ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Rabbits gonna rabbit

This is absolutely and utterly beautiful.  I wish I'd started running for SFWA office years ago.  I'm just sorry that what passes for discussion there is not open to the public.  On the SFWA Forum, in a thread entitled Questions for Candidates, some of the sadder little rabbits are lamenting the fact that they can't disqualify me from running for office due to my doubleplusungood crimethink and discussing whether either the old bylaws or the new ones will permit revoking membership in the association.

A very important question was addressed to all the candidates about our belief that men and women are equal and equally deserving of respect, to which I answered thusly:  "No. I don't believe equality exists in any material, legal, or spiritual sense. And I am deeply amused by anyone who claims to be pro-science and asserts that it does."

Rabbits gonna rabbit.

Because I am a sensitive and responsive leader, and in light of my newfound appreciation for the importance of equality to the membership, I have added a plank to my platform: "All Active and Associate members will be required to provide a signed and notarized statement that they believe men and women are equal and equally deserving of respect.  Members who fail to provide a signed and notarized statement to that effect prior to December 31, 2013, will have their memberships in the association immediately and irrevocably terminated."

Labels: ,

145 Comments:

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 25, 2013 2:32 PM  

What fun, laughs! ! So there could have been a few rabbity raised voices?

Anonymous dh January 25, 2013 2:34 PM  

"No. I don't believe equality exists in any material, legal, or spiritual sense. And I am deeply amused by anyone who claims to be pro-science and asserts that it does."

Can you give a little more on this?

Is it your opinion that the creator values some people more than others? Based on identity/gender or based on something else? I am really surprised, I thought I had a good handle on your position on equality, but this is a new dimension I don't remember you exploring!

Anonymous jack January 25, 2013 2:35 PM  

This is all so choice...please keep keeping us informed...wish I could vote in this election. Oh wait...I just need to write an SF short story, don't I?

Anyone....

Anonymous Daniel January 25, 2013 2:42 PM  

dh, its been in his FAQ for at least 3 years, and he's stated it in similar 100 million jillion* times before. Search "women are not equal" or something like that.

*estimate

Anonymous JartStar January 25, 2013 2:46 PM  

You should call your party SFWA+. The slogan can be: "Those who choose not to support SFWA+ are not automatically considered supporters of bigotry, but likely are bigots."

Anonymous dh January 25, 2013 2:47 PM  

dh, its been in his FAQ for at least 3 years, and he's stated it in similar 100 million jillion* times before. Search "women are not equal" or something like that.

I just now noticed that, thank you for point it out. I was surprised at that spiritual portion, not the others.

Anonymous VD January 25, 2013 2:48 PM  

Is it your opinion that the creator values some people more than others? Based on identity/gender or based on something else?

Yes. Based on behavior, attitude, obedience, and simple Divine preference, as chronicled in the Bible. God does not value the wicked. He hates them.

Anonymous Daniel January 25, 2013 2:50 PM  

I just need to write an SF short story, don't I?

No, Jack. You just need to get 3 stories published from a list of about 60 publishers, more than half of which have been out of business for years or even decades.

Actually, I think it would be pretty funny to qualify for SFWA membership by publishing a short story trilogy in three publications about a man's quest to build a time machine to go back in time far enough to get his three stories published in existing SFWA-qualifying markets.

Anonymous dh January 25, 2013 2:52 PM  

Yes. Based on behavior, attitude, obedience, and simple Divine preference, as chronicled in the Bible. God does not value the wicked. He hates them.

Thank you!

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 25, 2013 2:55 PM  

Is it your opinion that the creator values some people more than others? Based on identity/gender or based on something else?

This is a fact, not an opinion. God clearly demonstrates preferences for some and not others, wicked or not. Remember how Moses was held in high regard? How about Abraham (then Abram)? Or Saul would later become Paul?

There is no point in the Bible where equality is held as a virtue. The only thing we share in common is that we are all doomed to die because of sin. Even in our sins, we do share in equal violations against God.

Anonymous Porky January 25, 2013 2:56 PM  

You must be punished for your future crimes. Hey! What a cool idea for a scifi book!

Anonymous Desiderius January 25, 2013 3:01 PM  

The opposite of love being not hate but indifference.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Anonymous Signe January 25, 2013 3:08 PM  

You must be punished for your future crimes. Hey! What a cool idea for a scifi book!

Ooh. And then a group of people figure that, having paid for it already, they now earned the right to go out and commit crimes.

Title it "Indulgence".

Anonymous Todd January 25, 2013 3:09 PM  

I don't get it. Is this to help you get elected, or more of a symbolic statement?

Anonymous raggededge January 25, 2013 3:12 PM  

I believe he meant that some other Rabbit candidate added that to the plank of their platform, not VD.

Blogger IM2L844 January 25, 2013 3:17 PM  

Entertainment at it's finest. I think it's hilarious that some of them actually believe ostracism would be a resplendent punishment to serve as an illustrious example for any who dare challenge convention.

Anonymous Daniel January 25, 2013 3:17 PM  

I don't think that is right, raggededge. It's VD's plank, and he's calling for a moratorium on mandatory equality. If he is not elected, the SFWA is rejecting an equality requirement for membership. If he is elected, the SFWA is voting one in.

Either way, it serves as a public referendum on one of the most idiotic and pernicious concepts ever foisted upon mankind. Not a bad trick.

Anonymous Daniel January 25, 2013 3:18 PM  

Well, duh, not public, obviously, it being a closed guild.

Anonymous raggededge January 25, 2013 3:18 PM  

@Daniel, Ahhh, thanks.

Blogger Gilbert Ratchet January 25, 2013 3:19 PM  

I do wish you'd stop saying "thusly." "Thus" works just fine!

Anonymous Joe January 25, 2013 3:24 PM  

Not equal in design, giftedness or calling.
Men and women are equal ONLY in value.

Well-meaning fools will make others suffer for their dogma.
Of course, women and children are always the first to suffer.
God, please help us!

Anonymous patrick kelly January 25, 2013 3:41 PM  

Hmmm... maybe I'll go to one of those design your own t-shirt sites and make one with a crazed looking rabbit hopping around on one foot with the caption "Rabbits gonna Rabbit".

While wearing it in public I would suspect anyone nodding and smiling of being one of the dread ilk.

Or maybe just one that says "Dread Ilk". Or do those already exist?

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 25, 2013 3:44 PM  

I am writing a work of fantasy, but I have no desire to ever join an organization like SFWA.

I don't believe in unions, so why would I join a guild either?

Especially one full of annoying self-righteous Rabbit People like Scalzi.

Anonymous Ridip January 25, 2013 3:49 PM  

Why do the rabbits rage, and McRapey imagine a vain thing? The kings of the SFWA set themselves and the rulers of the rabbit people take counsel together against the Day that is anointed.

Anonymous Scintan January 25, 2013 3:49 PM  

Come for the drinks and doughnuts. Stay for the laughs.

Blogger Earl January 25, 2013 3:54 PM  

No equality found with science? These people know nothing of science. They are just the new order of glaze eyed fools worshipping the conjurers and sorcerers in white lab coats. Same as all the old pagans.

