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

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Natural selection in action

Roissy foresees karma taking its course in what we are informed is an SWPL fad for rescuing pit bulls:
To understand this sudden and perplexing SWPL adoration for pitbulls, you must know the SWPL psyche. The SWPL’s greatest fear is confronting the demands of her ego and discovering that everything she believes is a pile of horse shit. Oh no, can’t have that, no way no how. Equalism is the gargantuan hamster pellet that feeds her head, and the pitbull is a fortuitous animal proxy for the underprivileged humans that the SWPL happily (and relievedly) carries on believing are equally capable, equally worthwhile, and equally oppressed (except for that one group, yuk they’re soooo creepy).

Dog “breeds” are a social construct. The pitbull is just like any other dog! The pitbull is misunderstood! The pitbull is a victim of the caninarchy! The pitbull just needs the right training. You’re a pitbullist! Gross, pitbullist! Look at the pitbullist! Point at him! Isn’t he evil? Evil evil EVIL PITBULLIST! Now watch, gross evil pitbullist, how tolerant I am. See how I benevolently guide the pitbull through medical school, out from under your pitbullist oppressive bigotryprejudicefearinsecuritynarcissism…

CHOMP!

ooow, my face… it’s missing.


I will smile every time I read of a stupid white SWPL getting her face chewed off by one of her pitbull redemptions. Does she deserve it?

Yes. Yes she does.
I had no idea that this was a fad, but then, I am happily very far out of the zone of effect of the American SWPL.  Now, I love dogs and live with one that could eat a pit bull for lunch without making much of an effort, but it seems to me to be a very bad idea to have young, inexperienced, and small dog owners rescuing dogs that have the potential to do reasonably serious damage.  I'm not concerned about the fate of the SWPL, but the problem is that it won't take too many daughters of liberals getting eaten by their poor rescue pets before there will be renewed calls for banning the breed.

Which simply underlines the hazards of the equality myth.  Not everyone can safely handle a Doberman, a Rottweiler, a Ridgeback, or an American Staffordshire.  But the fact that not everyone can doesn't mean everyone can't, much less that no one should.

Labels:

250 Comments:

1 – 200 of 250 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Blackburn February 10, 2013 11:12 AM  

Maybe we should have universal background checks for assault dogs like this?

Anonymous Daniel February 10, 2013 11:14 AM  

dogiss

Anonymous Unending Improvement February 10, 2013 11:22 AM  

I always thought it was more of a prole thing. I guess it's a way for SWPLs to pretend that they are not superior.

Anonymous Roundtine February 10, 2013 11:30 AM  

Definitely need background checks for assault dogs. Taxes would help too. Assault dogs should be taxes several thousand dollars, to make them harder for poor people to get and more of a status symbol for rappers and SWPLs.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 11:32 AM  

We need a mandatory waiting period for potential pitbull owners.

Anonymous harry12 February 10, 2013 11:38 AM  

I'm olde and behind the latest, but whatever happened to the chronically single, cat woman? Cats not mannish enough?

Anonymous Roundtine February 10, 2013 11:43 AM  

I think the SWPLs are on it harry12. But to your point, yes, owning more cats is a feminist thing to do. I would expect anyone who is a feminist would own at least one cat.

Blogger Bob Wallace February 10, 2013 11:43 AM  

I've been bitten exactly one time in my life, and it was an unprovoked attack by a "nice" pitbull. It crushed my right bicep and left a black round bruise that took a month to headk.

At least it was only one bite.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 10, 2013 11:43 AM  

Woman dies following late-term abortion

Another case of "Evolution in action" as Pournelle once wrote? Another case of poor decisions all along?

Anonymous zen0 February 10, 2013 11:50 AM  

Speaking of dogs and guns, you should go to the comment section over there and read the comment from The Raven.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 10, 2013 11:51 AM  

Obama sure seems afraid of the US military

Anonymous Baseball Savant February 10, 2013 11:53 AM  

I must be way out of the loop. What does SWPL stand for?

Blogger mmaier2112 February 10, 2013 11:53 AM  

I'm not convinced pitbulls are that bad. They've been around a very long time. Maybe newer-bred strains are worse, but their danger simply seems overblown.

Think of how the media loves to blow things out of proportion.

How much of this really is nature vs. nurture.

Full disclosure: I helped in a rescue of a "snapping, aggressive" half pitt from negligent owners (NOT Michael Vick wannabees).

I couldn't provoke it when I tried, testing its temperament. He's completely sweet. Dumb, as most dogs are, but sweet. He listens reasonably well and is great around kids.


All THAT said, anyone that adopts a prior fighting dog is begging for trouble. Why not invite one of the Wichita Horror perps to live with you if you feel the need to redeem someone?

Blogger mmaier2112 February 10, 2013 11:54 AM  

Baseball Savant: GIYF

Blogger The Observer February 10, 2013 11:55 AM  

@Other skeptic:

I'd say a combination of the former and the latter, but more the latter. After all, abortions have been linked to tripled rates of breast cancer and up to 193% increased risk of death in childbirth, amongst other common complications, and it's still done anyways.

Most modern women don't seem to have a very good grasp of cause and effect.

Blogger The Observer February 10, 2013 11:58 AM  

@All those calling for pitbull control:

Where I live, (Singapore) pitbulls are pretty much that way, being a controlled dog breed. The number of pitbulls in the country are now less than 20, dog breeders are pretty much banned from having them, and those few still existing are kept under tight monitoring by the corresponding government agencies.

Doesn't help that "big dog" attacks are sensationalised in the media.

Anonymous Gx1080 February 10, 2013 12:12 PM  

I can get raising pitbulls, but picking animals out of the street, specially former fighting dogs is pretty much asking for trouble.

On the flip side, animals, being animals, don't get victimhood complexes.

Blogger The Great and Powerful Oz February 10, 2013 12:21 PM  

I used to dogsit for a friend who had three dogs, one of them a pitbull. That dog was seriously stupid and clumsy. She was also the most loving dog I've ever met. Most of the other pits I've met have been like that, they didn't want to fight, they wanted to be my friend.

The funny thing is that when I was growing up German Shepherds were considered highly dangerous. Basically the same rhetoric that pitbulls are being subjected to today.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 12:23 PM  

people that are scared of pit bulls totally wet themselves when they see Dogos.

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum February 10, 2013 12:23 PM  

"They should all be destroyed."

"They're lethal at eight months, and I do mean lethal. I've hunted most things that can hunt you, but the way these things move..."

Muldoon, Jurassic Park in regards to Raptors, but those quotes can also be applied to the monsters known as "Pitbulls".

If it were up to me, every single Pitbull in the world would be killed.

If you own one, you're insurance won't cover it if it goes nuts and attacks someone. And you'll be screwed.

A neighbor has a Pitbull/Great Dane mix. It has the size and stupidity of a Great Dane, and the muscles and aggression of a Pitbull. My 12-gauge shotgun is loaded with 00 Buck shot at the ready.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 10, 2013 12:24 PM  

OT, but when is Obama going to tell us about that time when he was attacked and branded with a K by a bunch of white racists when he was pumping gas?

Anonymous GreyS February 10, 2013 12:27 PM  

A couple years ago, my friend asked if I had ever noticed how many bitter, divorced feminist types had large male dogs. (he also mentioned lesbians, though the sample size was smaller). The more bitter the female, the larger the dog. Almost always male.

Seems there is a "cat lady" type of single woman and a "male dog lady" type of woman.

Blogger Pepper February 10, 2013 12:35 PM  

I could be wrong about this, but it seems that the female desire to rescue all things unrescuable is a continuation of her childlike whimsy. Princesses, knights on horseback, domestic tranquility, eternal peace and security, universal friendship, etc. are the notions of childhood fantasy. Little girls play these scenes out every day with their dolls and read about them in their fairy tales. (At least, we used to...). Did these girls turn into women who continue their fantasy of being the center of the world while they try to save it?

Maybe if these women had spent more time caring for "Baby Alive" who ate, drank and needed a diaper change they would have a more realistic world view? I am curious as to the percentage of women who actually had domestic chores as a child, particularly in the area of care of siblings, matured into these "princesses" vs. those who didn't. Now, I am not trying to blame toys for our current malaise, but I can't help but notice the similarities between such childhood fantasy and the present bad reality.

Anonymous Baltasar Gracian February 10, 2013 12:35 PM  

Isn't this sort of like that one girl in the Peace Corp who went to Haiti or some Caribbean nation and was raped? Trying to save the "misunderstood" cultures, gets raped/bitten/robbed.

Anonymous Lulabelle February 10, 2013 12:39 PM  

"Maybe we should have universal background checks for assault dogs like this?"

Thread-winning comment, right off the bat.

Anonymous VryeDenker February 10, 2013 12:42 PM  

My wife is friends with a woman who recently "adopted" a pit bull. The thing is still "playful" but she's only 6 or 7 months old tight now. And it doesn't help that they also have three french poodles, which are quite aggressive, even though they're not worth much in a fight. I don't want to be anywhere near their house when the time comes to challenge for pack leader. To his credit, her husband is rather good at disciplining their dogs, but the wife doesn't want him to "yell at the puppy".

