Tuesday, April 12, 2005

I thought the Taliban only existed in Afghanistan

I thought the Taliban only existed in Afghanistan, but I was wrong. We apparently have our very own aspiring Taliban wannabes right here in the U.S., even in a state as liberal as Minnesota.

Don't believe me?

Read this disgusting tidbit from a "conservative" blogger calling himself Vox Popoli. Some of the comments are even scarier.

But don't read it unless you have a strong stomach.

(Via Pharyngula.)

51 example(s) of insolence returned:


At 4/12/2005 11:40 AM, Blogger Yarbz www.juggernuts.com said...

I could only peruse the post as it was scary. Thank goodness that most of the religious people that I know think these over zealous crazy folks are...well, over zealous crazy folks...

 

At 4/12/2005 5:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orac,

That guy just wants attention. He blames women, Jews, and the "stupidity" of the public for the fact that he can't get published outside of Worldnetdaily. (Search his blog for his various comments about Jews unjustly dominating conservative media). And he only gets published at Worldnetdaily for half a day (most other columns seem to stay up a full day), and he only gets that because his criminal father is on the board. He whines and bitches about a news service that dropped his column because no one will buy them, he whines and bitches about other conservative columnists, and he whines and bitches that others aren't smart enough to recognize his brilliance (funny, enough people are smart enough to make George Will and Charles Krauthammer successful, but I guess they're not smart in Voxland).

I don't think most modern-day conservative Christians are like the Taliban. But then, I don't really think of Vox as much of a Christian--anyone who so obviously hates so much of his fellow *man* and who lacks any semblance of humility in any area of his life is just a frustrated jerk using Christianity to justify his views. I know plenty of Christians with strong, un-PC views, they aren't wimps, but they're decent humans who still try to see the image of God reflected in everyone, unlike Day. He truly is much like the Taliban--anyone who doesn't agree with his views, whether on women, Jews, homeschooling, his haircut, etc., deserves punishment (look at how he treats those who disagree with him). I don't care if he calls himself a "Christian Libertarian" and the Taliban consists of Muslim totalitarians. I don't care if he calls himself Tinky Winky--he is still a megalomaniacal nutcase.

Oh yeah, he assumes you're a female. Of course.

Anyone who is constantly challenging people to physical fights, who uses bullying and name-calling to "prove" his point, who talks about his brilliance instead of just letting it show, is indeed pathetic.

 

At 4/12/2005 5:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would he ruin a perfectly viable argument against government intrusions into private affairs with an inane straw-man argument against women's suffrage? Maybe we're witnessing the polarizing effect of political-blog inundation and subsequent retreat into the ideological echo chamber. No one can be that knee-jerk irrational without some conditioning, right?

I especially liked the comment, "Jesus knew too." Where's the eye-roll button on this keyboard?

-Ali

 

At 4/12/2005 5:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ali,

I don't think this guy cares so much about protesting government intrusion as he does complaining about women being fascists, unintelligent, unable to write hard science fiction, more willing to be hookers than work in a legitimate job, self-absorbed, etc. I don't think there is a positive human trait that he thinks women have more of than men.

I think that's at least part of the reason he will assume (or call) his critics a "she" even when they are male. He has done that before.

 

At 4/12/2005 5:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Taliban? You must be one of those little girls that jumps up on a chair and screams when a mouse comes in the room if you liken this guy's post to the Taliban.

 

At 4/12/2005 6:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been reading Vox's blog and column for quite a while and, while I don't always agree with him, your criticisms are based on faulty info. The first mistake is calling anyone as clearly libertarian in their views "Taliban" is just plain stupid. This shows a complete lack of understanding of both libertarinanism and Islam. A libertarian Muslim is a contradiction that will make your head explode.

As for the point in the blog entry that started this, he might have been using a bit of hyperbole, but to deny that there are differences between the way men and women view the world is , again , completely stupid. Women as a group are much more concerned with "security" and are perfectly willing to use force (provided by others) to get it. If there are any "Taliban" like elements at work, it is the willingness of most women to force other's to do things they don't want to do, for their own good, of course.

 

At 4/12/2005 7:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous above (poster 6)

One could just as easily, and more plausibly given history, criminal statistics, and nature shows, that men are more interested in proving "dominance" than women and thus force others to do what they don't want. But Vox is only interested in women's flaws, which seems to stem from his own failings in life (ever wonder why he chooses Jews and women to constantly attack?). Criticizing women as a group is valid, but that's just about all he does. Men don't have flaws as a group?