Anonymous dh January 25, 2013 3:54 PM  

I don't believe in unions, so why would I join a guild either?

Guilds historically have a lot of value. VD, any value with the SFWA?

Anonymous Daniel January 25, 2013 4:00 PM  

Guilds aren't unions, UI. I don't know why you would join SFWA in particular, but only because they are stuck in the old SF/Fantasy bubble of about 1983 or thereabouts, not because guilds in general can't be helpful for professionals.

The SFWA doesn't go on strike. They don't have contract negotiations with publishers. They don't address labor issues. Originally, it was started as a way for published authors to aid and assist one another in informal and formal ways and to mark literary works of merit. I think they still think they do that, or hope to do that, and I do think they do still function as a sort of charity for professionally published writers who are horrible at the business of writing. I mean, they do some grievance work for pros who relied on their non-attorney agent to handle their bad contracts. They have an emergency medical fund. That sort of stuff.

I can't think of a great reason for a productive person to join the SFWA today. On the other hand, I can think of lots of good reasons to join other professional arts organizations - the ones that actually provide relevant services and don't still list "Twilight Zone Magazine," which folded 25 years ago, as a qualifying market for new SFWA applicants.

I would be curious to know when the last new SFWA member joined who listed TZ as one of the 3 qualifiers. If it was recently, it means that "professional" should be changed to "occasionally compensated". If not, it is completely irrelevant for today's fiction market.

Anonymous Daniel January 25, 2013 4:03 PM  

Oh, UI, even as recently as ten years ago, membership in SFWA still meant something in the publishing world. It proved to publishers that you were serious about this. Nowadays, you don't necessarily have to prove anything to them - you can go directly to the readers and sell and live and die by your own traffic if you don't want to hassle with the traditional process.

Anonymous Jeigh Di January 25, 2013 4:06 PM  

"You must be punished for your future crimes. Hey! What a cool idea for a scifi book!"

It's been done, at least in a TV show. The Outer Limits.

Blogger tz January 25, 2013 4:13 PM  

You can only argue that people are equally deserving of respect based on their possessing an immoral soul of infinite value, and we cannot accurately judge what God (or something like Karma) thinks of the others as we see only through a glass darkly.

CS Lewis "Men or Rabbits" as I posted on the other thread addresses this too.

That said, we can judge actions and results.

If people are advocating the tantric (same root as tantrum) path, they deserve no more respect than a screaming, pouting toddler having a tantrum - this includes things which violate the commandment against adultery and fornication.

Simply say, observe, or otherwise advocate that Women had more dignity when they were honored and valued as Mothers instead of sex-objects as is the current norm (even within marriage!), and watch the sparks fly.

Anonymous Axe Head January 25, 2013 4:16 PM  

Is it your opinion that the creator values some people more than others?

Not opinion, but fact: Jacob he loved, Esau he hated.

Anonymous David January 25, 2013 4:20 PM  

This is starting to remind me of when Hillaire Belloc ran for office in England, where he told the electorate, "If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that he has spared me the indignity of being your representative.”

Anonymous Signe January 25, 2013 4:21 PM  

Not opinion, but fact: Jacob he loved, Esau he hated.

Someone please put down some flypaper in case Ass-sher shows up again.

Anonymous VD January 25, 2013 4:30 PM  

VD, any value with the SFWA?

Considerable entertainment value, but other than that, not so much.

Anonymous Daniel January 25, 2013 4:31 PM  

"You must be punished for your future crimes. Hey! What a cool idea for a scifi book!"

It's been done, at least in a TV show. The Outer Limits.

sigh. A short story. Minority Report, Philip K. Dick. 1950-something.

Blogger tz January 25, 2013 4:37 PM  

Oops! Freudian slip, I meant "immortal soul", not "immoral soul", so the spell checker didn't catch it, yet the irony is better.

As to whom God loves and hates, the argument can easily become circular or something like Euthypro, Does God hate Esau so create him to do things hateful to him (Calvinistic double-predestination), or does God hate Esau because Esau does hateful things? God wills all be saved, yet not all respond to grace.

Also, if you require an answer, I respect Blessed Theresa of Calcutta and the living members of her order far more than anyone in Hollywood. I respect Pope B16 more as well. (Note that I think the USCCB might be a bunch of mitres, but more accurately a bunch of crooks).

If they are suggesting I should respect Mother Nirlma no less than Sandra Fluke (isn't treatment for nymphomania covered?), or that they do so, well, "rabbit" is too nice as they seem to have devolved into vegetables.

Anonymous Signe January 25, 2013 4:39 PM  

sigh. A short story. Minority Report, Philip K. Dick. 1950-something.

I was trying NOT to think of Tom Cruise, thank you very much.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 25, 2013 4:41 PM  

Well, if I do write it, and finishing it is on the bottom of my list of things to do, it will be the first work I ever finish, and would probably be about as far from being publishable as possible anyways.

Blogger Vidad January 25, 2013 4:55 PM  

"As to whom God loves and hates, the argument can easily become circular or something like Euthypro, Does God hate Esau so create him to do things hateful to him (Calvinistic double-predestination), or does God hate Esau because Esau does hateful things? God wills all be saved, yet not all respond to grace."

Schie3e on a stick... don't get that trail started again.

Anonymous Josh January 25, 2013 4:57 PM  

Schie3e on a stick... don't get that trail started again.

It was predestined to happen...

Anonymous Gx1080 January 25, 2013 4:59 PM  

Hey Vox, who is Jason Sanford and why he's angry at you? He seems to be the one linking your blog (and doing a Twitter bomb):

http://www.jasonsanford.com/jason/2013/01/ssh-were-not-supposed-to-talk-about-latest-sfwa-drama.html

Blogger Markku January 25, 2013 5:09 PM  

SFWA
Hop hop ba doobity boo
SFWA
Hoo whoah whoah

Anonymous VD January 25, 2013 5:13 PM  

Hey Vox, who is Jason Sanford and why he's angry at you?

No clue.

SFWA
Hop hop ba doobity boo
SFWA
Hoo whoah whoah


Markku wins the thread. By a landslide.

Anonymous Ridip January 25, 2013 5:14 PM  

Wow you mention Calvin and *poof* Markku appears.

Duck!

Anonymous Signe January 25, 2013 5:25 PM  

Wow you mention Calvin and *poof* Markku appears.

Duck!


What, really? What happens if you mention Hobbes?

Blogger Markku January 25, 2013 5:29 PM  

I sue your ass for breach of social contract.

Blogger tz January 25, 2013 5:40 PM  

Wow you mention Calvin and *poof* Markku appears.
Duck!


Peking?, or being of polish extraction Czarina soup anyone?

There once was an attempt to exile all the rabbit people. They called it "coney island".

Anonymous cheddarman January 25, 2013 5:45 PM  

Vox = turd in the rabbit punch bowl

sincerely

cheddarman

Anonymous Signe January 25, 2013 5:46 PM  

Peking?

Mandarin. 2:48 through 3:15.