Blogger foxmarks February 10, 2013 12:42 PM  

An SWPL neighbor's pittie got through the fence. First thing it saw was another SWPL neighbor's cat, lounging on the front steps. Dog beelined over to the cat, paused, then went for the kill.

Rakes and hoses couldn't get the dog to let the cat go. I took pics of the carnage to give to the dog catcher as evidence. Dog owner got her beast back on leash, with blood on his jowls. She was stunned, muttering about what a good dog he had been since she rescued him.

Family with the dead cat made a formal complaint, and the dog got put on our town's "dangerous dog" list, meaning it had to be muzzled. The dog and its enabler moved away a few months later.

I watched the whole thing, at first worried about the stray dog. Then I saw its killing instinct take over. I am fine with rules banning pitbulls now.

Blogger foxmarks February 10, 2013 12:43 PM  

An SWPL neighbor's pittie got through the fence. First thing it saw was another SWPL neighbor's cat, lounging on the front steps. Dog beelined over to the cat, paused, then went for the kill.

Rakes and hoses couldn't get the dog to let the cat go. I took pics of the carnage to give to the dog catcher as evidence. Dog owner got her beast back on leash, with blood on his jowls. She was stunned, muttering about what a good dog he had been since she rescued him.

Family with the dead cat made a formal complaint, and the dog got put on our town's "dangerous dog" list, meaning it had to be muzzled. The dog and its enabler moved away a few months later.

I watched the whole thing, at first worried about the stray dog. Then I saw its killing instinct take over. I am fine with rules banning pitbulls now.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 12:47 PM  

for the record... it should be SWUPL

Stuf White URBAN People Like.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan February 10, 2013 12:56 PM  

Here's a tip for folks who live in town and have loose pitbulls running the neighborhood.

Tear up some some sponges and soak em in bacon grease.

Casually let em lay near the garbage can, as if you accidentally dropped em.

It'll plug em up fer a good while. If the owners have to spend a grand at the vet...too bad. If the dog dies...so sad.

Now as a bonus, have yerself a BLT.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 12:56 PM  

I have had to deal with these nutjobs....yes, I said nutjobs. As city administrator, my small town in Texas had a serious pitbull problem and we took steps to mitigate the problem. Some months we put as many as 50 pit bulls in the "Animal Shelter", where they were promptly put down. This brought us to the attention of the Pitbull Rescue Society, whereupon we got several calls from an annoying female voice that insisted that pitbulls were no more dangerous than any other dog.

Of course, we laughed at her when she called and kept shoveling the pitbulls to the pound....sometimes with great effort. Pitbulls are not the only dangerous dog nor are they the most likely to bite a passing human. I put them on par with a determined bobcat or rattlesnake. They are definitely dangerous, not only to the public but to their owners too. (The Mexicans next door to me have a pitbull puppy and he is growing fast. Should I wait till I need a hundred stitches?)

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 1:00 PM  

Don

Thank you for once again demonstrating that you're a statist scumbag.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan February 10, 2013 1:01 PM  

By the way, I enjoyed the story about the pit bull killing the cat.

You might want to let the pit bulls clean out the stray cats in the neighborhood before you give em the ol sponge treatment.

Quadruple bonus..

1) fewer cats
2) fewer pit bulls
3) fewer maimed kids
4) more songbirds

Anonymous zen0 February 10, 2013 1:02 PM  

for the record... it should be SWUPL

I agree. I think you should go over there and file a formal complaint.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 1:04 PM  

"An SWPL neighbor's pittie got through the fence. First thing it saw was another SWPL neighbor's cat, lounging on the front steps. Dog beelined over to the cat, paused, then went for the kill."

oh noes!!! A dog killed a cat!!!

Who ever heard of such a thing? Dogs chasing cats? CRAZY!!!

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 1:05 PM  

Threads like these make me ashamed of the Ilk.

Anonymous Lulabelle February 10, 2013 1:07 PM  

"Stuf White URBAN People Like."

I dunno. I thought "urban" was MSM code for "black".

How about "Stuff White Cityslickers Like"?

Anonymous Lulabelle February 10, 2013 1:08 PM  

Mmmm. Bacon. Did you know it comes from rocks?

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 1:10 PM  

Lulabelle... I have heard that. Special rocks. Deep in the earth.

Anonymous Lulabelle February 10, 2013 1:12 PM  

Bacon rocks, yep.
Next up, we need to find the chocolate chip cookie vein.

Blogger The Observer February 10, 2013 1:13 PM  

Does it connect to the thigh bone?

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 1:13 PM  

How is it that on the same blog where we call ourselves wolves and mock those we call rabbits...

Then turn around and boast about employing the force of government to ban and confiscate the personal property that we don't approve of?

Here's a clue for you rabbits masquerading as Ilk... Its her God given right to be stupid and get her face bitten off by a pit bull. Its none of your business.

Its IS you business if and when the dog comes for you or your property. Then you deal with it yourself. Don't go running to Aunt Samantha to save you.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 1:16 PM  

It took us nine years to get the city council of Memphis to ban dangerous breeds from the city. During this time, there were numerous DEATHS (not just children) and even more numerous MAULINGS (often crippling) from vicious dog attacks. It is possible to deal with vicious dogs, but background checks of the owners and big license fees are not going to protect anybody.

Common law has always recognized this problem. Does not matter if you have a grizzly bear or a tiger or a pit bull or a doberman. You are absolutely and totally responsible for ANYTHING your pet does. It is like keeping a few cases of dynamite in your back yard. If anything goes wrong, it is your ass, as well as the dog's.

My next door neighbor had a pitbull that kept trying to dig under the fence to get to my daughters (ages 2 and 4). I warned the pitbull owner. If the dog gets his nose under the fence, I will blast it off with a 12 ga. But if the dog manages to get in my back yard and attack my girls, I will kill the owner first...then the dog. No discussion. No appeal. No deals. If your pitbull gets in my backyard and hurts (or kills) my daughters, I will immediately shoot the owner.

Anonymous Lulabelle February 10, 2013 1:19 PM  

Don Reynolds.........what steps were taken to "mitigate the problem"? Were there a bunch of wild pit bulls running around that had to be rounded up?

Blogger Markku February 10, 2013 1:21 PM  

Thumbs up for Don.

Anonymous Mike M. February 10, 2013 1:21 PM  

The problem is that a lot of these dogs have been bred for the fighting pit, not the living room. Sterilize at a minimum, with an exception for pedigreed dogs.

Anonymous earthman February 10, 2013 1:24 PM  

So Don, What dogs (if any) are on your approved list?

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 1:25 PM  

Eh, Pit bulls are pretty dangerous. They are bred to be aggressive towards other animals and they have a different style of attack, where they bite and do not let go. That makes it much more difficult to get them off somebody.

Trained owners carry a special "break stick" to pry them off the victim. If you don't have one, it is very difficult to get them off somebody. That sets them apart from something like a German Shepherd, that can be driven off more easily.

They were selectively bred for dog fighting and we're not cool with dog fighting anymore. So they should be spayed and neutered out of existence or at least down to very manageable numbers. Most people would be much better off with a type of dog that wasn't bred for combat.

But people are dumb so instead we have a plague of them sweeping over the land. It's probably a legitimate area for local government to regulate. Better to do something about pit bulls before people over react and start putting generalized limitations on dogs.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 1:28 PM  

"It took us nine years to get the city council of Memphis to ban dangerous breeds from the city. During this time, there were numerous DEATHS (not just children) and even more numerous MAULINGS (often crippling) from vicious dog attacks. It is possible to deal with vicious dogs, but background checks of the owners and big license fees are not going to protect anybody. "

Statist.

As always... you're no different than any other liberal. You seek to use the power of government to solve any problem.

Head over to Whatever where you can be with those of your kind you boot licking big government bitch.

Anonymous Lulabelle February 10, 2013 1:29 PM  

" Better to do something about pit bulls before people over react and start putting generalized limitations on dogs."

But if it's better "to do something about pit bulls", don't you suppose that might lead to putting MORE generalized limitations on dogs, not less? Where does the regulation of private property end?

Anonymous The other skeptic February 10, 2013 1:33 PM  

"It took us nine years to get the city council of Memphis to ban dangerous breeds of humans from the city. During this time, there were numerous DEATHS (not just children) and even more numerous ATTACKS (often crippling) from vicious packs of these dangerous breeds of humans. It is possible to deal with vicious humans, ..."

There, fixed it for you.

Anonymous T14 February 10, 2013 1:34 PM  

"Now, I love dogs and live with one that could eat a pit bull for lunch without making much of an effort"

A grizzly bear?

And I can't help but love a breed for which they make doggie protein powder and doggie weight rooms.

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 1:36 PM  

Don didn't say anything statist, he's just giving his opinion. My dad had a female pit bull for five years, and one morning he went out to feed her just as usual, and she suddenly just attacked and chomped down on his left arm. After he smacked her with the steel pan he fed her from, she was still coming. The second hit was much harder, and that stopped her. I saw the whole thing happen, and it was so sudden and unexpected. My only guess is that she was excited from chasing the neighbor's horse and she just couldn't turn off the aggression.

I totally oppose any kind of state license, registration fee, ban, or anything like that, but someone who gets one of these dogs ought to understand that they aren't getting a cute cuddly pet, and people are well within their rights to put these dogs down if their owners are letting them roam free. And personally I would never keep one of these dogs around small children.

Anonymous Equestrian025 February 10, 2013 1:37 PM  

Stuff White People Like is a blog that was big about four or five years ago, and details the social trends of late X-er and millenial yuppies between college and kids. It’s worth a read, even if it’s not really savage.

I think Vox is right about the real problem. The government will ban any animal that's not a dog, cat or a horse for any reason, and getting them unbanned is a nightmare. See CA Ferret Ownership, Python Interstate Trade.

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 1:38 PM  

Ok, guess I back that part about Don not saying anything statist.

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 1:40 PM  

"It is like keeping a few cases of dynamite in your back yard."

You just have to rotate them occassionally and not let them freeze or catch fire. No big deal.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 1:50 PM  

If you support banning or rounding up of pitbulls...you are a statist.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 1:51 PM  

How many of the dog-banners are supposedly supporters of the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms?

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 1:53 PM  

"But if it's better "to do something about pit bulls", don't you suppose that might lead to putting MORE generalized limitations on dogs, not less? Where does the regulation of private property end?"

No, because Pit Bulls and similar gripping dogs are uniquely dangerous.

If your municipality is full of irresponsible Pit Bull owners there is a significant likelihood of an extremely ugly, high profile attack. That would lead to emotion based legislation that may put excessive restrictions on responsible owners who own normal dog breeds.

Better to pre-emptively get the Pit Bull problem under control with breed specific regulation, so the high profile attack never happens. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to ban Pit Bulls. But it's one thing to have farm collies running around off leash and it is quite another thing to have Pit Bulls running around off leash. That's an unacceptable danger.

Yes, fixing that problem involves the state initiating force on Pit Bull owners. But when a pit bull jumps the fence and latches on to you he is also initiating force.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan February 10, 2013 1:54 PM  

Having spent much of my adult life in a rural area, populated by scots-irish pit bull owners, I could write a 10,000 word post just about dogs I or my neighbors have shot or poisoned, or about incidents where said dogs or owners should have been shot (or at least sterilized)

For people who think pitbulls are the victim, nothing can be said that will change their mind. They could watch a dog maul and kill a cat, then the cat's owner, and then the owners children...and they still would wail that the dog was made mean by some bully who mistreated it.

Don Reynolds, your post was blitheringly stupid.

You need to nip that problem in the bud. Now. (the dogs digging under the fence)

Why wait until your children are maimed and you are in jail for murder? Will you feel smarter?

Fill that hole under the fence with the bacon grease soaked sponges, and then play dumb. Your problem will go away - I promise.

Your children will stay in one piece.

You will stay out of jail.

Win/win.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 1:56 PM  

earthman..."So Don, What dogs (if any) are on your approved list?"

I approve of any dog that is reliably secure on a leash or chain, behind a good fence, or in a cage, or indoors.

Lulabelle...." what steps were taken to "mitigate the problem"? Were there a bunch of wild pit bulls running around that had to be rounded up?"

A common problem along the Mexican border is dogs with no license, no rabies vacinnation, and on the loose. I never had anyone come to the Animal Shelter to bail out their pitbull. Yes, we caught them one at a time and transported them to the nearest Shelter....some 40 miles away.

Nate...."As always... you're no different than any other liberal. You seek to use the power of government to solve any problem.

"Head over to Whatever where you can be with those of your kind you boot licking big government bitch."

Sorry you feel that way, Nate. I call it....
"providing for the common defense". I feel the same way about mosquito control too. Or maybe you hate all public health measures? Calling me a liberal is really telling on yourself.

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 1:59 PM  

Moldbug said it best:

"Crime and government are the same thing - power imposed by force. Always and everywhere, crime is nano-tyranny. In the last minute of Hani Hicham Abou El-Kheir's life, there was only one government that mattered - a tiny circle of sovereignty, containing oppressed (Mr. El-Kheir) and oppressor (15 "youths" wielding swords). This government, smaller than the Queen's but no less real, condemned Mr. El-Kheir to death, no doubt for some real or imagined offence, enforced the penalty, and then dispersed."

Same thing applies to Canine thugs. When a Pit Bull jumps the fence and kills your dog, someone (or something) has imposed force on you, just as surely as if the police had killed your dog.

Reasonable breed specific regulation can be the lesser of two evils, if an infestation of irresponsible Pitbull owners starts to take root.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 2:02 PM  

Sorry you feel that way, Nate. I call it...."providing for the common defense". I feel the same way about mosquito control too. Or maybe you hate all public health measures? Calling me a liberal is really telling on yourself.

So Don...I assume you also support banning those scary and dangerous guns as a "public health measure?"

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 2:04 PM  

Has Moldbug every said anything that wasn't just a retarded and overly wordy (but clever sounding to the inane) derivative of much better political thinkers like, say, Rothbard?

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 2:05 PM  

"No, because AR-15s and similar assault weapons are uniquely dangerous. "

There.

Now how do you like that statement?

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 2:08 PM  

Since pit bulls are bred for fighting, that makes them instruments of war, and ownership of them is clearly protected by the Second Amendment.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 2:09 PM  

" "providing for the common defense". I feel the same way about mosquito control too. Or maybe you hate all public health measures? Calling me a liberal is really telling on yourself. "

This is precisely the rationalization liberals use to justify every abuse of liberty they can dream up. Which is why you are now so thoroughly lumped in with them.

Pathetic.

You may as well get a "Its for the children!" t-shirt like the other dipshit hippies.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 2:11 PM  

"Has Moldbug every said anything that wasn't just a retarded and overly wordy (but clever sounding to the inane) derivative of much better political thinkers like, say, Rothbard?"

Moldbug makes midwits feel really smart... thus they quote read him and quote him whenever possible... thinking that it will make others think they are smart.

Anonymous Lulabelle February 10, 2013 2:11 PM  

Thanks for the response, Don Reynolds

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 2:12 PM  

AR-15s are inanimate tools. They are under the control of the humans that wield them. It's not an accurate analogy.

How do you feel about people who live in the suburbs owning bears and chimpanzees? Is banning that tyrannical?

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 2:14 PM  

"Is banning that tyrannical?"

Yes. If there gets to be a huge problem with bears and chimpanzees running loose, just think of it as an all-expenses-paid safari.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 2:16 PM  

I'll admit, I first I thought Anonymous was just mocking liberal arguments for gun control.

But it appears that she is actually serious.

Anonymous Lulabelle February 10, 2013 2:17 PM  

"How do you feel about people who live in the suburbs owning bears and chimpanzees? Is banning that tyrannical? "

Are bears and chimpanzees considered domesticated animals in the same sense that dogs are? I'm not sure that's an apt comparison.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 2:18 PM  

How do you feel about people who live in the suburbs owning bears and chimpanzees? Is banning that tyrannical?

People can own whatever animals they want, and the government shouldn't violate their property rights unless those animals wander off the property and kill or maim someone. Yes, banning that ownership is tyrannical.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 2:19 PM  

Moldbug makes midwits feel really smart... thus they quote read him and quote him whenever possible... thinking that it will make others think they are smart.

They can typing!!!

Blogger Markku February 10, 2013 2:19 PM  

People can own whatever animals they want, and the government shouldn't violate their property rights unless those animals wander off the property and kill or maim someone.

If they do that, should the owner be punished to the same degree as if he personally killed or maimed that someone?

Anonymous Barsad February 10, 2013 2:20 PM  

One can be against owning pit bulls and for the ownership of firearms. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 2:24 PM  

"If they do that, should the owner be punished to the same degree as if he personally killed or maimed that someone?"

You could go for Manslaughter. Would be a tough sell though. Best bet is civil action.

Blogger Markku February 10, 2013 2:25 PM  

"Should" is what I asked, not "would".

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 2:25 PM  

"One can be against owning pit bulls and for the ownership of firearms. The two are not mutually exclusive."

Yes. But one cannot hold that position and claim to love individual liberty.

If you hold that position... you're just another bitch statist.

Anonymous earthman February 10, 2013 2:25 PM  

@ Don or Cryan Ryan,

If a breed specific ban is enacted, would it be by DNA testing or appearance?
What percentage of Pit bull or "bull dog types" DNA constitutes a banned animal?
If it's by appearance, who sets the standard and how would mixed breeds be handled?

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 2:27 PM  

" "Should" is what I asked, not "would"."

manslaughter laws exist for a reason. I would think it would be a case by case deal.

Anonymous zen0 February 10, 2013 2:28 PM  

If they do that, should the owner be punished to the same degree as if he personally killed or maimed that someone?

Exodus 21 (28-29) suggests not, unless the owner has been warned the animal is dangerous.

Blogger Markku February 10, 2013 2:28 PM  

Then that right there is the difference between guns and dogs, and why one (such as me) might take opposite approaches on them.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 2:29 PM  

" "How do you feel about people who live in the suburbs owning bears and chimpanzees? Is banning that tyrannical? " "

The government has no business telling anyone what they can or can't buy. Period.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 2:31 PM  

This is an excellent test of your political ideology. You either believe the government should have the authority to ban things that you don't like... or you don't.

Are you a statist or not?

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 2:33 PM  

If they do that, should the owner be punished to the same degree as if he personally killed or maimed that someone?

Like Nate, said, manslaughter maybe, but on a case by case basis.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 2:34 PM  

This is an excellent test of your political ideology. You either believe the government should have the authority to ban things that you don't like... or you don't.

Are you a statist or not?


By that test, the protectionist folks are statists. That doesn't invalidate the test.

Of course continuing on this conversation is OT so I'll stow it.

Anonymous Barsad February 10, 2013 2:35 PM  

"If you hold that position... you're just another bitch statist."

I'll put your mind at ease: I don't care if someone owns pitbulls, I don't think they should be outlawed. It's a slippery slope down that road. When it comes to wild animals like bears, wolves, and tigers...I'm less libertarian.

Blogger Markku February 10, 2013 2:36 PM  

I'm fine with either of these two options:

a) Either you agree to suffer the exact same consequences as the victim (life for life) and then you can have the animal

b) Or you don't, in which case the state gets to decide.

Anonymous bw February 10, 2013 2:36 PM  

pitbull redemptions

This. The Saviors. They ARE objective morality defined, from their immoral, ignorant and unaware pov.

Always interesting to be reminded how very "female" government work is.


Blogger foxmarks February 10, 2013 2:38 PM  

If there were a firearm possessed of its own innate intelligence, with an ability and desire to escape confinement and go rampaging about destroying lives and property, I guess I am O.K. with gov't-administered restrictions on such weapons.

I that makes me a statist, meh.

As a coda to the cat-mauling I witnessed, the dog catcher let me know on the sly that if she came back and found the dog with a bullet hole in its forehead, she would look the other away about discharging a weapon within city limits.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 2:39 PM  

When it comes to wild animals like bears, wolves, and tigers...I'm less libertarian.


Why?

Anonymous Barsad February 10, 2013 2:40 PM  

"You either believe the government should have the authority to ban things that you don't like... or you don't."

I don't believe in private ownership of nukes. Tanks, RPGs, helicopters, rocket launchers, fine by me. Nukes are a different story.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 2:41 PM  

Now...if you have a pitbull on your property and someone tresspasses and the pitbull rips out his throat...tough shit for him. In that case there isn't a crime because it occurred on the owners property.

Blogger tz February 10, 2013 2:43 PM  

@Nate/@Don - I might compare it with Feral Cats. Our city has a problem, but since this is urban, giving out weapons to the boys in the neighborhood and say "have fun" is both shocking and likely hazardous.

The difficulty with the pit bull is they don't maul their owners or their owners' kids that often, they maul or kill someone else, while the family protests he really is a nice puppy. They are the liberals - who in the same vein cannot recognize a murdering rapist that is threatening everyone while being sentenced probably should never be let out, but instead think he is really a nice guy.

The laws do not charge the owners of such dogs properly (so we get the DUI effect - banning ancillaries). If I am negligent with my car or pet and someone gets hurt or killed, I should go to prison for an appropriate term.

AR-15s are dangerous, especially in the hands of someone who would treat them as toys and not as weapons.

Pit Bulls - and other breeds of that temperament [I mean to include them but for space will just say "pit bull" going forward] - are dangerous, especially when someone fails to train or restrain them and thinks them no more a threat than a poodle or chihuahua. So if you don't want them banned, you need equal laws requiring responsible handling.

I don't want people listening to voices in their head to have guns nor pit-bulls. At least in the former case, the used-to-be-pretty girl in the photo would probably recognize an AR-15 as a weapon and the potential danger and take care with it and even a small handgun. But not her sweet, fuzzy, pet. She doesn't think it is irresponsible to let it out unsupervised, that it is dangerous in any way, to herself or others. And she cannot be convinced, no more than the buzzed person staggering and slurring their speech can be convinced it is dangerous to drive.

Perhaps pit-bull ownership training might help, but I don't think the problem is the head as much as the hamster. No one takes CCW then does wild-west stunts, but they can take the training and think "but my sweet puppy is different".

If you left an AR-15 lying around loaded with the safety off I think you shouldn't be able to have guns as you would have shown your irresponsibility. Or taking open carry to mean pointing a loaded gun around including at people. If enough people start doing stupid things like that even the NRA will start calling for gun control.

If there is an unmuzzled pit bull outside where it can dig under a fence or otherwise get out it is the same thing.

The petite woman won't be able to hold the leash (remembering how our fairly big but not exceptionally large french briard would drag my big strong father on their walks - both got far more exercise than the speed would indicate, especially if there was a squirrel siting, and sometimes I would have a similar experience when I was walking him).

So I'd say let anyone have a pit-bull, but if I see it digging, loose, at all not under control, or in any way a threat, I will shoot it, and the owner too. And not ask any other question or hesitate.

And I should probably do so for someone who handles a firearm in a similarly irresponsible manner.

Don is being kind by taking these loose dangerous things to a place where people will be safe from them instead of destroying them on the spot.

Blogger Markku February 10, 2013 2:44 PM  

Now...if you have a pitbull on your property and someone tresspasses and the pitbull rips out his throat...tough shit for him. In that case there isn't a crime because it occurred on the owners property.

In any situation where you would have not been prosecuted if you ripped his throat (according to Castle doctrine, that one applies), I'm fine with the dog getting a free pass also. If we are consistent in equating it with a gun, then it's ok.

Anonymous Barsad February 10, 2013 2:45 PM  

"Why?"

I don't have a problem with people having them on private farms, zoos, private businesses, circuses, exhibits, etc. it's primarily in neighborhoods where they could do lot of damage very quickly. They're violent and extremely dangerous for anyone untrained and unused to dealing with them. They're undomesticated, unlike dogs, cats, birds, and other pets. That's about it. It's not an issue I particularly care about, so my views aren't set in stone.

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 2:45 PM  

There are two things that really scare and deter burglars/home invaders: armed homeowners and large, aggressive dogs. I like rottweilers. They're still very tough and seem to be much more even tempered than pit bulls.

Anonymous Barsad February 10, 2013 2:46 PM  

"Now...if you have a pitbull on your property and someone tresspasses and the pitbull rips out his throat...tough shit for him. In that case there isn't a crime because it occurred on the owners property."

Absolutely. It's the whole point of a guard dog.

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 2:52 PM  

"They're violent and extremely dangerous for anyone untrained and unused to dealing with them."

It is very difficult to control these animals without hurting them -- but that's the owner's problem, and a big reason why it's unlikely that there will ever be widespread ownership of these animals. It's not at all difficult to put them down to prevent them from doing damage if the need arises.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 2:53 PM  

Josh....."So Don...I assume you also support banning those scary and dangerous guns as a "public health measure?"

Once again, your assumption is incorrect. A better public health measure would be to REQUIRE every household to have a gun. I call it "pest control".

Blogger tz February 10, 2013 2:56 PM  

Let me summarize:

You should be able to own or have anything which you are willing to take the proper steps to insure you will be responsible with them. Some things which aren't dangerous don't matter. For things that are, if something happens such that you show you aren't being responsible, it is criminal negligence - you are creating a danger or a hazard even if it doesn't actualize to injury or death in the particular instance. But you first should demonstrate you know the hazards and that you know and with full will accept the consequences.

If you are weaving around the road or your brakes don't work right you don't have to injure or kill someone before it is considered a crime.

If the trespasser didn't see any boundary, much less a fence with warning, he cannot know of the danger, nor that he is trespassing. Children die in swimming pools because they are an "attractive nuisance", that is children don't know, and if they aren't behind a fence with good lock and gate, the children will want to play there. There are similar dangers. If they are playing and the ball goes over the fence? At least with a gun a human has to decide if there is a threat. A mind must act. A pit bull is like a mindless trap, killing anyone who crosses for any reason.

Anonymous I Am Curious zen0 February 10, 2013 2:56 PM  

If some people can't be trusted with a potentially dangerous vote because of the harm they do, why should everyone be trusted with a potentially dangerous creature?

Anonymous realmatt February 10, 2013 2:58 PM  

SWPL's with dogs are the most annoying idiots on the planet. They use 400 ft leashes so I can only imagine how many people will be hurt or at least terrified, setting off whatever horrible little switches these rescued dogs have in their heads after years of abuse.

for the record... it should be SWUPL

Stuf White URBAN People Like.