Just curious--do you really see him as a good Christian or truly interested in the betterment of humanity? I'm all up for criticizing the current state of the world, but this man does not seem interested in thoughtful, reasoned analysis, just a pissing contest with anyone who dares challenge him (and that, no matter what he claims he is, is a true mark of a fascist). Surely you've read his remarks on those who don't homeschool? And what do you make of his constantly talking about his supposed physical and intellectual prowess?

 

At 4/12/2005 7:20 PM, Blogger Bane said...

Ouch. I knew I was going to get a headache from coming here, so why did I do it? Morbid curiousity, I guess.

Probably for the same reason we all look back into the toilet to see what we made.

And we assumed Orac was a woman because that is how he/she/it sounds, I suppose.

 

At 4/12/2005 7:29 PM, Blogger Orac said...

My thanks to Vox for pumping up the hit count of my blog today.. I'm rather surprised such a "big-time" Worldnet personality actually noticed little ol' me. Hopefully, Vox will have inadvertently added to the stable of regular Orac readers, heh heh.

And thanks to PZ for pointing Vox out to me.

I think.

In any case, Taliban is exactly the word I wanted to use, because Vox is taking a Taliban attitude towards women. He wants to deny them a fundamental right because he thinks they are somehow inferior to men or unworthy of the same rights as men. True, the Taliban probably don't consider women inferior because of "fascist" tendencies (who could beat the Taliban for fascist tendencies anyway?), but, hey, if Vox can label women as having "fascist tendencies," I can label him as having Taliban tendencies.

As for Vox's automatically assuming I'm a woman because I took him to task for his idiocy, well, suffice it to say that I'm not surprised. I actually agree with Ali: Why on earth did he ruin a perfectly viable complaint about government meddling in business and private affairs with an idiotic rant against women's suffrage?

 

At 4/12/2005 7:31 PM, Blogger Orac said...

Oh, I forgot: It is not me who misunderstands libertarianism. It is Vox. No libertarian I'm aware of could support denying the right to vote to women, nor does any libertarian principle I'm aware of justify denying the right to vote on the basis of sex or race.

If Vox really believes women should not vote, he's a sorry excues for a libertarian.

 

At 4/12/2005 7:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

poster 6 continues:

"men are more interested in proving "dominance" than women"

I personally think that the lust for power is HUMAN nature, not just limited to one sex. It just manifests differently between the sexes.

"(ever wonder why he chooses Jews and women to constantly attack?). "

I've never noticed any attacks on Jews. He does have some issues with the US policy on Israel (so do I). Unfortunately, many folks think that is automatically anti-semitism. He does seem to have some issues with modern women, but given the experiences he and others on his blog have described, he has reason.

"Just curious--do you really see him as a good Christian or truly interested in the betterment of humanity?"

I'm not competent to judge his Christianity, not being one myself. As for the betterment of humanity, that concept is more of a socialist utopian kinda thing. As a libertarian, the idea of bettering humanity makes my skin crawl. That path leads to the gulag (or ovens). On that subject Vox agrees with me.

"Surely you've read his remarks on those who don't homeschool?"

I spent 6 years on the local school board. Unfortunately, the more I see of the modern school systems the more I am forced to agree that the current system is badly broken, maybe beyond repair. It pains me to say it, but truth is truth.

"And what do you make of his constantly talking about his supposed physical and intellectual prowess?"

It's his blog. Where else should he brag a little?

 

At 4/12/2005 7:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's an even sorrier excuse is Bane saying "we" as in "we assumed" and trying to grab onto the glory of his leader. Go back to staring at the mohawked-image of your hero dude.

Pathetic.

 

At 4/12/2005 7:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

#6 again:

"No libertarian I'm aware of could support denying the right to vote to women, nor does any libertarian principle I'm aware of justify denying the right to vote on the basis of sex or race."

I disagree with Vox on this point also. I would limit voting to the people who actually pay the freight on our system. That is a consistent libertarian position and it will infuriate just as many people. Great fun!!!

 

At 4/12/2005 7:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I personally think that the lust for power is HUMAN nature, not just limited to one sex. It just manifests differently between the sexes."

Then why should only women be denied the vote? And you don't think there is a greater tendency for men to "lust for dominance"? Why is that tendency any better or worse than the lust for security? And it certainly seems Day thinks women are worse on every human trait.

Aside from the fact that your local school board is one among many, my point was that he smears anyone anywhere who doesn't homeschool as bad parents who don't love their children as much as he does (read his Worldnet articles).

As for Jews, simply search his site and find where he complains that Jews aren't properly conservative and that true conservatives should be wary of them. Then there are his statements implying that Jews in the Middle Ages quite possibly got what they deserved if they are like today's Jewish leaders, who apparently are the cause (along with women) of all social decay.

Helping one's fellow human as an indiviudal is not socialist, and it's what Christians are commanded to do. They are also commanded that everyone (even women) are made in the image of God. That does not mean no criticism, but he certainly doesn't exhibit anything remotely Christian, at least from my encounters with Christians.

His excessive arrogance (not just bragging "a little") and his treatment of anyone who disagrees with him (bloggers, other columnists, almost every Jew and woman apparently) is certainly the tendencies of a fascist.

 

At 4/12/2005 8:02 PM, Blogger Orac said...

Indeed. And wanting to deny women equal power is a Taliban-like trait as well. I don't know if Vox has the religious fascistic component, but he sure has the anti-woman bias of the Taliban down cold.

 

At 4/12/2005 8:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should women vote? What makes being female an automatic qualification for voting?

Nothing about ones sex makes one have intrinsic value in the governance of a nation. Libertarian philosophy does not require universal suffrage. In fact, history demonstrates that as suffrage has increased liberty has decreased.

Many, including me, would gladly give up the vote if my property and human rights were an absolute value that no level of government could infringe upon. Since national polling is largely a choice between two sides of the same coin, it’s not like we’d be losing much.

Res Ipsa

 

At 4/12/2005 8:17 PM, Blogger Orac said...

Why should men vote, then? Why single out women as not being worthy of voting? Because of some vague "fascistic" tendency that Vox thinks they have? Please. Give me a break.

Wouldn't it also be a libertarian position that restrictions on the right to vote should not be based on traits a person doesn't have control over, like race or sex, but only on traits that they do have control over?

 

At 4/12/2005 9:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neither my rights nor any other individual's are subject to a vote, by any number of other individuals. Voting is at best an act of self-defense, at worst a criminal act in and of itself.

No nation in history has ever voted itself out of its problems, and neither will America.

 

At 4/12/2005 10:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

how is he like the taliban? how is he totilatarian? do you even have the ability to read? do you know what a dictionary is? can you even think?

what does minnesota being liberal have to do with anything? i dont understand any of this.

 

At 4/12/2005 10:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

how is he like the taliban? how is he totilatarian? do you even have the ability to read? do you know what a dictionary is? can you even think?

what does minnesota being liberal have to do with anything? i dont understand any of this.

 

At 4/12/2005 10:29 PM, Blogger Orac said...

That you don't understand any of this is painfully obvious, I'm afraid.

 

At 4/12/2005 10:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orac, it's intersting that you can write about an organization in which you have no familiarity. Your ignorance is astonishingly glaring, and you probably feel not one ounce of accountability. Notice how I used the word "feel", because there is a certain concentric concourse that binds most people in which you seem to be totally unaware. It's called intellectualism. If anyone out there "feel" the same way you does, it's because of that glaring codependency that exists between all females; Y'all FEEL. Am I supposed to be impressed by this?

 

At 4/12/2005 10:43 PM, Blogger Orac said...

Am I supposed to be impressed by you?

For someone who claims to make much of "intellectualism" you sure do choose to remain ignorant, given that you apparently still haven't figured out that I'm not a woman. Of course, I realize that you probably automatically assumed that because I took Vox to task for making blatantly sexist comments that I must be a woman. Sadly for you, jumping to conclusions is hardly the trait of someone who practices "intellectualism," particularly your rather unimaginative and intellectually lazy whine about my supposedly "feeling" when it doesn't take much reading here that this blog is dedicated to skepticism, science, and--dare I say?--intellectualism.

It wouldn't surprise me if you thought I'm a liberal as well.

You would be wrong on both counts.

 

At 4/12/2005 10:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orac,

Your logic is *so* bewlidering, and ignorance of the topic so large, I am forced to quote from SNL Classic "Jane you ignorant s---"
-Dan Ackroyd to Jane Curtan

 

At 4/12/2005 10:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more thing, it's interesting how women in our society have concoceted the penumbra that a man controls his hormones. This in conjunction with saying with the same breath that a woman can do anything she pleases, as much as she pleases to exacerbate a man's feelings. The inculpable veniality of the feminine mystique is astonishing to an individual who actually uses his/her brain.

Woman have not one shredd of empathy. A hormonal being, who centers her life on her hormones; a person who swears that her quality of life is determined by how she feels, cannot possibly create the chemical impulse that can muster any type of empathy. Unless, of course, she takes the step to bear and raise children. One can only hope that a woman in this situation will have enough intestinal fortitude to counter the contempt that is issuing out of Cosmopolitan about the domestic engineer, and to actually listen to the one hormone that screams for the maternal instinct. That, my friends, is the only empathy a woman will ever truly realize. Too bad she has to wait to have kids to realize it.

A woman telling me to control my hormones, and not look respond to the visual signals she paints on her face, and wears on her body I find unpalatably incoherent with the world around her. What's more offensive is that she becomes offended when a man tries to tell her what's on her mind. On the other hand, her PMS is probably more psychologically devastating to all around her than any man's hormonal exacerbations of his overloaded testosterone will ever be. So for any woman who demands that a man control his hormones, there is a certain thought involving a kettle that comes to mind, but I just can't quite complete the sentence. Maybe it's writer's block.

 

At 4/12/2005 10:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orac, yes, I am very judgemental. I just didn't want to have to see the contempt I have for you now that I know you're a man. It's understandable that a woman would use emotion and demegoguery to make her points. That a man would is astonishing. Vis a vis.

 

At 4/12/2005 10:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orac, have you ever even travelled to one Islamic country, let alone stayed there for any amount of time?

 

At 4/12/2005 10:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you still haven't explained, using logic, what makes Vox a member of taliban or why minnesota being liberal has anything to do with this.

again, i have no idea what you're saying. you should give up.

 

At 4/12/2005 11:17 PM, Blogger Orac said...

Gee, Vox, that wouldn't happen to be you dropping, by any chance?

If it is you, tell me, why did you undermine a potentially interesting point about government interference in private industry and private life with your idiotic assertion that women are "fascists at heart"?

 

At 4/12/2005 11:22 PM, Blogger Orac said...

Oh, and I never said that Vox was a "member of the Taliban" (do look up the definition of a "strawman"); I said he was a Taliban wannabe. Perhaps I should have qualified it somewhat and added "with respect to his attitudes towards women," but that's the only change I would consider making.

 

At 4/13/2005 2:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a short point that the original Facist manifesto pushed for the women's vote. The Italian facists saw this as a way to power.

 

At 4/13/2005 2:28 AM, Blogger Tim said...

Damn, its amazing how easy it is to get some of these wackjobs going.

 

At 4/13/2005 3:02 AM, Blogger Bane said...

Who you callin a 'wackjob', Canadian?

 

At 4/13/2005 3:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whether or not Vox sounds crazy, One would have to give him credit for having a relatively solid basis for his arguments.

I believe his belief against woman's suffarage is partially based on the fact that many western nations have typically accellerated their shift toward socialism after the establishment of universal suffrage.

As far as anti-semitism is concerned, I'm not quite sure how anyone could find Vox to be an anti-semite, unless they have been lazy with their research and simply latched onto a few choice quotes that they have misconstrued because they were too lazy to read the articles or posts in their entirety.

As far as "funny, enough people are smart enough to make George Will and Charles Krauthammer successful, but I guess they're not smart in Voxland" is concerned, this person seems to forget that those same people are "smart" enough to make Maureen Dowd and Michelle Malkin successful. Hell... there's a whole list of idiots people who have made it big. Intelligence does not always guarantee success. How often do you see someone read Stephen Hawking? Do the masses flock to bookstores to buy the works of Dostoevsky? (yes, people still buy his books, but many are forced to)

Vox may be wrong and/or arrogant, but it would be completely fallacious to dismiss him as an idiot.

Besides... you rarely find anyone who is as knowledgable in so many subjects and has as many varied interests as Vox.

 

At 4/13/2005 4:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

EN says:

It's kinda peacful here. Even the insults are mild. If you guys should ever need a little more adrenalin come on over to VD's place... or Bane's if you're looking for a guilty pleasure.

 

At 4/13/2005 5:41 AM, Anonymous Kristjan Wager said...

"I believe his belief against woman's suffarage is partially based on the fact that many western nations have typically accellerated their shift toward socialism after the establishment of universal suffrage."

Now that is an interesting perspective. Of course it is historically completely wrong, but that's besides the point I guess.

 

At 4/13/2005 9:06 AM, Blogger Pink Kitty said...

Kristjan Wager said...

"I believe his belief against woman's suffarage is partially based on the fact that many western nations have typically accellerated their shift toward socialism after the establishment of universal suffrage."

Now that is an interesting perspective. Of course it is historically completely wrong, but that's besides the point I guess.


And how is this wrong? Upon achieving the right to vote in the 1920's, the United States did take a dramatic turn toward socialist policies - the New Deal, Social Security, government sponsored health care, government sponsored primary schools, an income tax and higher tax rates among others.

Name one country that did not start leaning left after granting universal suffrage.

 

At 4/13/2005 11:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, there were World Wars, major Depressions, the largely male labor movement, and other factors that occurred to contribute to the New Deal, funding for schools, etc. And the U.S. was trending leftwards anyway. If you want to blame social security on someone, "blame" the elderly.

Second, more women than men voted for Eisenhower. And, if only women had voted in 1960 NIXON, not Kennedy, would have won the presidential election (dispelling the myth that Kennedy won only because women found him attractive). Yes, I know Republicans aren't always the ones who favor a smaller state, but they generally are.

Third, if you have any concern about abortion, women are more likely to be pro-lfe.

As for VD's anti-semitism, just search his site. He clearly doesn't think individual Jews can be conservative enough for him because as a group they're liberal. He thinks because some Jews complain about Christmas decorations and carols, that's enough to feel sympathy for those who persecuted them in the Middle Ages. Funny, would he say the same because some blacks exaggerate racism? Because some Hispanics don't learn English very quickly? Would he agree with minorities who decided to "get whitey" because of some perceived slight? Every group has their irritating, but there are only two groups who he picks out repeatedly, Jews and women. What about feeling sympathy for those who locked up Japanese-Americans because some Japanese decided to go to war against us? Because undoubtedly some Japanese Americans felt some loyalty towards Japan (as undoubtedly some German-Americans felt loyalty to Germany)? If you don't find him anti-semitic, fine. It's all on his site, so you can read it for yourself.

Yes, some idiots are successful. But VD acts like someone as intelligent as he is CANNOT be successful. Given that there are others who are intelligent and successful, that seems doubtful as best.
Not as many people may read Hawking as Tom Clancy, but he is still highly successful and recognized specifically for his brilliance. For VD to act like his brilliance is just so great that no one can understand him is laughable--he writes opinion pieces, not physics equations.

Even WND seems ashamed--go to the site on Monday's and look at the banner with the columnists--how long does his column stay up there on the front page?

 

At 4/13/2005 11:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PS--I don't think Clancy is an idiot.

 

At 4/13/2005 12:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

#6 again.(I'm beginning to feel like a part-timer in Bangkok whorehouse)


"Wouldn't it also be a libertarian position that restrictions on the right to vote should not be based on traits a person doesn't have control over, like race or sex, but only on traits that they do have control over?"

Yes. My preferred criteria would be proof of Fed income taxes paid. No taxes, no vote.

"And you don't think there is a greater tendency for men to "lust for dominance"? Why is that tendency any better or worse than the lust for security?"

Not better, just different. The difference in today's political climate is that the male lust for power is challenged constantly and the female lust for security is either celebrated or ignored. As this discussion is showing.

"Aside from the fact that your local school board is one among many,"
My school is perfect. It's all the rest that are the problem. See Vox's blog today foran example of the problem.

"Helping one's fellow human as an indiviudal is not socialist, and it's what Christians are commanded to do."

I have nothing but respect for all those who follow this teaching. Unfortunately, too many Christians think that voting to use the coericive power of the state to do good works is the same thing.

"As for Jews, simply search his site and find where he complains that Jews aren't properly conservative and that true conservatives should be wary of them."

Boy, is this dangerous ground. I have noticed that the majority of Jews tend to be liberal/statist in their politics, and I don't really understand why the almost worship of the state is so common. It has been the states that have been the most eager to abuse the Jews through history, either directly, or by using them as scapegoats. The Final Solution wasn't thought up and implemented by a couple of guys bitching over a quart of beer.

 

At 4/13/2005 12:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The difference in today's political climate is that the male lust for power is challenged constantly and the female lust for security is either celebrated or ignored. As this discussion is showing."

Possibly. I think this might be changing though. And some on the right, like George Will, have criticized the "feminization" of American politics. He is a good one to read if your interested and don't already.

My point on the schools and homeschooling was that VD claims he loves his children more than others because he homeschools (search Worldnet). And he generally uses anecdotes--well, in this school, this happened...Criticizing all parents who send their kids to public schools a) ignores the good ones b)represents a certain tendency to slam anyone who doesn't think like he does.

As for the Jews, I agree most tend to be liberal. But VD thinks that because most are, the ones who are conservative columnists cannot be properly conservative. That's from his blog. He also makes some comment that one must be a Jew or a woman to get published as a conservative. Sounds a bit bitter to me, (as does his disparaging the opinion-reading population for being stupid because he gets dropped from that news service). And making claims against individuals because of group characteristics certainly doesn't sound libertarian.

 

At 4/13/2005 2:49 PM, Blogger Jonathan Dresner said...

Name one country that did not start leaning left after granting universal suffrage.

There are at least a couple that started leaning left before granting universal sufferage. But it's still a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy unless you can show causation, and generally speaking, women's voting records don't support that.

 

At 4/13/2005 3:36 PM, Anonymous Kristjan Wager said...

"Name one country that did not start leaning left after granting universal suffrage."

As Jonathan Dresner explains, there is not necessarily a causation between left-leaning tendencies in countries and universal suffrage, but to to take an easy example - Russia.

Of course, the first statement talked about the western world, which Russia normally isn't included in, so I'll give you a different example. Denmark.

Now, the Danish political history is probably not well know to most commeters here, but back when parlimentarism started in Denmark, the left-leaning people voted on 'Venstre' (literately: 'Left') while the right-leaning people voted on 'Højre' (literately 'Right').

Already in 1872 they had a majority of seats in what you might call the parliament or the house of commons (it doesn't quite translate into English parliamentary principles, but it's close enough), but they didn't actually hold govermental power.
In 1876 the Social-Democrats were formed, and they got seats in parliament in 1884.
Already in 1894, after a period with political unrest, and decidely undemocratic messures from Højre, the Social-Democrats and Venstre got the parliamentary/governmental power, and took Denmark in a more left-leaning direction.

It might not seem terribly left-leaning by today's Danish standards, but it was a radical change from earlier policies. And it laid the foundation for the current welfare state in existence in Denmark.

Danish women got the voting rights in 1914.

 

At 4/13/2005 4:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kristjan Wager said...
[B]ut to to take an easy example - Russia.

[S]o I'll give you a different example. Denmark.


Kristjan, its wishful thinking to expect Vox readers to actually read the examples you gave. You can count on pink kitty to raise the question again.

She asked for left leaning after universal suffrage. Your attempt to explain the lack of causation relationship between left-leaning and universal suffrage will not get registered in Vox's audience.

Good job nonetheless!

 

At 4/13/2005 4:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm afraid Anonymous above is right, Kristjan. It seems most Vox readers, though not all, aren't going to understand your argument.

Most tend to like internet shouting matches and calling those who disagree with them "women" or "girls", the ultimate insult. That's when Vox and co. like to come over and join in. Reasoned arguments just don't work.

But nice argument!

 

At 4/13/2005 4:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

#6 (me love you long time)
"Already in 1894, after a period with political unrest, and decidely undemocratic messures from Højre, the Social-Democrats and Venstre got the parliamentary/governmental power, and took Denmark in a more left-leaning direction.

It might not seem terribly left-leaning by today's Danish standards, but it was a radical change from earlier policies. And it laid the foundation for the current welfare state in existence in Denmark.

Danish women got the voting rights in 1914."

Let's see. 1894 to 1914. One generation more or less. After that the move to the current socialist nanny state is unbroken. I don't think your example here holds up well. The one aspect of the debate that hasn't been defined is the time frame. The position of the anti-Vox crowd seems to be: It has to happen within ten minuts of the first election or it doesn't happen. Vox never said any such thing.
Disclaimer: I personally think Vox is exaggerating the effect, although there are definately differences between men and women beyond the plumbing.

I also think the slide to socialism has many causes besides just this one. The chief one is the realization on the part of a great many people that it is easier to vote to take other's wealth that it is to get up off your butt and earn it yourself. That is the true defination of "social democracy".


"Reasoned arguments just don't work"

And the reasoned argument here is where exactly?

 

At 4/13/2005 5:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

#6 again.
Completely off topic and probably not too welcome here but an important read.
From The High Road Forum


Thread: There Are No Barbarians At the Gates View Single Post
April 11th, 2005, 02:29 PM #1
Control Group
Senior Member



Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 139 There Are No Barbarians At the Gates

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Like every other creature on the face of the earth, Godfrey was, by birthright, a stupendous badass, albeit in the somewhat narrow technical sense that he could trace his ancestry back up a long line of slightly less highly evolved stupendous badasses to that first self-replicating gizmo - which, given the number and variety of its descendants, might justifiably be described as the most stupendous badass of all time. Everyone and everything that wasn't a stupendous badass was dead."
--Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

"Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
--William Pitt

They ask us why. Why do we need guns? In a country among the most civilized and safe the world has ever seen, why does a person need a device designed solely for the purpose of taking life? Then they tell us about the needs they want to meet. The need to protect children from harm. The need to stop the streets from being killing fields. The need for the average citizen to be safe when he walks out his front door.

So let's talk about needs.

Throughout human history, the same tale is told over, and over, and over again. A mighty civilization rises, a shining beacon of culture and science and architecture and art. It lasts for generations, for centuries. And then the barbarians arrive. They see no value in running water, in the written word, in waste disposal, in magnificent buildings. They come to plunder and burn, to rape and kill, and this mighty civilization is laid to waste. The barbarians, you see, may not be able to read, and they may not know how to build an aqueduct, and they may not have any use for the elderly or infirm, but they do know how to kill. They understand that, in the final analysis, might does make right. Enough people with enough axes can ignore whatever laws, rules, or ethics might stop a lesser force.

Barbarism, it seems, is the natural human condition. If history itself isn't convincing enough, look at the world today. There's rioting in the streets of Los Angeles - what's guaranteed? Looting. They can't stop us, we'll take everything we can get our hands on. A tsunami slams into the shores of South Asia, with a resulting death toll of hundreds of thousands. What happens in the aftermath? European slavers snatch up lost little girls to sell to the depraved. Surrounded by crushing poverty, a Somalian Warlord slaughters his neighbors and buys drugs for his henchmen.

These are not isolated events, they're not outliers off the curve, they're not exceptions to the rule. They are the rule. When we as a species climbed down from the trees and decided to generate what we call human history, we didn't do it by forming committees and drawing up budget proposals, we did it by inventing better ways to kill everyone else. The human urge to destroy, the instinct to take by force what others have gained by labor is part of our genetic makeup. Should anyone doubt this, or claim that "only humans make war," I recommend researching the Four-Year War at Gombe.

Violence and brutality are as much a part of humanity as intelligence and socialization. It is the universal drive of civilization to contain these instincts, to redirect them into more productive channels, to convince people to live within a set of rules. But no matter how civilized, no society has eliminated them, nor will one. The society that forgets this is the society that falls to the barbarian hordes. The society that accepts this, and nurtures the warrior spirit away from barbarism and into the defense of the right is the society that rises to glory.

This is something the Founding Fathers knew well, and it is the reason they wrote "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," into the Second Amendment. Their perception, their genius, was that an armed population, ready and willing to fight for their freedoms, was the only sure defense against the barbarians. And their wisdom proved to be still relevant nearly two hundred years later, when Admiral Yamamoto told Prime Minister Tojo, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

But this vision has worked so well that it has been all but forgotten. We have become so complacent in our security that we have forgotten what provides it. We have collectively bought into the notion that someone else should protect us, that the government's job is to provide security. We have forgotten that we are the government - by the people - and that no one will protect us but us - for the people. This has been easy to do, because we are unthreatened. There are no unexplored continents teeming with barbarians ready to invade. We have developed a civilization so adept at wielding military might that none dare invade, for fear of being utterly annihilated. We have done this by concentrating authority over and responsibility for the mechanisms of violence in a comparatively small group of people, who decide when and where we should employ them, and it has proven to be effective.

Surely this means we are safe! The barbarians will not attack, they cannot attack, because the certainty of retribution, swift, sure, and complete, must dissuade any nation from designs upon our sovreignty. The barbarians have been cowed, and we march bravely into the future. For the first time in human history, there are no barbarians at the gates!

Indeed, there are no barbarians at the gates - the barbarians are through the gates and within the walls. They fly planes into skyscrapers in New York, they detonate bombs beneath day care centers in Oklahoma City, they execute students in Columbine.

So let's talk about needs. This is what I need.

I need to protect my children from harm. I need to stop my front lawn from being a killing field. I need to be safe when I walk out my front door. The government does its part to achieve these things: the Mongol Horde isn't going to come screaming down Main Street stealing my children for slaves. No Zeroes will be strafing my front lawn. The Wehrmacht isn't going to goose-step up the walk and bayonet me when I go to work. But I need to do my part, because no one else can do it for me. No amount of governmental good intention will prevent a man from assaulting me in an alley. No divison of infnatry will stop a thug from raping my wife. No intelligence satellite will catch the man who murders my child before it happens.

What I want is to never be necessary. I devoutly hope to never see true violence, and I have so far managed to avoid even bar fights. I want to be the absolute last line of defense for me and mine, behind every person my tax money has hired to keep my community safe. But no amount of wanting will mean that I am not that last line of defense, and I need, I deserve, I demand the right to be that last line. This is the final remaining vestige of the barbarian impulse, the warrior spirit, that I possess.

And it is this remnant of a racial history steeped in violence that they are trying to crush when they ask why I need guns. It is the warrior spirit that, whether intentionally or not, they are trying to wish out of existence, because it is the warrior spirit, the barbarian urge, that causes violent crime, terrorism, and war. But they are trying to quash it amongst the wrong people, amongst the very people civilization must nurture the most: those who have it, but control it. Those who wield that very drive in defense of those who hope to not need them to.

These people are the most precious resource we have, the cultivated warrior spirit our most important defense. Because it is these people, with this spirit that, in the final extreme, define greatness. These are the people who fling themselves into an angry sea to pull other people's children to safety. These are the people who pit a pistol against a rifle, because they cannot stand by and watch innocent people slaughtered. These are the people who drive their plane into the ground before seeing it used as a weapon of terror.

These are the people society needs, the people society must cultivate, because, ultimately, they are what divides us from, and what protects us against, the barbarians.

"People sleep peacably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
--George Orwell
__________________
And remember, the plural of "gun" is "arsenal."


Control Group
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Control Group
Visit Control Group's homepage!
Find More Posts by Control Group
Add Control Group to Your Buddy List

 

At 4/13/2005 8:18 PM, Blogger Orac said...

Prof. Dresner told him he was using a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, and what does he say?

"Let's see. 1894 to 1914. One generation more or less. After that the move to the current socialist nanny state is unbroken. I don't think your example here holds up well. The one aspect of the debate that hasn't been defined is the time frame. The position of the anti-Vox crowd seems to be: It has to happen within ten minuts of the first election or it doesn't happen."

Geez, not only is he not understanding what a post hoc argument is, but he's adding a straw man argument there to keep the post hoc fallacy company!

 

At 4/13/2005 9:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Prof. Dresner told him he was using a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, and what does he say?"

Because he says it doesn't necessarily make it so. The whole crux of the debate is wether or not women's suffrage has any effect on trends in the political leanings of the countries involved. You all say it doesn't so therefore it couldn't cause any change. So far there hasn't been much proof presented either way. I also said I didn't think it was a big factor.

So far the facts established for the example in Denmark were that the politics changed to the
Left after womens's suffrage. Was that the entire cause of the change? Obviously not. Did it contribute? Possibly. You haven't presented any evidence that it didn't, and that was the point I was trying to make. I had no intention of diverting the discussion with a straw man argument. If I gave that impression it was due to my lack of clarity.

I'm well aware that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. But, something does cause changes and sometimes we don't want to face the truth if it challenges our core beliefes. That is a fact of human nature that will bite the butts of all political philosophies.

 

At 4/13/2005 9:27 PM, Blogger Orac said...

There's an old rule in skepticism that "he who asserts must prove."

Vox asserted that women's suffrage leads to a diminution in liberty and and a drift towards socialism, did he not? He was not making a more nuanced argument that it may have contributed. He was identifying it as a major cause. His supporters have jumped on the bandwagon and asserted the same.

None of them have produced convincing evidence to support the assertion, or even any real evidence at all.

 

At 4/14/2005 2:31 AM, Anonymous Kristjan Wager said...

I can't believe that I'll actually try to explain it once more.

The original statement in the comments was:

"I believe his belief against woman's suffarage is partially based on the fact that many western nations have typically accellerated their shift toward socialism after the establishment of universal suffrage."

and someone later said

"Name one country that did not start leaning left after granting universal suffrage."

What the first commentor didn't realize was that the countries didn't accelerate their shift towards the left - the major shifts happened before universal suffrage, and actually most often happened as a result of granting the workers (i.e. non-land owner) the suffrage.

After that, it was a steady shift leftwards in most countries, except for those countries that first went one direction, then another etc.

Look at the political history of Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany and you'll find that there is no clear connection between left-leaning tendencies and universal suffrage.

The second commentor didn't understand that if there were any connection between left-leaning and general suffrage, it was the fact that universal suffrage generally happened after the countries took a more left-leaning tendency. Yet, this is not even always true - as other people blaming women for everything bad has pointed out, Italy's fascist party actually called for universal suffrage back when they were formed.

Now. after having made these arguments, I think I will back Orac up, and say that the people who claim that universal suffrage leads to left-leaning tendencies in the Westernw world need to back up those statements. Not only do they need to prove that it happened, but they also need to prove that it happened because of universal suffrage.

Oh, and for general information, if you don't have a blogger account, you can mark "Other", which allows you to type in a name - that would make conversation here a lot more easy.

 

Links to this insolence:

Create a Link

<< Home