainly do not intend to suggest that liberty is conceptually dependent on economic equality (of either opportunity or outcome), or on equality of socio-cultural status.[30] But the equality I have in mind is also much more substantive than the formal “equality before the law” or “equality of rights” suggested by some libertarians and classical liberals, and rightly criticized by Leftists as an awfully thin glove over a very heavy fist. Formal equality within a statist political system, pervaded with pillage and petty tyranny, is hardly worth fighting for; the point is to challenge the system, not to be equally shoved around by it. The conception of equality that I have in mind has a history on the Left older and no less revolutionary than the redistributionist conception of socioeconomic equality. It is the equality that the French revolutionaries had in mind when they demanded egalité, and which the American revolutionaries had in mind when they stated:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [sic] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Jefferson 1776a ¶ 2)

Jefferson is making revolutionary use of concepts drawn from the English liberal tradition. Equality, for Jefferson, is the basis for independence, and the grounds from which individual rights derive.[31] Locke elucidates the concept when he characterizes a “state of Perfect freedom”—the state to which everyone is naturally entitled—as

A State also of Equality, wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another: there being nothing more evident, than that Creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should be equal one amongst another without Subordination or Subjection …. (1690, II. 4. ¶ 2)

The Lockean conception of equality that underwrites Jefferson’s revolutionary doctrine of individual liberty is, as Roderick Long (2001a) has argued, equality of political authority.

CassandraSays, and I think I’ll try to knock out that scifi story, or similar, but no promises XD