Anonymous Internet Tough Guy January 25, 2013 6:13 PM  

Hey Vox, who is Jason Sanford and why he's angry at you?

No clue.



Jason Sanford Tweets:

I missed the house slave comment. And since my family today toured Jefferson's Monticello ...& my kids realized if they'd lived back then they'd be slaves, Beale better not make that comment to my face.

https://twitter.com/jasonsanford

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 25, 2013 6:22 PM  

I missed the house slave comment. And since my family today toured Jefferson's Monticello ...& my kids realized if they'd lived back then they'd be slaves, Beale better not make that comment to my face.

Or else he might cry harder.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 25, 2013 6:24 PM  

I don't really agree with Vox's views on race, but I wouldn't threaten to kick his ass because I know I would lose.

Anonymous Cinco January 25, 2013 6:28 PM  

Markku = Calvin
Wheeler = Jews
JamieR (pre-marriage) = Friday night
Nate = firearms and firearms accessories

I am sure there are more, those are my reliable favorites.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 25, 2013 6:34 PM  

SFWA, don't know nothing about it. What's the catch/trap of the last paragraph? Someone splain please.

Blogger JD Curtis January 25, 2013 6:37 PM  

doubleplusungood crimethink


I quite literally LOL'ed. HA! :)

Anonymous Outlaw X January 25, 2013 6:39 PM  

Oh heck, think I will just go dig a hole and let the dog out to piss. This one is way over my head. It don't matter that I don't know I'll just make some sausage for supper.

Anonymous Josh January 25, 2013 6:40 PM  

I am sure there are more, those are my reliable favorites.

Josh = boobs?

Anonymous Luke January 25, 2013 6:47 PM  

Related: from Dalrock's site:

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/fantasy-vs-reality/#comments

PFC B. Summers: Captain Steinem! Captain Steinem!

Capt. G. Steinem: Yes, private, what is it?

PFC B.S.: I just can’t carry this pack any further today! It weighs 30 lbs and we’ve already gone 10 miles! I need some help here.

Capt. G. Steinem: Private Austin!

PFC Steve Austin: Yes ma’am!

Capt. G.S.: Can’t you see Private Summers is having some difficulty here? What do you think you are, an army of one? This unit relies on teamwork! Why aren’t you helping her out?

PFC Austin: Permission to speak freely, ma’am.

Capt. G.S.: Granted.

PFC Austin: Ma’am, I’m carrying an eighty pound pack of my own. I’ve already had to ditch half my ammunition to carry extra water for Private Summers. If I carry any more of her gear I’m going to have to leave behind either the rest of my ammunition or a sizable portion of our water.

Capt. G.S.: PFC Austin, that is not an acceptable attitude! You need to man up! Quite frankly, if I didn’t need you to carry this gear for us, I’d have you court martialed. And until you get your mind right, you can forget about any chance at promotion! Do I make myself clear?

PFC Austin: Yes ma’am!

PFC B. S.: Here, Private Austin, I’ll need you to carry this package of maxi-pads, my Xanax and Albutrol bottles, these extra MREs, these canteens of water, and my binoculars.

PFC Austin: Captain Steinem, ma’am?

Captain Steinem: Yes, Private Austin?

PFC Austin: What should I do with the ammunition?

Captain Steinem: Just leave it. We shouldn’t be needing it.

PFC Austin: But what if we encounter the enemy, ma’am?

Captain Steinem: You’ve got twenty rounds in your rifle, soldier. If you can’t handle the enemy with that, what are you doing out here? Good grief, I can’t believe the way you men always bitch and moan. Now man up and grab that gear!

Anonymous jack January 25, 2013 6:59 PM  

@ Daniel

What a great idea for a story. Think I could get it published or would Amazon kindle be the way?
Daniel obviously is a member of SFWA. What have you written if that is a legit question here on the blog. Might just want to read some of it.
After all a writer that gives me an story idea should get some kickback, you know.

Blogger Nate January 25, 2013 7:05 PM  

"Markku = Calvin
Wheeler = Jews
JamieR (pre-marriage) = Friday night
Nate = firearms and firearms accessories"

I don't get friday night...

Damn.

I shall endeavor to redeem myself.

Anonymous bob k. mando January 25, 2013 7:10 PM  

Jason Sanford Tweets:
I missed the house slave comment. And since my family today toured Jefferson's Monticello ...& my kids realized if they'd lived back then they'd be slaves, Beale better not make that comment to my face.





ah, doing a good job of brainwashing his children i see.

not only were there free blacks, there were free blacks WHO OWNED SLAVES. jeezus, even Tarantino can get that much right.

Blogger Nate January 25, 2013 7:45 PM  

in fact... freemen were the most likely people to own slaves.

Anonymous VD January 25, 2013 7:47 PM  

If there is anything funnier than an SF weenie playing Internet tough guy, it's a white guy trying to play the slavery card.

I don't really agree with Vox's views on race, but I wouldn't threaten to kick his ass because I know I would lose.

Oh, I don't know. I don't bench 325 or run 10.6 anymore and it's been a LONG time since I last fought full-contact.

Anonymous Difster.blogspot.com January 25, 2013 7:52 PM  

Vox after the SFWA election.

Freaking closing commas. Sorry guys.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 25, 2013 8:13 PM  

"Oh, I don't know. I don't bench 325 or run 10.6 anymore"

I used to run 9.8 and benched 210 and ran a 5:10 mile. But I am old now and do a 9.8 between the bed and the toilet 20 feet away. Ain't it funny how age creeps up on us? The invincible 20 year old becomes the muttering puttering 50 year old with health issues. Damn life is funny or congruent by the numbers.

Anonymous Tad January 25, 2013 8:17 PM  

@Vox Day

to which I answered thusly: "No. I don't believe equality exists in any material, legal, or spiritual sense

It's good of you to have offered this response to the question. But isn't the obvious follow up to this question, "How will this view guide you, if at all, in any of your duties as president of the Association?"

It's a good question, particularly considering that legal equality between men and women exists in a whole host of ways, making your response somewhat bizarre and not a little absurd.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 25, 2013 8:20 PM  

Never say that women are never punished for making false rape claims

Also, never claim that women never lie about rape.

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2013 8:22 PM  

The Queen of the Rabbit People (Oprah) came to town to talk about empowerment:

A Vancouver ticket broker says $200 tickets will get you seats ... He says mediocre seats are going for below cost; the best ones go for $700

All the audience was female.

Anonymous Heh January 25, 2013 8:27 PM  

Is it your opinion that the creator values some people more than others?

At one point God valued Noah and his family more than everyone else on Earth

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 25, 2013 8:28 PM  

@VD: Oh, I don't know. I don't bench 325 or run 10.6 anymore and it's been a LONG time since I last fought full-contact.

I haven't worked out since last June.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad January 25, 2013 8:37 PM  

It's a good question, particularly considering that legal equality between men and women exists in a whole host of ways, making your response somewhat bizarre and not a little absurd.