SWLL

Stuff White Liberals Like

Anonymous Barsad February 10, 2013 2:59 PM  

"It is very difficult to control these animals without hurting them -- but that's the owner's problem, and a big reason why it's unlikely that there will ever be widespread ownership of these animals."

Yeah, I can't see them ever being widely owned. by the public at large. If they did, I'd assume people managed to thoroughly domesticate them...in which case I'd be cool with it.

Anonymous Barsad February 10, 2013 3:00 PM  

"If some people can't be trusted with a potentially dangerous vote because of the harm they do, why should everyone be trusted with a potentially dangerous creature?"

A Bear, let alone a pitbull, couldn't do a millionth the damage a collective of idiots with a vote could do. Godzilla is less of a disaster than universal suffrage.

Anonymous earthman February 10, 2013 3:03 PM  

What is a Pit Bull?

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 3:03 PM  

" I might compare it with Feral Cats. Our city has a problem, but since this is urban, giving out weapons to the boys in the neighborhood and say "have fun" is both shocking and likely hazardous."

Your city doesn't have a problem. Your city IS the problem.

Anonymous realmatt February 10, 2013 3:04 PM  

As for the government banning things like bears and chimps..

What do you think is worse? A group of armed men from the community approaching the stupid owner, letting him know if anything happens, his head will be removed publicly after his 'pet' is killed and turned into jerky, or the big bad government banning anything and everything, on the basis of legal precedence, doing whatever the hell it wants?

It would be very badass to have a pet lion roaming the enclosed area surrounding your property. A roar heard up to 5 miles away.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 3:06 PM  

"What is a Pit Bull?"

Its a breed of dog popular with dog fighters. Its not even close to the most dangerous dog breed out there. Several breeds from Ridgebacks to Dogos would consider a pit a decent snack and not much more.

They are no more mindless killing machines than any other dog. Far less so in fact than the tiny menaces you see idiot women carrying around in purses.

These rabbits however have caught the vapors.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 3:08 PM  

"You should be able to own or have anything which you are willing to take the proper steps to insure you will be responsible with them. "

And yet Don is talking about a full scale ban.

its the BAN that makes don a statist liberal bunny.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 3:09 PM  

Only idiot liberals would grant the government the power to decide what is, or isn't, safe for people to own.

Blogger foxmarks February 10, 2013 3:14 PM  

Your city doesn't have a problem. Your city IS the problem.

Agreed. But the form of a city is not necessarily the problem. 50 years ago, even in my lefty neighborhood, people would almost certainly have taken care of their own stray cat and dangerous dog problems. Back when we used to have "peace officers" who wouldn't go all tactical if they saw me standing in my yard with a rifle.

Anonymous realmatt February 10, 2013 3:19 PM  

Agreed. But the form of a city is not necessarily the problem. 50 years ago, even in my lefty neighborhood, people would almost certainly have taken care of their own stray cat and dangerous dog problems. Back when we used to have "peace officers" who wouldn't go all tactical if they saw me standing in my yard with a rifle.

50 years ago, the people in your neighborhood either moved there from non city areas (rural or suburban) or were raised by people who didn't grow up in a city.

Experiences and memories are not transmitted from parent to child via blood or telepathy.

Anonymous Barsad February 10, 2013 3:19 PM  

"They are no more mindless killing machines than any other dog. Far less so in fact than the tiny menaces you see idiot women carrying around in purses."

Dear God, how I loathe chihuahuas.

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 3:22 PM  

"Are bears and chimpanzees considered domesticated animals in the same sense that dogs are? I'm not sure that's an apt comparison."

No, bears and chimpanzees are not domesticated animals. But pit bulls are not ordinary domesticated animals. Pit bulls were domesticated then selectively bred for aggression. This is an innate drive that cannot be trained out of them, the only way to remove it would involve generations of selective breeding. Not every pitbull will attack, but then not every collie will herd.

Comparing regulations on wild animals with regulations on domesticated animals that have been selectively bred for aggression is more reasonable than comparing regulations on inanimate objects with regulations on animals.

In the vast majority of pit bull attacks the owner did not intend for the Pit bull to attack. The animal acted on it's own volition, following its natural drive. Guns don't do that.

Anonymous realmatt February 10, 2013 3:24 PM  


In the vast majority of pit bull attacks the owner did not intend for the Pit bull to attack. The animal acted on it's own volition, following its natural drive. Guns don't do that.


This isn't the case in most dog attacks where the dog has an owner??

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 3:25 PM  

Someone raised an interesting issue in a kind of oblique way and that is the use of dogs (of any breed) as guard dogs for property. Dogs are naturally territorial and they will defend their bowl with real enthusiasm. (I have no problems with guard dogs, provided they are kept within the confines of the property they are expected to protect.) I think the public prefers dogs to more automatic or mechanical devices....such as land mines, electrified fences, bear traps, deadfalls, snares and the like. The courts have taken a dim view of using potentially (or actually) lethal devices to prevent trespassing. The mail carrier, the meter reader, police and firefighters should not have to deal with boobytraps in the course of their work. This seems to be something all us "statists" seem to agree upon. The asssumption is that the owner of a dog can and will control his animal when called upon to do so.

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 3:25 PM  

"What do you think is worse? A group of armed men from the community approaching the stupid owner, letting him know if anything happens, his head will be removed publicly after his 'pet' is killed and turned into jerky, or the big bad government banning anything and everything, on the basis of legal precedence, doing whatever the hell it wants?"

That group of armed men IS a local government.

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 3:27 PM  

"This isn't the case in most dog attacks where the dog has an owner??"

Yes, but only a small percentage of dog breeds were selectively bred for aggression and fighting ability.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 3:28 PM  

" But pit bulls are not ordinary domesticated animals. Pit bulls were domesticated then selectively bred for aggression."

So were dobermans... and GSDs... and all terriers... and poodles... and dogos... ect... ect... ect...

Singling out pitbulls just exposes ignorance.

Blogger foxmarks February 10, 2013 3:28 PM  

would grant the government the power to decide

The people in a given territory could consent to delegate their inalienable ability to keep an eye on each other and take action if any one of them was being dangerously stupid.

If there were an anarchtopia, I would probably move there. I am well-studied in the concept of order without law. Ultimately, government forms even if it goes by another name. So, in the fallen world, all we have are trade-offs. One man's statist is another man's Kacyznski.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 3:28 PM  

Yes.. Poodles were bred as fighting dogs.

Anonymous realmatt February 10, 2013 3:30 PM  

That group of armed men IS a local government.

They may perform a type of governing, as a father or mother governs, but they are not The Government.

Capital G.

I can't imagine one of them would say "Well whatshisface a few towns over made this decision, so we have to do the same. Give us half your pay check."

Blogger IM2L844 February 10, 2013 3:31 PM  

Owning Pit Bulls use to be almost exclusively a black thang.

SWPL: "Look, I voted for Obama...TWICE..., I regularly jog down MLK Boulevard while listening to OFWGKTA through my earbuds AND I own a Pit Bull. Now, will you love me?"

Black guy: "No! We still hate you and We always will, but thanks for being a useful idiot. Now, give me your money."

Blogger foxmarks February 10, 2013 3:39 PM  

were raised by people who didn't grow up in a city.

Bingo.

The self-help mindset seems to survive for about one generation. People who grew up in my neighborhood 50 years ago would still mostly take care of the loose animals the way their non-city parents showed them. Their kids, who are now having kids of their own, have all been indoctrinated by the communalist school and media system.

It's weird that now a gun tucked away in a nightstand is felt as a bigger threat than an angry dog on the loose.

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 3:39 PM  

"Yes.. Poodles were bred as fighting dogs."

Poodles are retrievers. They were used by the military in WW2 because they are so smart and easy to train. They weren't bred to fight and kill other dogs.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 3:42 PM  

tz..."Don is being kind by taking these loose dangerous things to a place where people will be safe from them instead of destroying them on the spot."

Kind of you to say so. Yes, it was difficult to capture many of the loose pitbulls (without harming them) and transport them to the Animal Shelter. Even though they did not have a license or collar, we always have to assume that each dog has an owner and may show up at the pound to recover their pet. If they have a license, we know who to call, otherwise the owner should assume that their missing pet has been picked up and is being kept at the Animal Shelter for the next seven days. They can recover the dog by paying for the required rabies innoculation and small fee for the dog tag.


Cryan Ryan..."You need to nip that problem in the bud. Now. (the dogs digging under the fence)
Why wait until your children are maimed and you are in jail for murder? Will you feel smarter?"

You are probably correct. It is much better to be safe than to be sorry later. I have always tried to deal with the dog owner FIRST, if I felt there was a potential problem. Unless there is a dog attack in progress or imminent, dog owners should be allowed a fair warning to deal with their dog. I agree with you. The risk could be terribly regretable.

Anonymous realmatt February 10, 2013 3:46 PM  

Their kids, who are now having kids of their own, have all been indoctrinated by the communalist school and media system.

It's more than just the schools. Living in a city has the opposite effect people imagine it will have. People want to fade into the crowd and not be bothered or judged. No one knows what anyone else is doing and if they do, they don't care. Not that rural and suburban areas don't have their problems, but city life is particularly dehumanizing.

Cities breed narcissism and apathy.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan February 10, 2013 3:54 PM  

"They are no more mindless killing machines than any other dog. Far less so in fact than the tiny menaces you see idiot women carrying around in purses."

Nate

That may have been the stupidest thing I have ever read on this blog, including all of Tad's posts, as well as all the comments on Scalzi's blog, everything Krugman has ever written, and every statement ever made by Piers Morgan, Nancy Pelosi, and Michael Moore combined.

You've just sodomized your credibility.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 3:57 PM  

It is much better to be safe than to be sorry later.

AND...this is the same argument used by the gun banners.

Don, if just one child is saved from being maimed or killed, it's worth it, right?

Blogger foxmarks February 10, 2013 4:05 PM  

realmatt, for me, living in a world of strangers is a feature, not a bug. I don't want neighbors who keep track of my habits.

Having never lived in the country, I can't compare from experience. I do not find my "traditional urban neighborhood" dehumanizing. If I wanted to be part of a "community", all I need to do is go to the local lefty-hipster coffeeshop a few times a week. I am involved in my n'hood association and community orgs. Everyone is slobbering all over each other about how much they feel connected. They trade perennials and share vegetables, like they live in Mayberry.

Blogger James Dixon February 10, 2013 4:06 PM  

> If you left an AR-15 lying around loaded with the safety off I think you shouldn't be able to have guns as you would have shown your irresponsibility.

You do realize that if you change AR-15 to rifle, you've just described probably 90% of the gun owners I know? I've never seen a loaded rifle go off by itself.

Anonymous Barsad February 10, 2013 4:08 PM  

"It is much better to be safe than to be sorry later."

You can't seriously be making this argument.

Blogger foxmarks February 10, 2013 4:11 PM  

Josh, that argument is used by nearly everybody for nearly everything. "Just one child" is the rhetoric to argue for shifting the trade-off toward less danger and less liberty.

There is no Constitutional guarantee about pet ownership. If some jurisdiction wants to criminalize chihuahuas or a particular kind of pool drain, isn't such of a different character than banning scary guns?

Blogger foxmarks February 10, 2013 4:13 PM  

I've never seen a loaded rifle go off by itself.

I have seen a loaded pitbull go off by itself. And I still have the pics.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 4:15 PM  

Okay, all of you arguing for bans on scary dogs, turn in your patriot cards right now.

Blogger David of One February 10, 2013 4:16 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 4:19 PM  

"I have seen a loaded pitbull go off by itself."

I do think it's perfectly reasonable to have against intoxicated pit bulls in public places.

Anonymous Noah B. February 10, 2013 4:20 PM  

What is with me today?

I do think it's perfectly reasonable to have ordinances against intoxicated pit bulls in public places.

Anonymous realmatt February 10, 2013 4:22 PM  

Having never lived in the country, I can't compare from experience. I do not find my "traditional urban neighborhood" dehumanizing. If I wanted to be part of a "community", all I need to do is go to the local lefty-hipster coffeeshop a few times a week. I am involved in my n'hood association and community orgs. Everyone is slobbering all over each other about how much they feel connected. They trade perennials and share vegetables, like they live in Mayberry.

Obviously, there are exceptions, but that isn't the norm.

I've never lived in the country either and the only exposure to rural folks, Southern or otherwise, I've had outside this blog, was largely negative. They struck me as completely full of shit and it was particularly hard to see my mother stupidly imagine they wanted to be her friend when it was obvious to me they didn't.

It's been my experience that everyone is shit everywhere. The difference is some shit is more respectful that other shit and even when lying to people they barely know (never to me because they knew I had no interest in their nonsense or getting to know them at all), I could see which way of life is more viable and which leads to poorly run communities filled with people who can't do anything for themselves. Which setting attracts which sort of person? Irony is unavoidable.

If metropolitan areas didn't attract loads of money, the 99.9 of every met population in every single state would starve to death.

Everyone is garbage. Self reliant garbage is just less horrible. This has been my experience.

Blogger David of One February 10, 2013 4:24 PM  

A few threads back there was mention of "Dread Ilk" t-shirts.

I'm interested in finding out if we have a enough interest in making this happen. There were brief descriptions of what some of these shirts looked like in the past but nothing detailed.

Such a undertaking is dependent upon the overall interest and what the shirt logo/art work would look like. It is much easier getting these produced nowadays considering the technology available and competition has lowered the price.

For me, I'm interested in something consisting of a little better quality to last longer than your run of the mill t-shirt. But not so much as to be overly expensive.

I thought about searching for "images" through Google and Yahoo via "Dread Ilk" to see if I could find what the previous shirts looked like. No luck there, except I did come across (Google images) hairy legs at AlphaGame, Paleo Toddler at a interesting site called http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/. But nothing indicative of "Dread Ilk". There were a number of Vox's books and pictures.

What is the Dread Ilk interest in this? I'm interested. I definitely would like to know what past production runs looked like and I'm confident that of the Dread Ilk there will be some worthy suggestions for the art work.

In the meantime I'll check companies that do custom shirts.

I'll also be checking out http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/

What do you all think? What are your thoughts Vox?

Blogger Markku February 10, 2013 4:29 PM  

My first impression is that the concept sounds too communal. We are the Dread Ilk because we happen to read and comment here regularly for the time being. But it is almost accidental, it isn't part of our identity.

OpenID mevennen February 10, 2013 4:32 PM  

> I'm not concerned about the fate of the SWPL, but the problem is that it won't take too many daughters of liberals getting eaten by their poor rescue pets before there will be renewed calls for banning the breed.


Come now! Let's not get histrionic. Liberal feminist here. Scene: my living room. The kitten is currently beating up the Rottweiler. So far today, the savage beast has been menaced by several middle aged women, a small child, and the cat. Smaller dogs are generally much more aggressive.

Rotties are soppy great trollops when not raised by drug dealers who think it makes them look hard, and even then, when rescued, if they do try it on, a kick in the head or, if really problematic, a fist punched straight down their throats so that they gag will sort them out. After that, they'll be fine. Great dogs.

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 4:39 PM  

My first impression is that the concept sounds too communal. We are the Dread Ilk because we happen to read and comment here regularly for the time being. But it is almost accidental, it isn't part of our identity.

Yeah plus it sounds gay.

Anonymous realmatt February 10, 2013 4:39 PM  

That last one was me

Blogger David of One February 10, 2013 4:44 PM  

So the Dread Ilk of the recent past were gay when a few shirts were produced then?

I should have heeded Nate's comment at 1:05 PM.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 4:47 PM  

There never were Dread Ilk t-shirts

Anonymous DonReynolds February 10, 2013 4:51 PM  

mevennen....I do recall one time when a burglar was moving through a house he had just broken into. He was picking up random items of interest and putting them in a cloth bag on his belt, when he kept hearing a voice in the back room. He followed the talking only to find a parrot perched in the middle of the room. The parrot kept saying..."Jesus is watching you. Jesus is watching you."

Only slightly annoyed, the burglar mocked the parrot. He asked the parrot..."Who are you?"

Surprisingly, the parrot seemed to understand the question and answered him....."Moses"

By now the burglar is getting really annoyed. So he says to the parrot....."What kind of idot would name a parrot, Moses?"

And the parrot answered....

"The same idiot that named a Rottweiler, Jesus."

Anonymous Porky? February 10, 2013 5:09 PM  

♫ "The Poodle Bites...(Come on Frenchy...)" ♫

Blogger foxmarks February 10, 2013 5:11 PM  

Everyone is garbage. Self reliant garbage is just less horrible.

Wherever you live, finding worthwhile people is like dumpster diving.

Okay, all of you arguing for bans on scary dogs, turn in your patriot cards right now.

I do not recognize the authority of the Patriot Card Collection Bureau. I may, however, just burn my patriot card myself. If I could, I would tape it over the sensor pack on a drone.

Anonymous Beau February 10, 2013 5:35 PM  

Wherever you live, finding worthwhile people is like dumpster diving.

Today at church we welcomed two new converts. We met her on Friday - looking for help. She brought him today. Both were beaming and excited to begin learning about their new life in Christ.

But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ 2 Peter 3:18a

Anonymous farmer Tom February 10, 2013 6:00 PM  

Amen Beau,

foxmarks,

I'm sorry that you have that opinion about most people.

I know lots of people who are unlike anything you just described. Beau for one.

And the biggest constant in finding those kinds of people is a deeply committed faith in Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Not plastic churchians who claim the name of Christ and live like the world the rest of the time.

Anonymous kh123 February 10, 2013 6:02 PM  

"If there gets to be a huge problem with bears and chimpanzees running loose, just think of it as an all-expenses-paid safari."

Coliseum; mandatory that owner brings animal to one match per year; weight and species scale with bets placed; sometimes a switch-up to make it more interesting - horde of chimps vs pack of pitbulls, crocs vs Various from Seaworld in brewing vats (donated by Anheuser-Busch). Tad vs Spidermonkey in sewn-up canvas bag; etc. All replaying some major battle from the Peloponnesian War.

It's panem et circenses already; might as well go all the way on a Pokemon ticket.

Blogger David of One February 10, 2013 6:08 PM  

It appears you may be correct Josh ...

Though Vidad, CunningDove, Tank, Remo, Nate and a couple of others spoke of this briefly.

I suppose I missed Nate's subsequent post on "Mailvox: the charity war". I see where he later thought it was a bloggerblaster shirt.

Anonymous kh123 February 10, 2013 6:17 PM  

"Everyone is garbage. Self reliant garbage is just less horrible."

I hear Hallmark has openings in their advertising department.

Blogger Hector February 10, 2013 6:25 PM  

It most definitely is a fad. Girls at work decorate their cubes with pictures of their pitbulls in all kinds of cute getup. Pink ribbons and bows and stuff.

Anonymous Big bill February 10, 2013 6:30 PM  

Oz: "Basically the same rhetoric that pitbulls are being subjected to today."

Son, dogs are not "subjected" to "rhetoric". They are dogs. Only SWPLs think they are poor, misunderstood and victimized (i.e. "oppressed"). Dog's don't have a self-image. They don't read the paper. They don't watch the news.

Anonymous Lulabelle February 10, 2013 6:32 PM  

David of One......I do not remember any t-shirts. I do remember some discussion (briefly) about perhaps having some made. I've been reading here 7 years - not as long as a few folks - but I think I would remember it. Unless of course, the discussion about shirts having actually been produced was in a football thread. Those I do not read.

Anonymous Desiderius February 10, 2013 6:34 PM  

Gammas pedestalize SWPL chicks.

SWPL chicks pedestalize jerks, animal or human.

Remarkably similar dynamic.

No Jerk Left Behind.

Anonymous Stillicho February 10, 2013 6:36 PM  

I wonder if any of the swpl crowd has realized that owning a pit bull ironically still means that you have to clean up dog crap.

Anonymous fnn February 10, 2013 6:37 PM  

Nicaraguan burglar killed by Rottweiler:


Nicaragua Asks For Full Investigation Into Dog Attack

Anonymous whorefinder February 10, 2013 6:39 PM  

Minor quibbles: The writer of Chateau Heartiste hasn't used the name "Roissy" in a long time. He gave it up shortly around when Obama got elected for "Citizen Renegade", later moving onto "Heartiste."

Also, we do not know if the original Roissy is still writing. While it was once only him (as his about page argued), he has now stated in posts that there is more than one writer. He has changed his name twice now, so he may be a different owner altogether.

However, the blog has suffered little in quality drop, despite these changes, real or hypothesized.

Anonymous fnn February 10, 2013 6:56 PM  

Eh, Pit bulls are pretty dangerous. They are bred to be aggressive towards other animals and they have a different style of attack, where they bite and do not let go. That makes it much more difficult to get them off somebody.

The attack style is derived from the fact that they were originally developed to be "catch dogs."

Here:

(...)
"The breeds that have become the APBT and Am Staff were originally what is called a "Catch dog." Catch dogs were used by farmers, butchers and hunters to grab and hold cattle or hogs or larger game like wild boar and bear. Eventually, people began to brag about the way their dogs could work and started holding events such as bull and bear baiting."
(...)

They're still commonly used as catch dogs in wild hog hunting.

Anonymous Anonagain February 10, 2013 7:06 PM  

Are pet drones illegal? I'd name mine Smaugy and he'd do all kinds of neat tricks. He'd also be a great watch drone - guarding the house all night, easily taking out all intruders with his precision point lethal laser beam. Smaug would make pit bulls look like fuzzy wuzzy hippity-hoppity bunnies.

Anonymous TGR White February 10, 2013 7:19 PM  

Rescued Pitbulls are the canine equivalent of ex con black thugs and we all know how they wet the panties of SWPL chicks (and effiminate males)...

Blogger David of One February 10, 2013 7:28 PM  

Lullabelle,

It was a topic very briefly spoken of in the post called "Mailvoc: the charity war" a couple of days ago.

Thank you though ... just some silliness on my part.

Even though I could make some for myself using:

One Option

or maybe:

Another Option

or maybe something else altogether.

Anonymous whtbread February 10, 2013 7:36 PM  

I have spent my entire life around American Pit Bull Terriers and other medium and large sized "aggressive" dogs. The APBT is the breed I have had the least problems with. There is so much media demonization of the breed that one doesn't know where to begin in dispelling it all. I can't tell you how many times APBT's get blamed for attacks that were done by mutts or an entirely different breed altogether. The problem is that the general public sees a short haired, stocky dog with a large muzzle and automatically assumes it's a Pit. Their are a lot of breeds that look somewhat similar to APBTs ( American Bully, American Bulldog, Dogo, Cane Corso, Presa Canario, Dogue de Bordeaux, etc.)

For the record training a dog to get into fighting shape has absolutely nothing to do with said dog behaving aggressively toward humans. Secondly, you cannot train a dog to fight another dog. Dogs(typically males) fight other dogs because they want to fight. It is idiotic to say that one can train a dog to fight another dog. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Thirdly, APBTs have had most of their "game" blood bred out of them over the last forty years as dog fighting is illegal in all states. Again, if a game dog showed any aggression towards people it would have been quickly put down and no people aggressive dogs were tolerated or allowed to breed. Game dogs are still being bred today but the fighting scene is deeply underground and mostly a part of "vibrant" america.

OpenID mts1 February 10, 2013 7:43 PM  

In my parents' time, the German Shepherd was the dangerous breed. Since every third urbanite wanted one chained in the back yard, they were allegedly badly inbred from overbreeding from small parent groups, and this supposedly caused the production of tripwire moody Sheps. Then they lost popularity and you hear no more of the danger to society the Shep is.

When I was little, the Doberman Pinscher was the devil breed, same danger as was the Shep and is the Pit. Horror stories abound, until they lost their popularity, and you stopped hearing what unholy terrors they were.

As a young adult it was the Rottweiller, the first breed I've heard of whose jaws had a patented Kung Fu Grip. Again, a devil breed only good for killing and maiming. Then people moved on to the Pit and Rotts and their evil intentions were forgotten.

Now it's the Staffordshire Terrier. In ten years this will also be forgotten, and new Breed X will be the new Nightmare on Elm Street.

SWPLs get in trouble when they expect these dogs to be little people, and not dogs. I can love my pet and it can express what we call love back, but I refrain from going the extra step of calling it my fur-baby, or other insane crap like that. I can be good to it and non-abusive while it still knowing I am the boss. The Dog Whisperer makes it work.

The woman in France who had the world's first face transplant? When she was in a coma at home, her fur-baby decided it was dinner time and ate her face off. Was it a Pit? No, a black lab, everybody's buddy. A baby was left alone in a stroller, and the dog smelled the poo in the diaper and ate it, along with the baby's genitals. A Rott? No, a Dachschund. A fricking weiner dog.

When I'm ready for another dog, I'm set on a canary dog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Dog

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 7:59 PM  

Ryan
The fact that you apparently unaquainted the literally insane animals these women carry around has nothing to do with my powers of observation.

They don't do the damage when they bite that pit bull does... but they are a million times more like to bite.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 8:01 PM  

And again...

Seeing so many of you toe the bullshit statist line.. and resort to government power to force your particular insecurities on others is entirely revolting.

You should all be ashamed.

You're no different than the idiot republican out to ban drugs... or booze... or porn... or the moron liberal out to ban guns... or large carbonated beverages.

A pox on you.

Blogger David of One February 10, 2013 8:04 PM  

mts1,

This is my experience as well.

1960's - German Shepard
1970's - Doberman Pinscher
1980's - Chow
1990's (?) through now - Pit Bull

Throughout my life I have been bit by small little yappy high-strung dogs ... only once by a medium sized dog on the thigh while riding a bike on the street. Oh, and one potbelly pig.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 8:34 PM  

"When I'm ready for another dog, I'm set on a canary dog: "

Dogo.

Get a Dogo.

Anonymous Cheddarman February 10, 2013 8:42 PM  

I don't have a dog in this fight, but if i did, I would want one that was like Nate.

sincerely

cheddarman

Anonymous Sojourner February 10, 2013 8:44 PM  

Ilk complaining about dogs? Stupid. Seriously there are some damn ignorant statements being thrown around here. Talking about a pitbull being a special breed that deserves to be banned is the same damn thing as asking for an AR 15 to be banned because it's an assault weapon and in a different class of destruction.

All dogs can be dangerous, period. Pitbulls, when not touched by those who seek to make them aggressive, are the most docile freaking things ever. They're not too bright but they are certainly friendly, more friendly than any other breed of dog I've come across (man father trained dogs for a living back in the 70's and 80's so I've been exposed to all kinds.)

I'm with Nate, I don't know if everyone just wants to echo Vox around here but you might want to think through some things before blindly agreeing.

Banning dangerous breeds? Just goes to show most people will run to government the moment they're feeling inconvenienced.

Anonymous realmatt February 10, 2013 9:22 PM  

They don't do the damage when they bite that pit bull does... but they are a million times more like to bite.

A lot like their owners..

Anonymous Anonymous February 10, 2013 9:55 PM  

A passing observation to the guy with a neighbor dog threatening his daughters, the sponge sounds like a good idea, but may be traceable back to you somehow. On the other hand, a dozen Ibuprofen pushed into a raw meat ball and thrown over the fence? Ibuprofen is deadly to canines; they incur instant perforated ulcers in the stomach and bleed out, and the kidneys shut down, They die a quick and messy death and therefore more humane (why make a dog suffer days of a blocked intestine for simply being a stupid dog when it can pass out and go to sleep from blood loss?) while ruining the carpet of the negligent neighbor.

I make the above comment for entertainment/informational purposes only, and in no way advocate or recommend its use...

Anonymous Koanic February 10, 2013 10:01 PM  

Moldbug is TT and there are therefore some Melons and MT's who are not going to like him, because he's too gentle, mild, conceptual and realist. But for the fetishists of Rothbard to criticize Moldbug is absurd; Moldbug far surpasses the idealistic libertarian ideology. He is older, sounder, and more expansive than any political theorist to date. Nor am I a midwit, since I qualify for Triple 9.

Re banning animals, I see no reason why cities shouldn't do so. Pit bulls, tigers, killer bees, gunfire discharges are not things one wants inside city limits, except in special areas such as zoos and shooting ranges. The Memphis ban was perfectly reasonable, and they should've banned certain species of humans as well. Even more reasonably, they should've instituted different sets of rules for prole and middle classes and the rich.

If you want unlimited property rights, live in the country. There would still be some necessary infringements like right of ways, but far less. Whether as custom or law, I care not.

If preferring the Victorian sociolegal order is being a "bitch statist", then its opposite must be "libertarded idealist". Go to the depopulated frontier if you want that.

"a) Either you agree to suffer the exact same consequences as the victim (life for life) and then you can have the animal"

That is not an appropriate solution for those with too little foresight and self control (proles) to be deterred. See e.g. drunk driving.

The issue here is not the right of private ownership, but the sovereignty of a city over its land.

Anonymous daddynichol February 10, 2013 10:13 PM  

The chick from Big Bang Theory is a pit bull rescue babe.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 10:33 PM  

The issue here is not the right of private ownership, but the sovereignty of a city over its land.

You twit, the issue is private property. Your "sovereignty of a city" is in direct opposition to the sovereignty of an individual property owner in his own property.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 10:47 PM  

"He is older, sounder, and more expansive than any political theorist to date. Nor am I a midwit, since I qualify for Triple 9."

Triple 9... and yet you still can't tell the difference between a subset and a set... and... you show a penchant for solipsism as well.

Lovely. We're all very impressed.

Anonymous Koanic February 10, 2013 10:55 PM  

If I couldn't tell the difference between a subset and a set, I would've argued that my IQ disproves your observation, which I did not. Thus it is you, not I, who lacks reading comprehension.

The absolutization of private property is stupid and unworkable, unless the owner has sufficient military power to enforce sovereignty over his property, in which case it is a country, not private property.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 10:59 PM  

"If I couldn't tell the difference between a subset and a set, I would've argued that my IQ disproves your observation, which I did not. "

That is exactly what you did... and called on it... you now back away.

Not only do you suffer from solipsism... but clearly cowardice and a lack on intellectual integrity as well.

What else shall we add? Given your praise of the moron in question we can certainly throw in a blissful ignorance of economics... and near complete misunderstanding of basic government.

Do continue. I would hate for you to stop punching yourself in the face.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 11:14 PM  

The absolutization of private property is stupid and unworkable, unless the owner has sufficient military power to enforce sovereignty over his property, in which case it is a country, not private property.

Private property is the fundamental concept of common law and western civilization.

Anonymous Koanic February 10, 2013 11:15 PM  

"Nor am I a midwit, since I qualify for Triple 9."

is what I said. Nowhere does it say that your observation is wrong. You can play the stupid alpha game all you want, but if you don't have the intellectual case to back it up, I have zero respect for it.

Anonymous Koanic February 10, 2013 11:16 PM  

"Private property is the fundamental concept of common law and western civilization."

Absolute private property is not. Derp.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 11:20 PM  

What you're trying to redefine as "absolute private property" is in fact the long held principle of private property.

But, let's continue down this rabbit hole.

1) how do you define "private property?"

2) how do you define "absolute private property?"

Anonymous Koanic February 10, 2013 11:33 PM  

No, I'm not.

Absolute private property is sovereignty. For example, if I buy a ring of property around a city, and then shoot anyone who comes in or out for trespassing, I can starve the city. This is sovereignty, aka absolute private property.

Private property is non-sovereign ownership within a country.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 11:41 PM  

"For example, if I buy a ring of property around a city, and then shoot anyone who comes in or out for trespassing, I can starve the city. "

Yes. You can.

And?

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 11:41 PM  

It should be pointed out that this concept actually goes on in New York City where corporations own bridges and tunnels. You pay the toll... or you're screwed.

Sorry.

Blogger Nate February 10, 2013 11:43 PM  

There is no alpha game. The game is... you punching yourself in the face while apparently boasting about it.

Its a pretty impressive spectacle.

Anonymous Josh February 10, 2013 11:47 PM  

Absolute private property is sovereignty. For example, if I buy a ring of property around a city, and then shoot anyone who comes in or out for trespassing, I can starve the city. This is sovereignty, aka absolute private property.

Private property is non-sovereign ownership within a country.


Like Team Calvin, you have a poor understanding of sovereignty.

Anonymous Scintan February 10, 2013 11:48 PM  

"When I'm ready for another dog, I'm set on a canary dog: "

Dogo.

Get a Dogo.


Why screw around with the little dogs? Get a mastiff. Call it a good day.

Anonymous Koanic February 11, 2013 12:01 AM  

"Yes. You can."

Then name the society where my example was allowed.

Toll road owners do not shoot you for trespassing, nor do they charge emergency vehicles responding to an emergency, nor do they charge pedestrians, nor can they build without government approval, etc.

Or give up now, and avoid further embarrassment.

Anonymous Anonymous February 11, 2013 12:37 AM  

The underlying problem here is anthropomorphism. Urban SWPL's are so seperated from the nitty gritty animal world that they refuse to see there fury children for what they are. I used to have a horse that I boarded at a large stable. The wealthy owners, mostly divorced women, would pay extra to house their horses in individual stalls inside a heated barn. The horses might get 1 hour of excirsise a day if that but at least the poor things didn't have to be outside in a field during Nebraska winter. Nevermind horses are native to the Asian steps and the confinement and isolation of a stall drives them nuts over time. The pitbull fad is the same thing. If the owners allowed themsleves to see the dog's nature for what it is and took the appropriate caution then there would not be such a danger. I just can't get over the kind of ignorance a person has to have about animals in order to insist their pet has the same kinds feelings they do.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 11, 2013 1:12 AM  

Ban dogs based on breed?

Seriously? The government cannot even solve the problem on druglords and now they want to create doglords?

Anonymous realmatt February 11, 2013 1:36 AM  

It should be pointed out that this concept actually goes on in New York City where corporations own bridges and tunnels. You pay the toll... or you're screwed.

Don't remind me..

Though, for those who don't know and might care for some reason, not every bridge has a toll and some you can walk over.

And the Staten Island Ferry is free in both directions. And also the train, for some reason, except for the last 2 stops closest to the Ferry.

I live in a very strange place.

Toll road owners do not shoot you for trespassing, nor do they charge emergency vehicles responding to an emergency, nor do they charge pedestrians, nor can they build without government approval, etc.


People would get fed up and kill the owner(s).

The only power you have is that which other people cede to you. And when I say 'cede' I mean they aren't killing you for what ever reasons.

It's good to keep in mind that you're always 1 moment from being killed by someone for some reason you may not ever understand.

ANd if you fought and won, it's only a matter of time until you're killed. So if you have 'power', get ready to be killed. And if you don't have it, be ready to be killed.

Be ready to be killed at all times. And remember that this world and it's laws and rights are all a farce. Only blood matters and only blood is real. The blood that binds man and woman and child together, and the blood that flows within and pours from within.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 11, 2013 1:43 AM  

Toll road owners do not ...

CAN and DO, Koanic. CAN and DO.

The one is not the same as the other.

Anonymous Koanic February 11, 2013 2:16 AM  

Neither are pointed and pointless.

1 – 200 of 250 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts