Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

Who Created the Rape Culture?

Renaissance Nerd Wrote: May 09, 2014 1:15 PM
Take off your blinders. How exactly are feminists the victims? Do only feminists get raped? In that case the obvious thing to do is abandon feminism. My generation and beyond have all been taught that women want sex far more than men. Feminists and medieval monks agree: women are totally controlled by lust. So what reason does a raging bag of lust have for saying no? She's just being a jerk. She really wants it. That fact that it's all a pile of balderdash is lost on a lot of men, especially young men who haven't yet learned that women are actual individuals rather than a political category. Feminism, pornography, and leftist politics all connive to turn women into consumables for men. I've always said that feminism is male chauvinism in drag, and rape culture is just one more aspect of it. What is feminism but the best way ever created to ensure that rich old men get plenty of fresh young things for the grinder? Whether they're college professors or congressmen or presidents, they have plenty of willing wenches ready to do anything for a few gifts and the prestige of power or fame. Feminism pretends that this behavior is noble, and that all women are, at heart, just prostitutes. Again, just like medieval monks. Amazing how 'progressive' ideas always come from rotten and disproven ancient or medieval beliefs.
In response to:

Say 'No' to Bad Science

Renaissance Nerd Wrote: May 06, 2014 12:25 PM
I used to have faith in scientists too, until I actually started reading the so-called gold standard double-blind studies and discovered that much of the data presented is unsupported opinion--by the subjects. If 80% reported x, then y. I came to the realization that it must always be so when dealing with humans; you can't really take a human being and completely control diet, exercise, air content, etc, even if he or she agreed to it. Researchers simply can't control for far too many factors. The 'gold standard' is brass pretending to be gold. So the problem is that even serious, honest scientists are reporting falsehoods because the method they use is fundamentally flawed. There is no way to fix it unless it becomes possible to truly model a human being in a computer. Not holding my breath on that one. The scientific method is is essence systematic trial and error, and has intrinsic limitations. We should treat every claim with extreme skepticism, and ignore the mockery of those to whom science has become their religion. Technology comes from lucky accidents and flashes of insight far more than systematic trial and error, but scientists who have never created a post-it note are quick to claim all technology derives from 'science,' as if that is something separate from all other forms of human knowledge. Ignore such claims, because 'science' doesn't exist; what we call science today includes huge dollops of philosophy and religion, faith and just-so stories. It should only be used in a more narrow sense, like the science of metallurgy, in the same way that religion should be used narrowly, to specify an individual sect, rather than to lump like with unlike for philosophical or rhetorical advantage. I too have been eating turkey and chicken instead of beef and pork for many years, even though on the relatively rare occasions I have the latter, I can FEEL the difference in my own body. I eat vegetables and fruits galore, and limit bread and eat a lot of whole grains etc. And all the while I've gotten fatter, and feel worse and worse which makes me even fatter. I know exactly what to eat to make me feel good and energetic, yet I rarely eat it, because I'm afraid of gaining even more weight. So I lumber along hoping that someday somebody will learn the actual truth. I don't know what that truth might be; but I am satisfied that almost everything we 'know' about health and nutrition is balderdash.
In response to:

Look Her in the Eye

Renaissance Nerd Wrote: Apr 29, 2014 4:39 PM
You're assuming that suffering is an automatic negative. It is not. All learning comes from suffering. Everything good in the world is produced through suffering. Preferably it is suffering we choose; going to school, working at a job, etc. Sometimes it is not; being laid off, or hit by a drunk driver. Often it is a mixture: breaking your leg skiing or getting herpes because of promiscuity. Suffering in an of itself is an indifferent, and like all indifferents, it may be good or bad depending on how the individual reacts. We can't know at present exactly how much a fetus suffers before being killed. We can roughly quantify how much a woman suffers in pregnancy, though that varies wildly, even across multiple pregnancies of the same woman. We could rough out a minimal level of suffering. However many women have intentionally gotten pregnant a second, third (eleventh, twelfth) time, despite knowing exactly how much suffering it might entail. We can presume without asking them that they considered the suffering worth the resulting baby. Returning to a woman who becomes pregnant against her will (and promiscuity is excluded, since she consented to the chance of it), she will suffer further because of the pregnancy, yes; but it does not follow that the additional suffering will destroy her. It may ennoble, it might strengthen; but killing the child is unjust, and even hardened villains sometimes succumb to guilt at the injustice they've inflicted on others. Treating a baby unjustly because she was herself treated unjustly does not repair the mind or the heart. If she has to suffer to do justice to her unwillingly bestowed child, it provides all by itself a consolation. We'll never manage perfect justice so long as humans are human. That is no reason to embrace injustice simply because it is putatively convenient or because we hope it will very slightly change the amount of suffering in the world. Injustice is always bad, and always harms more than it helps. That's why leftists always end up murdering people in batches, they can't blame themselves when their heap of injustices doesn't produce the paradise they've been striving toward.
Amen brother. Best example is how quickly they traded the KKK for the Press. Who needs the white-hooded ones when they have Ivy-league graduates doing the same job, and far more effectively? Once they had to run around castrating or lynching black men, now they just say 'keep abortion legal' and reduced the population of those descended from African slaves by about half. What an amazing achievement of stealth genocide. Hitler and Stalin and Mao, and of course Marx, would be so proud.
America has been a de facto fascist state since the 1930s. It just moved slower that in Italy, Germany, Russia and China, because there was always one monkey in the wrench: Americans are armed. So they worked it slowly, called themselves liberals or progressives or the new left, or whatever, and at long last they think they've got it in the bag and they'll be able to punish their enemies at last. But there's one small problem. Americans are still armed. They are going to lose, and your 70-year cycle is just beginning.
Exactly what Republicans usually do, when they lose. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so. The squishy middle are squishy because they make decisions based on emotions. So all you have to do is find the right emotional lie (Change you can believe in!) and they'll follow along like the lemmings they are. Reasoned argument only works with reasonable people. When the naughty side won't agree to tell the truth about anything unless it helps them politically, and answers every argument with RACIST! BIGOT! HOMOPHOBE! how exactly do you propose to reason with them? They stick at nothing, and gleefully slander anybody they please, protected by the New KKK that go by the deceitful epithet of journalists.
In response to:

Closet Racism Comes Out

Renaissance Nerd Wrote: Aug 26, 2013 1:55 PM
I lived in Chile for several years and in many of the small towns there is a black American basketball player who plays for the local team. Only one foreigner is allowed on each team, and most of the foreigners are Americans, and nearly all are black. Few of them speak much Spanish, and so they are permanent outsiders while they live down there. From what I saw they are treated very well, and everybody is quick to be friendly, but they are also very lonely. Every time I ran into one of these guys they were so glad to see me, and I always spent some time with them, went to dinner a couple of times etc. The thing that really struck me is how being an American mattered so much when we were both far from home--race didn't matter a darn. No matter what part of the country they were from, and how different it was from Arizona (my home), being American trumped everything else. If they learned Spanish, married a local, and lived there permanently, no doubt they would continue to be well-treated because of being so singular. It's not hard to avoid prejudice when you're dealing with an individual. But when you start looking at groups, things change. Chilenos used to say 'everybody is racist in America,' as if that was an indisputable fact, but then in Chile, these basketball players were just about the only guys of African descent in the whole country. Look at their home-grown minority and lo! Racism emerges. The pre-Spanish Araucano tribe (the derogatory is Mapuches) are not highly regarded in polite Chileno society. The same things racists in America have always said about blacks are said about them in Chile. They have low IQs, they aren't good at academics, etc. Exactly the same! So naturally the homegrown leftists in Chile consider the Araucanos as helpless infants in need of succor, just as the leftist racists in America treat blacks. Neither are not expected to behave as adults, and it is the left perpetuating that situation because it makes them feel good about their racism by another name. We often forget that racism was THE scientific theory for a couple of centuries. It used to hold the pride of place currently occupied by Darwinism. It should surprise nobody that the leftists in Europe are shocked when those they regard as of inferior race come into their culture are not properly grateful for the condescension of the noble ones.
One band that impressed me with being non-political was Duran Duran. The only reason I ever listened to them in the first place was to impress a girl, but after I read the following response by Nick Rhodes to a reporter I started paying attention for real. He said: "Why would you ask me a question like that? Why would anyone care what I think? We're the modern equivalent of court jesters." I can't remember what they question was about, something political. Now perhaps since then they've said all kinds of political stuff, and I really don't care, because my own attitude about entertainers is exactly what Nick Rhodes said in the 80s; why do I care what the court jester says? I don't have to buy their stuff or pay them any heed, and I don't. The problem is convincing young skulls of mush they should be more discerning instead of following the herd. But then again lots of older people follow the herd too. Corporate officers run after new fads like teeny-boppers screaming after Elvis. Embarrassing.
In response to:

Girls With Guns

Renaissance Nerd Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:58 PM
The equality of women never really surfaced in any society or culture until the small, concealable pistol became available. So long as muscle-powered weapons were the norm, women always needed protectors. Now a woman can live on her own, drive around, work wherever she wants etc--thanks to the small, concealable pistol. Now a 6'6" 300-pound man can be taken down by a 98-pound 5'0" woman. That required a stupendous amount of luck before the 19th century, but now no predatory scumbag of a man knows which woman is armed and which is not. It provides safety even for women who hate guns and would never ever carry one, who are trying to get them banned so they can go back to being perpetual victims needing Big Brother to protect them.
I'm more worried about inflation than taxes. I got my last raise 5 years ago, and immediately we had a 5% pay cut because of bad economic times. That lasted 22 months. Then we had a 2.5% pay cut the next two years. This year I'm finally getting the pay I was raised to 5 years ago--first time actually getting my official salary. And in the intervening time, officially inflation has eaten up 12% of that, so I'm still not getting paid as much as I was six years ago. But inflation isn't quite as even as it seems. Some things are down, and they average out those goods rising faster than inflation, like food and gasoline. And now with a 6% tax hike, and more expensive health insurance, etc...I'm gonna be over 21-22% poorer. UGH.
He used the wrong word though; not gifts, bribes. A huge chunk of America sold their votes, simple as that.
Previous 21 - 30 Next