Ya don't sweat much for a fat fella.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 25, 2013 8:42 PM  

It's good of you to have offered this response to the question. But isn't the obvious follow up to this question, "How will this view guide you, if at all, in any of your duties as president of the Association?"

It's a good question, particularly considering that legal equality between men and women exists in a whole host of ways, making your response somewhat bizarre and not a little absurd.


From the guy who wants to amend the Constitution (because it is out dated), while Vox is proposing an equality requirement. There is no appeasing a psychopath, folks. They are F*cking nuts and there is no clearer example than this and now know why Vox did it.

Tad? What do you believe, because I believe you Believe in nothing. This isn't a rule question on the Vox blo, but a rhetorical equation in life's slog.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 25, 2013 8:44 PM  

equation = question

Anonymous VD January 25, 2013 8:46 PM  

It's a good question, particularly considering that legal equality between men and women exists in a whole host of ways, making your response somewhat bizarre and not a little absurd.

No, even in light of what you've said, my response is clearly over your head. Legal equalities between men and women do exist, as do legal inequalities between them, thereby proving that they are not legally equal. Your syphilis-addled logic here is tantamount to insisting that because monkeys and rats are both warm-blooded, they are the same.

Do you admit that men and women are not entirely legally equal in any legal jurisdiction?

Anonymous Outlaw X January 25, 2013 8:48 PM  

This will get deleted and don't care. Tad, you are a fucking IDIOT.

Anonymous George of the Hole January 25, 2013 9:03 PM  

Tad is not very bright. He sticks his winkie in people's dirty poopyholes.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 25, 2013 9:13 PM  

@VD

Yes. Based on behavior, attitude, obedience, and simple Divine preference, as chronicled in the Bible. God does not value the wicked. He hates them.

How very judgmental of you!

Anonymous Josh January 25, 2013 9:18 PM  

Outlaw,

You ran 9.8 in what?

Anonymous Desiderius January 25, 2013 9:18 PM  

VD/Tad,

There's a fallacy of the excluded middle that needs cleared up here.

On a purely logical level, Tad's initial statement refuted VD's initial statement. "Any" was a bridge too far.

Lambdas indeed can't AMOG, but they'll AFOG with the best of them.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 25, 2013 9:26 PM  

"Outlaw,

You ran 9.8 in what?"

100 Yards and now 20 feet to the bathroom. Yeah this white boy out ran everyone in a 1400 graduation school 1980 Plano TX. I had three gears if you know what that means.

Anonymous dh January 25, 2013 9:55 PM  

Do you admit that men and women are not entirely legally equal in any legal jurisdiction?

That's a heavily loaded question. I can't think of any way in which men and women are legally unequal, but I can think of a thousand ways that they are treated differently, and usually better, under the color of law enforcement or the courts. Anyone who has ever had a friend get taken to the cleaners by a bitter wife who let her looks go can testify to that. There is also a presumption towards the mother in custody cases, but I am not sure if this is codified or just discrimination by judges.

Can you share some ways that fit the bill?

I do think it's somewhat secondary. Laws are only words, they aren't reality. Mexico has some of the toughest environmental laws in the world; some of them are almost poetry in how they are phrased and how they talk about environment protection. But it doesn't really matter, as every business in Mexico does whatever they want with regards to the environment.

Anonymous Godfrey January 25, 2013 9:57 PM  

Did any of you guys ever see The Rabbit in the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?

"One rabbit stew coming right up."

I warned you... I warned you.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 25, 2013 10:01 PM  

@Tad

It's a good question, particularly considering that legal equality between men and women exists in a whole host of ways, making your response somewhat bizarre and not a little absurd.

Surely is is "legal equality between men and women" that is absurd. Liberals truly are engaged in an unwinnable war against reality.

Anonymous Tad January 25, 2013 10:05 PM  

@Vox Day

No, even in light of what you've said, my response is clearly over your head. Legal equalities between men and women do exist, as do legal inequalities between them, thereby proving that they are not legally equal. Your syphilis-addled logic here is tantamount to insisting that because monkeys and rats are both warm-blooded, they are the same.

Do you admit that men and women are not entirely legally equal in any legal jurisdiction?


Well, first of all, you responded "No. I don't believe equality exists in...legal...sense"

Give that you've now backed that up to "Legal equalities between men and women do exist", we can dismiss this earlier fiction of yours.

As to your question of me, if I believed that men and women were entirely equal from a legal point of view, in any jurisdiction, I would not have written, "legal equality between men and women exists in a whole host of ways". I would have written "legal equality between men and women exists in every way."

So with that silliness out of the way, I'm still wondering how you answered the obvious follow up question: "How will this view guide you, if at all, in any of your duties as president of the Association?"

Anonymous Tad January 25, 2013 10:10 PM  

@Outlaw


Tad? What do you believe


I believe your out of your depth.

Anonymous Tad January 25, 2013 10:12 PM  

@outlaw

This will get deleted and don't care. Tad, you are a fucking IDIOT.

I can only imagine your surprise upon learning that your opinion of me matters to me in no what whatsoever.

Anonymous Tad January 25, 2013 10:13 PM  

@George

Tad is not very bright. He sticks his winkie in people's dirty poopyholes.

Person......Not people.

Anonymous Josh January 25, 2013 10:14 PM  

Well damn hoss...

Well done old man

Well done indeed

Anonymous Joe Biden on Crack January 25, 2013 10:19 PM  

@ dh

Laws are only words, they aren't reality.

Words can hurt.

Anonymous Ridip January 25, 2013 10:21 PM  

Tad has a problem with singular versus plural. Do you believe that equality exists? No! Do you believe the equalities (a subset of total equality) exists? Yes!

This is as different as saying I have been forgiven of all sin and saying I still still commit sins. If you're not a Christian I don't even think you're equipped to understand that last one.

Herein lies a subtlety of the English language I don't think many understand.

Anonymous Tad January 25, 2013 10:32 PM  

@Ridip

There was nothing subtle in Vox Day's statement:

"I don't believe equality exists in any...legal...sense."

WAIT.....Let me guess...You want to defend this absurdity. Right? Please, knock yourself out.

Anonymous Daniel January 25, 2013 10:35 PM  

Daniel obviously is a member of SFWA. What have you written if that is a legit question here on the blog. Might just want to read some of it.

I've got some stuff in print, but I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of SFWA, although I'd love to be, if for no other reason but to have access to the message boards.

Blogger Nate January 25, 2013 10:40 PM  

"WAIT.....Let me guess...You want to defend this absurdity. Right? Please, knock yourself out. "

I would point out that my use of ellipses is rubbing off... except that I am not at all comfortable using the nomenclature "rubbing off" in a sentence about Tad.

No offense Tad.

Anonymous Tad January 25, 2013 10:42 PM  

Nate,

Don't be embarrassed. Everyone rubs off now and then. But no offense taken.

Anonymous Ridip January 25, 2013 10:53 PM  

Tad, it's a subtlety of English not Vox being subtle. Here, from the Merriam-Webster's definitions for English Learners:

sub·tle·ty /ˈsʌtl̟ti/ noun
plural sub·tle·ties

1 [noncount] : the quality or state of being subtle
▪ The pianist performed with subtlety and passion. ▪ The movie lacks subtlety.
2 [count] : a small detail that is usually important but not obvious — usually plural

You're straining at the gnat of #1 and choking on the camel of #2, my little turd hurder.

Anonymous Tad January 25, 2013 11:19 PM  

Ridip, follow the movement of the discussion, damn it. Stop falling behind.

Blogger Nate January 25, 2013 11:25 PM  

"WAIT.....Let me guess...You want to defend this absurdity. Right? Please, knock yourself out. "

This is observable reality Tad.

here's one small proof: Discrepancy of Force Laws. See I weigh a buck 80... now... in many states.. if someone out weighs you by say... 50 or 75 or 100 pounds... in the eyes of the law... you can shoot them legally just like they had a gun or a knife. Because they are so much bigger than you that you cannot be expected to defend yourself against them.

oh... its not just size... its also.. if you're a woman.. attacked by a man.

So... any woman attacked by any man.. can shoot him. Because legally speaking she cannot physically defend herself from him.

Now...

Does that sound like equality to you?

Anonymous Outlaw X January 25, 2013 11:44 PM  

"@Outlaw


Tad? What do you believe

I believe your out of your depth.


Depth is an interesting concept and if I had depth how could I be out of it? You just say words that mean nothing and claim I have no depth while claiming I do but am out of it. You are an interesting subject to be studied and know partially why ad am glad Vox keeps you around.

Tad you are the museum piece and don't know it. We need a graphic artist to make a wax Tad for the Museum of the mind.

Anonymous bw January 26, 2013 12:24 AM  

(VD)"Why...Johnny Ringo, you look like someone just walked over your grave."
(Rabbits)"Fights not with you, Holliday"
(VD)"I beg to differ Sir, we started a game we never got to finish - play for blood remember?"
(Rabbits)"I was just foolin' about"
(VD) "I Wasn't"

Anonymous The other skeptic January 26, 2013 12:33 AM  

US Gov't wants to prevent the rabbits from getting scared

Blogger Justthisguy January 26, 2013 12:37 AM  

So, Vox, what do Jerry Pournelle and Larry Correia, and, say, David Weber have to say about your candidacy?

I believe that all of them and each of them claim to be some kind of Christian. Jerry is a Roman, Larry is a Mormon, and I don't know about David, but his picture on his personal web site shows him wearing a cross depending from his neck.

Anonymous The CronoLink January 26, 2013 2:20 AM  

Shouldn't be surprising the kind of pretzel contortions in Tad's logic.

Anonymous JRL January 26, 2013 2:31 AM  

I don't believe equality exists in any material, legal, or spiritual sense.

It's like a law of nature. Elegant and observably true. Everyone experiences it, but it's the rare one that comprehends and articulates.

"I'm just as good as the next guy, if not better"

Sure sign of somebody who knows he's inferior.




Anonymous VD January 26, 2013 3:58 AM  

There's a fallacy of the excluded middle that needs cleared up here. On a purely logical level, Tad's initial statement refuted VD's initial statement. "Any" was a bridge too far.

No, because "any" refers to the legal sense in its totality, not its every part. Tad would have been correct if I what I had said was synonymous with "Inequality exists in every material, legal, and spiritual sense." But I didn't. What I said was synonymous with "Equality does not exist in any sense, material, legal, or spiritual".

"Any" refers to the set of categories, not their subsets.

And with regards to the set, men and women are not equal in the legal sense because they are not "the same" in the legal sense and more than they are the same in the material sense. They have similarities and they have differences, but the fact that the every legal system explicitly distinguishes between them is sufficient to prove my case.

Anonymous VD January 26, 2013 4:44 AM  

Correction: "any more" not "and more".

And Outlaw X, go to bed. You're rambling.

Anonymous Anonymous January 26, 2013 6:08 AM  

Off topic:
It seems like your Libertarian poster boy politician Rand Paul is just another Neocon lackey:

http://crtraditionalism.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/rand-paul-any-attack-on-israel-will-be-treated-as-attack-on-the-united-states/


- John Doe

Anonymous Il pollo de la locoria January 26, 2013 7:07 AM  

"Correction: "any more" not "and more"."
This too,.. not that I care:
'Tad would have been correct if I what I had said was..'

'And Outlaw X, go to bed. You're rambling.'

He doesn't ramble, he regurgitates the finest selection of donuts onto his foes.

Anonymous Tad January 26, 2013 9:17 AM  

@Vox Day

No, because "any" refers to the legal sense in its totality, not its every part. Tad would have been correct if I what I had said was synonymous with "Inequality exists in every material, legal, and spiritual sense." But I didn't. What I said was synonymous with "Equality does not exist in any sense, material, legal, or spiritual".

WOW....Well, I say BRAVO!!! Bravo, Young Man. That was impressive.

Respect!!!-------> Vox Day!!!

I never saw that coming. You definitely leveled up with that one. Using the word "Any" in a "legal" sense? Brilliant! If you don't mind, if I ever find my self in a deep, dark hole with smooth walls, I'm going to use that one, but I'll credit you for sure.

Anonymous VD January 26, 2013 9:34 AM  

This appears to be going over your head, Tad. So let's follow your logic. You've claimed that men and women are equal in the legal sense. Do you also claim that men and women are equal in the material sense?

Anonymous Tad January 26, 2013 10:12 AM  

@Vox Day

You mean in their material composition? If that's your question, then get to the point. We don't need to establish that men and women have different chromosomal make ups nor that one has a vagina and the other a penis.

Blogger Taqiyyotomist January 26, 2013 10:45 AM  

Justthisguy

Thank you. You used "depending" in a way I never knew was possible, and perfectly.

Now I'm curious about the etymology, and not having looked it makes sense that "hanging down upon" like a pendant or cross means essentially the same thing as the usual usage of the word.

"It hangs down upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." -- Billy Jeff

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 11:26 AM  

@ Vox Day

28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

See, the problem is that once you begin positing "higher realities" they take on a psychological force all their own and that "higher reality" becomes the ideal one, "the way things ought to be".

When people think of the legal system they picture an ideal one that we are working toward. After all, since the Declaration asserts that "all men are created equal", and the Old English "men" had a gender nonspecific usage, what people posit is that the ideal legal system is one in which men and women have full legal equality. When Tad says "WAIT.....Let me guess...You want to defend this absurdity. Right?", what he is implying is that there is some future ideal legal system where men and women have full legal equality and that we are working toward that ideal legal system.

But you have your own ideal state of existence you call heaven, and Tad's ideal future is just his form of heaven. I find it tough to believe that one person has any business criticizing another person's understanding of heaven when one has their own version of heaven.

This entire conversation is just going to end up with you and he taking past each other as you both have prior assumptions involving an ideal state of higher reality that is the true reality and not this world of changing phenomena.

Of course, if we all just stuck to considering this-world that psychological issue of that-world, the higher one, disappears.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 11:27 AM  

@ Vox Day

oops, that biblical quote was Gal 3:28

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 11:35 AM  

@ VD

This appears to be going over your head, Tad. So let's follow your logic. You've claimed that men and women are equal in the legal sense. Do you also claim that men and women are equal in the material sense?

What Tad is referring to is that humanity is working toward some ideal future where whatever material differences between men and women are made to not matter. In the beginning was The Word, The Idea, The Logos. Once you posit that ideas have a priority and are prior to the reality of this-world then you are stuck with everyone imputing their ideas, and ideal systems, into the way things "ought to be". This is why you are talking past one another.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 11:42 AM  

@ Vox

oops, what I meant to say is that Tad is positing some ideal legal system that humanity is working toward. I certainly don't hold any such thing.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 11:55 AM  

@ Ridip

Tad has a problem with singular versus plural.

Most individuals I encounter seem to have this same problem. When most people hear "men" and "women' they immediately begin positing some ideal Man and Woman, and this is a psychological implication of positing an higher metaphysical that-world

Anonymous bob k. mando January 26, 2013 12:48 PM  

Tad January 26, 2013 9:17 AM
I never saw that coming. You definitely leveled up with that one. Using the word "Any" in a "legal" sense?




you act as though we would be surprised that you are unused to precision in thought or speech.

when actually, this kind of thing is precisely what WE expect from YOU. you don't grasp the precise intent of the statement, much less understand the implications which emanate from that statement.

your previous, false, elision of Vox's quote only demonstrating once again that you aren't tall enough for this ride.

IF men and women are absolutely equal before the law
THEN they must be treated identically before the law *IN ALL SITUATIONS*.

this is clearly false, as innumerable instances of female preference exist.

so, the fact that men and women may be 'equal' before the law in certain respects DOES NOT DISPROVE VOX'S ORIGINAL STATEMENT.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 4:41 PM  

@ bob k mando

when actually, this kind of thing is precisely what WE expect from YOU.

Uh, the ilk to this constantly, too, just in other areas than Tad.

you don't grasp the precise intent of the statement,

That's because Tad and Vox have such radically different understandings of the world that they are just talking past each other. Tad couldn't possibly imagine what Vox is saying and vice versa.

IF men and women are absolutely equal before the law THEN they must be treated identically before the law *IN ALL SITUATIONS*.

this is clearly false


No, it is not clearly false. It depends on whether equality before the law is a practical consideration for human social functioning or an abstract, universal, metaphysical ideal. Vox seems to think the former and Tad the latter. That is the radical difference in their thinking and why they are talking past each other.

FWIW, this practical consideration vs. metaphysical ideal reverses itself in the area of gun rights where Tad talks about "common sense" and the ilk about "we gots dem gun rights".

innumerable instances of female preference exist

It demonstrates no such thing. What it does demonstrate is that absolute, universal notions of "objectivity" lead to general intellectual incoherence, which is why I constantly argue against notions of "objective right" and "objective truth".

Any particular proposed "objective" standard is really just an imputation of a particular subjective standard of the proposer.

so, the fact that men and women may be 'equal' before the law in certain respects DOES NOT DISPROVE VOX'S ORIGINAL STATEMENT.

Maybe. It all boils down to whether one considers equality before the law an objective (sic) ideal or a practical consideration.

Anonymous Tad January 26, 2013 4:45 PM  

@asher


What Tad is referring to is that humanity is working toward some ideal future where whatever material differences between men and women are made to not matter


What would I do without you letting me know what I mean. Thanks, Asher.

Anonymous Tad January 26, 2013 4:47 PM  

@Bob

you act as though we would be surprised that you are unused to precision in thought or speech.

Oh, I understand precision speech. It's just that Vox Day's comments were both precise and precisely incorrect. His backstepping makes that absolutely clear.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 5:23 PM  

@ Tad

What would I do without you letting me know what I mean. Thanks, Asher.

You do not know what you mean, even most very smart people do not know what they mean. This is to be expected as people are too occupied with their particular pursuits to sit around and develop a coherent philosophy.

What do you think the Socratic Dialogues consist of? Socrates running around questioning the leading Athenians to demonstrate that what they held were just a bunch of crazy quilt half baked notions.

Blogger Markku January 26, 2013 5:30 PM  

Using the word "Any" in a "legal" sense?

No, "any" clearly didn't refer to the word "legal", but to the word "sense". That is, "equality doesn't exist in any sense, and here is a list of senses that someone might mistakenly think it does". If the sentence was simply "equality doesn't exist in any legal sense", then that would imply that Vox is thinking about subsets of the law, since he didn't say "equality doesn't exist in the legal sense" as one might have expected.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 5:58 PM  

@ Tad

Oh, I understand precision speech.

Precision of speech and coherency of thought are not the same thing.

Consider my challenge to you as to how to answer the question "what makes a government legitimate?. Your answer was "the consent of the people, to which I inquired what you meant by "consent" and "the people. What was your answer? 1. Citizens 2. Good question. In other words, a legitimate government is one that has citizens.

Well, every government has citizens so, by that definition, every government is legitimate.

The very first question of politics is that of legitimacy and you don't even have a coherent answer to that question. What is really going on is that you, generally, share the sentiments of the US ruling class and you like the direction in which they are pushing the country.

But don't pretend that your desires are a coherent political philosophy.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 6:34 PM  

@ Tad

I have challenged you in three comment threads to specify whether or not the war for american independence was justified. In other words, was the British Crown governing with the consent of the people or not? If not, then what criteria do you use to assess that?

Anonymous VD January 26, 2013 6:47 PM  

You mean in their material composition? If that's your question, then get to the point. We don't need to establish that men and women have different chromosomal make ups nor that one has a vagina and the other a penis.

Equivocating already? You didn't require any specification to jump in on the legal sense, so you don't need it here. Answer the question. Are men and women are equal in the material sense?

This is why you are talking past one another.

We're not talking past each other. I know exactly what Tad is trying to do. And he knows I'm not going to let him get away with it, which is why he's already shifted into rabbit run mode. You're giving him too much credit.

It's just that Vox Day's comments were both precise and precisely incorrect. His backstepping makes that absolutely clear.

I'm not backstepping in the slightest. You're projecting now, because you're already trying to back out of where your logic has locked you. Now answer the question.

Anonymous VD January 26, 2013 6:55 PM  

FWIW, this practical consideration vs. metaphysical ideal reverses itself in the area of gun rights where Tad talks about "common sense" and the ilk about "we gots dem gun rights".

This is also false. My position on guns is entirely practical, even if I make use of the metaphysical ideal in both my dialectic and rhetoric.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 7:16 PM  

@ VD

This is also false. My position on guns is entirely practical, even if I make use of the metaphysical ideal in both my dialectic and rhetoric.

It's either/or. Either you use metaphysical language, which raises your argument to a metaphysical, one or you don't. Religious language is an excellent example of how metaphysical rhetoric shapes people's understanding of their existence and experience. I am not opposed to metaphysical language per se, just pointing out that when one uses metaphysical language that, by definition removes the discussion from the realm of practical ends and into the realm of ultimate ends.

Ultimate ends are always metaphysical. Either gun rights are a practical end to other ends or they are ultimate ends, in and of themselves. Which is it? You can have one or the other but not both.

Most gun rights supporters I encounter argue back to me that they are just countering the metaphysical ultimate ends of the gun grabbers. It's true. Gun grabbers are concerned with ultimate ends, but the antidote to that is to point out their metaphysical claims, not to counter them with metaphysical claims of one's own.

Anonymous Desiderius January 26, 2013 7:19 PM  

VD,

Heh, I can see where someone intending to convey the meaning you did would construct the original sentence the way that you did, but next time you make that statement, best get things ordered more precisely.

No way that stands up against someone not already inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.

If anyone, friend or foe, says something that reads as absurd on its face, I'll find a different way to read it in an attempt to get at the intended meaning. But I tend to grossly undervalue ends relative to means, so that approach cannot be generally counted on.

Anonymous VD January 26, 2013 7:31 PM  

It's either/or. Either you use metaphysical language, which raises your argument to a metaphysical, one or you don't.

No, it is not. You use whatever is appropriate at the time. But if I have to choose one in the gun debate, I'd go with the practical argument. One of the things that seems to confuse people greatly is that I can address either type with equal ease and keep track of what I'm doing. This is why I so often bust people moving the goalposts and changing their arguments.

I can see where someone intending to convey the meaning you did would construct the original sentence the way that you did, but next time you make that statement, best get things ordered more precisely.

Why? Most people are idiots. I don't care if they confuse the set with the subset. I've seen it happen time and time again. Remember, these are people who are not only dumb enough to believe in equality in the first place, but do so while simultaneously believing that their beliefs are grounded in science.

No way that stands up against someone not already inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You're wrong. And remember, I stated it to an audience that was not giving me any benefit of the doubt. You're making a similar mistake to Tad and you're staring at the trees while missing the forest. In order for your interpretation to be valid, two things have to be true.

1. I am unaware that there are some equalities before the law.
2. You are insisting that there are no material inequalities at all.

Now, I agree, most people are going to blithely ignore both of those points, snicker, and think my position is absurd. But again, MPAI.

Anonymous VD January 26, 2013 7:37 PM  

If anyone, friend or foe, says something that reads as absurd on its face, I'll find a different way to read it in an attempt to get at the intended meaning. But I tend to grossly undervalue ends relative to means, so that approach cannot be generally counted on.

That's because you are smarter than most. And most people here have learned that when I say something that seems obviously absurd, a trap is lurking nearby. Tad, however, usually lurches from one right into the next without ever learning to be more careful.

As do most people insufficiently familiar with the blog. I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything I say has a trap attached to it, but a high percentage does. I'm so accustomed to people attempting to criticize me that it is automatic now.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 7:53 PM  

@ VD

You use whatever is appropriate at the time.

You can set up whatever criteria for what is appropriate that you like, but the consequences of your criteria are beyond your jurisdiction. You can't both offer a controlling proposition and set the implications and consequences of that proposition. In other words, the implications of a proposition are not limited by an act of rhetorical fiat. That's just not the way things work.

It's a simple if/then. IF you use metaphysical language THEN your argument is a metaphysical one.

seems to confuse people greatly is that I can address either type with equal ease

Okay, that is a mark of intellect on the far end of the bell curve. The ease of switching back and forth doesn't negate that at the specific time you use metaphysical language you are offering a metaphysical argument, and no amount of intellect can alter that reality.

About fifteen years ago the libertarian philosopher David Friedman noted what he called the "libertarian straddle", where libertarians flitted back and forth between metaphysical claims and practical ones. Where their metaphysical cllaims were weak they'd switch to practical ones and vice versa.

Metaphysical language sticks with you, in a manner of speaking, and if you offer metaphysical argument on some topic then those metaphysical arguments remain as the basis for your positions; once you go metaphysical you can never go back. It's not that people don't understand the switch from the metaphysical to the practical but that you're breaking the rules.

Once you go metaphysical on a topic you're not ALLOWED to go back to the practical. It's not that you're misunderstood, it's that you're breaking the rules.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 8:01 PM  

@ VD

Most people are idiots.

True. But even an idiot understands that you're breaking the rules when you take a topic in to the realm of metaphysics and then try to go back to practical claims.

these are people who are not only dumb enough to believe in equality in the first place, but do so while simultaneously believing that their beliefs are grounded in science

You believe in heaven and God, and they believe in equality. Just like your notion of "God" is one that transcends mundane reality so is their notion of "equality".

Yes, the Tad's of this world are dishonest in claiming that their claims are about transcending mundane reality, but dishonesty and stupidity are not close relatives.

I agree, most people are going to blithely ignore both of those points, snicker, and think my position is absurd.

More importantly they want *other* people to think your position absurd. You don't win debates by force of pure argument but by getting others to behave in ways you desire. Conservatives and libertarians seem to miss this point.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything I say has a trap attached to it, but a high percentage does.

Any good tool can be overused. If you're not changing people's behaviors then you're not winning arguments, except in the minds of yourself and others with whom you share general agreements on ends.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 8:02 PM  

@ VD

Tad, however, usually lurches from one right into the next without ever learning to be more careful.

The Tad's of this world can afford such "blunders" as the reins of power are held by people who think like they.

Blogger Markku January 26, 2013 8:06 PM  

It's a simple if/then. IF you use metaphysical language THEN your argument is a metaphysical one.

Only a particular argument, but there are usually more than one in a text. You can offer both types when you are addressing a wide audience.

There may be readers that agree with your metaphysical assumptions, and both types will work for them. There may be others that disagree on some crucial metaphysical assumption, but where the practical arguments still show how the thing argued for takes one closer to either metaphysical goal; that of the reader and that of the writer.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 8:27 PM  

@ Markku

You can offer both types when you are addressing a wide audience.

Occam's Razor. If you are arguing from two independent premises then there is something shaky about your position. If your practical arguments are so compelling then you shouldn't need metaphysical ones or vice versa.

There may be readers that agree with your metaphysical assumptions, and both types will work for them.

Um, if they already agree with your metaphysical assumptions then arguing practical considerations is redundant, unnecessary.

practical arguments still show how the thing argued for takes one closer to either metaphysical goal; that of the reader and that of the writer.

Absolutely not. Metaphysical assumptions have priority to practical arguments. If the reader and the writer have completely different metaphysical assumptions then only metaphysical arguments can sway them and practical ones are irrelevant.

Anonymous VD January 26, 2013 8:27 PM  

It's a simple if/then. IF you use metaphysical language THEN your argument is a metaphysical one.

Of course. That's obvious. I was merely pointing out that I have made both arguments in favor of guns in the past; the most recent exchange on the subject is hardly the only one here.

Metaphysical language sticks with you, in a manner of speaking, and if you offer metaphysical argument on some topic then those metaphysical arguments remain as the basis for your positions; once you go metaphysical you can never go back. It's not that people don't understand the switch from the metaphysical to the practical but that you're breaking the rules.

That's not true. I understand the straddle problem, but I don't do that. I simply assume my opponent will do that, among other things, and anticipate the need to beat them on all levels. Go high, go low, it makes no difference to me. Want to talk rights, we can do that. Want to argue stats, we can do that too. I don't need to claim one trumps the other, I'm just dealing with the arguments as they come.

But even an idiot understands that you're breaking the rules when you take a topic in to the realm of metaphysics and then try to go back to practical claims.

Which, as I have pointed out, I am not doing and do not do. In case you haven't noticed, I usually force my opponent to define the terms of the argument and then play by the rules he selects.

You believe in heaven and God, and they believe in equality. Just like your notion of "God" is one that transcends mundane reality so is their notion of "equality".

Absolutely. But I understand that. Most of them don't.

More importantly they want *other* people to think your position absurd. You don't win debates by force of pure argument but by getting others to behave in ways you desire.

You're failing to understand my objectives. I'm not debating with them or trying to convince them. I'm trapping and exposing them for the sake of others who are capable of following.

Any good tool can be overused.

Perhaps, but if it's triggered, then by definition it was useful. If it's not triggered, it does no harm; no one knows it was there. It's also a good exercise in confirming your grasp of the other side's argument. If you successfully put a land mine in his path, it is clear that you correctly anticipated where he was going.

If you're not changing people's behaviors then you're not winning arguments, except in the minds of yourself and others with whom you share general agreements on ends.

How many Bush Republicans do you notice around these parts these days?

Anonymous VD January 26, 2013 8:32 PM  

Occam's Razor. If you are arguing from two independent premises then there is something shaky about your position. If your practical arguments are so compelling then you shouldn't need metaphysical ones or vice versa.

No. If your practical arguments are harmonious with your metaphysical ones, that is a sign that your position is very strong. Second, you are ignoring observable human behavior, which is to retreat to new ground when being defeated on the current one. Even when you trounce someone in both practical and metaphysical terms, they will usually run away, then return repeating the same arguments that were already shown to be fallacious.

What you should or should not need is irrelevant. Experience dictates you will often need both.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 8:53 PM  

@ VC

I understand the straddle problem, but I don't do that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that". Are you saying you never do the metaphysical/practical straddle or that the way you do it isn't a problem? IF you are offering both metaphysical and practical arguments THEN you are doing the straddle, and the straddle is the problem, in itself.

Earlier you noted that you effortlessly switched back and forth between metaphysical and practical considerations, which looks, to me, like an admission of a straddle. If so, then that is a problem and, if not, could you clarify that statement.

High IQ does not mean one is able to avoid the straddle problem by being smart, as the straddle IS the problem. Either one makes metaphysical arguments or one does not, and if one does than the entire argument is metaphysical.

anticipate the need to beat them on all levels

The true test of whether or not one has one an argument is whether or not the argument has changed the behavior or positions of the audience and not whether or not the opponent has been won over.

Want to talk rights, we can do that. Want to argue stats, we can do that too. I don't need to claim one trumps the other,

Rights involve metaphysical claims. Stats involve practical claims. Metaphysical claims, by definition, have priority to practical claims. Yes, the prior always and necessarily trumps the latter.

as I have pointed out, I am not doing and do not do. In case you haven't noticed,

Rights are metaphysical claims. If you argue for gun ownership as a right then you are making metaphysical claims, and stats are completely irrelevant to their consideration. I'm not sure if I've ever seen you offer practical arguments for gun ownership but most of the ilk do.

If you are serious about avoiding the straddle then I would challenge you to chastise anyone who agrees with you on guns and does the straddle themselves. If you hold that gun ownership is an absolute right then offering statistical evidence is doing the straddle. That IS what it is.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 9:04 PM  

@ VD

I usually force my opponent to define the terms of the argument and then play by the rules he selects.

As do I. There is no better rhetorical strategy, in my experience.

I'm trapping and exposing them for the sake of others who are capable of following.

Hate to break it to you but I've been reading your blog long before commenting on it. The average ability of the ilk is considerably better than that of the average Joe, but most of the ilk do not capable of following you, at least in the way you lead the conversation. It's not that your reasoning is bad but that it's too demanding for most of your blog readers, both those that agree and those that disagree.

The ilk are considerably more advanced than the average guy but less advanced than they fancy themselves.

if it's triggered, then by definition it was useful.

I can use this metaphor. A trap is like a claymore mine. You are a parent and the ilk are your young children. You leave the mine lying around your house in the event of a home invasion and, instead, one of the ilk sets it off and it ruins his day. From where I'm sitting that is what we'd call an "own goal".

It's also a good exercise in confirming your grasp of the other side's argument

To continue the metaphor having mines lying around where one's own children might set them off is not a good idea. Leaves the metaphor. The only way that setting traps is always a good thing is when there is no audience or where you know the audience is on your level of intellect. Most of the ilk are likely to misuse most of your traps most of the time.

How many Bush Republicans do you notice around these parts these days?

There are two ways to take this observation. Either you already convinced a bunch of Bush Republicans to join Team Vox or you just admitted to an own goal. Chasing people away is likely to decrease the chances of their joining your team.

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 9:07 PM  

oops

most of the ilk do not capable of following you

should read

most of the ilk are not capable of following you

Anonymous Asher January 26, 2013 9:16 PM  

@ VD

If your practical arguments are harmonious with your metaphysical ones, that is a sign that your position is very strong

If they are harmonious then you only need to use one and the other is redundant. If anyone uses two the odds of them being harmonious is, to put it charitably, very thin. The entire reason that people do the straddle is that they use one set of arguments to cover for weaknesses in the other set and vice versa.

observable human behavior, which is to retreat to new ground when being defeated on the current one.

Another metaphor I can use. If day after day an army takes the field, gets defeated and then retreats to higher ground then there is something wrong with the field officers. The obvious strategy would be to stick to where one can win and not continue sallying forth onto ground where one keeps being defeated.

To continue this metaphor what you seem to be claiming is something like the following:

Okay, I've won in the field and now I'm going to retreat to higher ground there, too

That just doesn't make any sense. If one has already won on the field of battle then one doesn't *need* to retreat.

What you should or should not need is irrelevant. Experience dictates you will often need both.

If you find yourself doing the straddle that indicates that you are faced with an intractable foe, and many in the audience are also likely to be intractable foes. At that point, the only consideration is power, e.g. how can we kill them. I mean that in reality not as a metaphorical reference to winning a debate.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box January 27, 2013 2:30 PM  

Can't wait for rabbit season!

Anonymous Viking January 28, 2013 9:48 AM  

If you can't get a president disqualified for not being a US citizen then why shouldn't the SFWA be a free for all.

Anonymous Anonymous February 07, 2013 7:35 AM  

Dissention on the Rise Within the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers (SFWA): Scalzi’s Departure Raises Concern About Undesirable Presidential Candidate(s) and the Future of Writer Beware™

http://thewriteagenda.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/dissention-on-the-rise-within-the-science-fiction-fantasy-writers-sfwa-scalzis-departure-raises-concern-about-undesirable-presidential-candidates-and-the-future-of-writer-beware/

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts