ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

"Men have gone berserk"

Who could have possibly seen the likelihood of young men going berserk in a society where sex ratios are increasingly out of whack?
Ranjana Kumari of the Centre for Social Research think tank said there had been 127 rape cases registered in Delhi alone since the fatal December assault on the student.

"It is absolutely shocking and speaks volumes on how Indian society is treating women. The men have gone totally berserk. We're feeling frustrated and in despair. What must we do to change their mentality? Women are becoming more vulnerable," she said.

Women were being attacked even when they were with their husbands or male friends - and foreigners, previously regarded as less at risk, are also being targeted.... This latest gang rape is one of dozens reported in the Indian press since the December rape and murder shocked the nation and plunged it into a period of national soul searching.

It came just days after the Indian cabinet supported a new law to impose tougher sentences for rape and sexual assault, including the death penalty for cases where the victim dies or is left in a persistent vegetative state. 
Note that the problem in India is actually getting considerably worse despite the advance of sexual equality in Indian society that the feminists believe will solve everything.  As we've learned to expect, feminism wreaks societal devastation even in the process of supposedly offering a means of improvement.  In this case, it is the pro-abortion position that is leading to more rapes in India.

"According to the decennial Indian census, the sex ratio in the 0-6 age group in India went from 104.0 males per 100 females in 1981, to 105.8 in 1991, to 107.8 in 2001, to 109.4 in 2011. The ratio is significantly higher in certain states such as Punjab and Haryana (126.1 and 122.0, as of 2001)."

Anyone with more than half a brain has been expecting serious problems out of China and India since Western technology gave them abortion and the means of prenatal sex identification.  The world is quite fortunate that India's excess male population appears to be inclined to occupy itself in pursuit of gang rape, considering that the more customary outlet is foreign invasion.

Of course, John Scalzi doesn't rape due to sex ratios, John Scalzi rapes women, because, as he explains: "I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have."

Labels: , ,

135 Comments:

Anonymous dh March 19, 2013 10:06 AM  

considering that the more customary outlet is foreign invasion.

(Followed by exotic gang rape)

Anonymous Daniel March 19, 2013 10:12 AM  

And the man in the back is ready to crack
As he raises his hands to the sky
And the girl in the corner is everyone's mourner
She could kill you with a wink of her eye

Anonymous The other skeptic March 19, 2013 10:14 AM  

Don't worry, Rand Paul is willing to help them.

What a sellout.

Blogger JD Curtis March 19, 2013 10:15 AM  

I wonder if this uptick in reported rapes is simply reporting something that has been going on for years and only recently are accurate statistics being kept?

Anonymous Roundtine March 19, 2013 10:19 AM  

Chinese play video games.

Anonymous Will Best March 19, 2013 10:19 AM  

Is that really fortunate? It seems like you have a few countries in the area with excessive male populations. They could just sort it out amongst themselves and without the cheap labor competition the western world could solve their own economic problems by actually producing their own stuff for a change.

Anonymous The other skeptic March 19, 2013 10:20 AM  

considering that the more customary outlet is foreign invasion

I suspect that China will seek to re-acquire territory it lost, perhaps going back as far as 1,000 years.

Anonymous JartStar March 19, 2013 10:22 AM  

The smart baby killers know that if they concede ground to stop sex selective abortions they have zero arguments left besides "I want to murder my unborn child strictly out of convenience". It's not a child but it has gender? Good luck selling that pro-abortion argument.

Anonymous Roundtine March 19, 2013 10:23 AM  

This story is also a lesson in Western stupidity. Westerners going abroad assuming "we're all the same" and putting themselves in risky situations. Also within the US and EU, when traveling to the wrong neighborhoods.

Anonymous Wild Oscar March 19, 2013 10:26 AM  

Cue gay movies coming out of Bollywood in 3..2..1...

Anonymous Roundtine March 19, 2013 10:29 AM  

Chinese are more behaved when in small groups, but their was a water festival last year that was a sausage fest and the crowd started groping and tearing the clothes off women. If you look at the pics, the ratio is about 50 guys to 1 girl.

Women sexually harassed and stripped of clothes by crowds in Water Splashing Festival

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein March 19, 2013 10:31 AM  


And the man in the back is ready to crack
As he raises his hands to the sky
And the girl in the corner is everyone's mourner
She could kill you with a wink of her eye


SWEET.

Anonymous Alexander March 19, 2013 10:39 AM  

So... a society that actively kills off its female offspring is expressing shock and outrage that members of this society don't respect women and act violently towards them.

On the other hand, burning your widows isn't exactly feminist-friendly behavior either. Maybe it's just one of those cultural oddities that we need to embrace as 'different'.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 19, 2013 10:47 AM  

"Sex ratios alter drastically in India; women hit hardest."

Anonymous Randy M March 19, 2013 10:48 AM  

"Anyone with more than half a brain has been expecting serious problems out of China and India since Western technology gave them abortion and the means of prenatal sex identification. "

This reminds me of Charles Murray's recent thesis, that elites in America don't practice the liberalism that they preach, or at least can ameliorate its destructiveness in other ways, specifically regarding social things like divorce, out of wedlock birth, etc.

It seems there are ideas/technologies that Westerners have developed that they can use, not necesarily morally or constructively, but at least non-lethally, that they export to the ruin of third world nations, ie, socialism, abortion, feminism, democracy.

Another arguement against multiculturalism?

Anonymous Toolbox March 19, 2013 10:59 AM  

I guess then war is the short term solution to male population surplus...in one way or another. Either they lose them on the battlefield or conquer and take other another's women?

Anonymous Josh March 19, 2013 11:00 AM  

The smart baby killers know that if they concede ground to stop sex selective abortions they have zero arguments left besides "I want to murder my unborn child strictly out of convenience". It's not a child but it has gender? Good luck selling that pro-abortion argument.

If they ever discover a gay gene, the internecine violence amongst the rabbits will be epic.

Anonymous Josh March 19, 2013 11:03 AM  

Don't worry, Rand Paul is willing to help them.

What a sellout.


There is a significant loophole: the border has to be secure before any further steps.

Also, I believe at one point rand was proposing a complete freeze on immigration in exchange for amnestying current immigrants.

Anonymous dh March 19, 2013 11:05 AM  

Also, I believe at one point rand was proposing a complete freeze on immigration in exchange for amnestying current immigrants.

Ask Reagan's corpse how that worked out for him.


Anonymous Josh March 19, 2013 11:10 AM  

Ask Reagan's corpse how that worked out for him.

I know...

Anonymous Alexander March 19, 2013 11:13 AM  

It should also be obvious to everyone that any time a government stops doing something forever, it's only temporary. Giving your opponent his one-and-done issue in exchange for a promise that he'll never ask for anything like it again is madness.

Cripes, even four year olds know this. It's called the "buy me this and I'll never, never, ever ask for anything ever again."

Blogger Bob Wallace March 19, 2013 11:18 AM  

"I suspect that China will seek to re-acquire territory it lost, perhaps going back as far as 1,000 years."

They'll get their asses beat. The Vietnamese mangled them twice in two border wars and what the Japanese did to them....

Now of course the hysterical and ignorant will claim it's different now, they have America's advanced technology...rising Chinese super-power....blah blah blah.

Blogger James Dixon March 19, 2013 11:18 AM  

> There is a significant loophole:

It's possible that since he knows that will never happen he's playing that angle, yes.

My key takeaway was this line though: "Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport" the millions already here...

To which my response is: Why not?

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 11:22 AM  

In Delhi you practically need a cattle prod to get people to wait in a line, whether fast food or a post office. The idea is simply incomprehensible to them. Outside the fast food joint people aren't waiting in line in, 2 yr. old naked kids are playing with broken glass while their parents are digging trenches 20 ft. away for the 2010 Commonwealth Games. Rape may be against the law but it is doubtful it is considered wrong by many men there. In fact, when I was in India, I was stunned by how many things there were completely normal that would be completely against the law in America, including camels going the wrong way on a freeway.

Anonymous E. PERLINE March 19, 2013 11:24 AM  

I know from experience that daughters are more helpful when they become adults. They are more involved with the family while sons are busy elsewhere.
In other words, it's a much better deal for parents to have daughters. But this realization occurs later in life.

China and India can't seem to realize it. Never mind the publicized notions of their superiority in mathematics. Look at the state of their civilizations.



Anonymous Lemmekainen March 19, 2013 11:25 AM  

> If they ever discover a gay gene, the internecine violence amongst the rabbits will be epic.

Among identical twins the odds of both twins being homosexual is about 20%, so I'm pretty certain it's not a gene, except possibly in the sense that there's a genetic susceptibility to some sort of environmental cause, such as a viral infection. If that's correct when said cause is identified and can be vaccinated against, then the shitstorm will be epic.

Blogger Doom March 19, 2013 11:51 AM  

I have written here and elsewhere a dozen times or more that...

The only way for China and India to survive the sex ratios is for a massive land war in the near future. It hasn't happened yet because the numbers aren't quite yet overwhelming the governments. Yes, a few rapes and murders... nothing much to really look at. But at some time they will have no choice. It is also why muslims are like locusts. Though they don't murder baby girls, they do exempt large portions of the male population from having wives, or sex, save with animals and rape conquests because the rich and powerful get all the women.

Oh, the choice isn't foreign invasion. Without management such a misalignment will easily and quickly turn into a complete sociopolitical upheaval. And I would place money on feral men, to be honest. Further, an attempt at a massive useless land war, solely for the purposes of genocidal attrition? I wouldn't count on it. Not that they won't try it, it is just that when you train and arm men, solely for the purpose of killing lots of them, you... take a calculated, and very probably losing, bet. Kicking the can, at best. Look how well that works out economically.

I see China, much like the Titanic, is trying to avoid what it missed in it's hubris. My guess is China will be as absolutely successful as Captain Smith, by the way. This is going to hurt. You live in Europe, or America, so it's just a game? Even if we didn't have our own problems, I promise that problems in India and China will reach out and burn all of us, in time.

All good. Look, we played our part, fiddled, and made our pieces of silver. The cost had to come due someday. God forgives, if we remember to ask, but He doesn't necessarily pay the temporal dues.

Anonymous VryeDenker March 19, 2013 12:01 PM  

I guess then war is the short term solution to male population surplus...in one way or another. Either they lose them on the battlefield or conquer and take other another's women?

I suspect war is a mechanism by which the number of "alpha" males get reduced to required levels. Roissy made a a comment along the lines of a society with too many alpha's not being a very nice one to live in, but too few on the other hand leaves society open to all sorts of retarded shit.

Anonymous Josh March 19, 2013 12:02 PM  

Maybe China and India will fight each other.

Anonymous VryeDenker March 19, 2013 12:06 PM  

Maybe China and India will fight each other.

I believe Pakistan has been chosen as India's opponent. China is being a little bitch toward Japan. North and South Korea, etc.

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 12:08 PM  

Given the realities of nuke war, I don't see China and India ever going to war beyond a few border disputes.

In fact groups like the Saudi Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood know full well the greatest modern and useable weapon available to them are not useless armies they don't have anyway, but immigration.

Countries with actual armies can't really fight other countries unless they are without nukes. Any country capable of challenging the U.S. in any real manner probably already has nukes. That's why America's military is little more than a police force and why they build schools and bridges.

While we're doing that, we're being invaded from within by illegal immigration. The majority of them are not really politicized but once they get here they are ethnically radicalized by the Dem Party, La Raza and the NAACP and so in fact do become a weapon, a weapon against America's entire history and traditions.

Once America's military is tech diluted by immigration and spending defense money on entitlements like the UK has done, China will have a free hand to move South into the Pacific against any nation without nukes. We will not engage in a nuclear war to dislodge Chinese from Indonesia or the Philippines. I give it 100 years before empire and slavery make a stunning comeback.

This is the gift of politically correct liberalism to the world. SF writer's used to consider it their job to write against such things. Now they're more concerned with zombies and tribbles and the color and gender of the writer. Those who once warned are those who will destroy.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis March 19, 2013 12:30 PM  

"China is being a little bitch toward Japan. North and South Korea, etc."

China would lose a confrontation with Japan currently. They don't have the ability, yet, to transport large enough troops to fight on the Japanese islands. And even ignoring American naval dominence, Japan has one of the strongest navies in the world. It often goes unnoticed due to the official proclamations of pacifism by the Japanese government. But make no mistake, Japan has been very quietly building a very capable navy over the last few decades and their coast guard is considered one of the best in the world.

My money is on doing what China has historically done, turn in on itself. The last two times involved the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and then the Nationalist Regime.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 19, 2013 12:39 PM  

Maybe China and India will fight each other.

Orson Scott Card to the white courtesy phone please...

But my money would be on India.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza March 19, 2013 12:40 PM  

I've been following the India 'phenomenon' along with a local rape case and drew the similar conclusions. The only difference between the 3 cultures is that multi culti isn't welcomed in Asia or India for a damn good reason....

F'ism is the cause and reaction to wrong headed, insane and suicidal to any nation. The issue of sex selection and abortion are obviously destructive and beyond ruinous - this deadly but failed worldview is ten times worse than any bio wep or zombie outbreak or banker take over.

What is worse financial rape or watching futures/lives BE wrecked with what I call false accusations in response to a worldview that is unlivable? I'm not saying that rape has not taken place, that is not my place, my observations regard the societal implications of a fallen, sick, evil world that has embraced the wrong ideas and will suffer for it.

Anonymous geoff March 19, 2013 1:26 PM  

@james may

spending defense budget on entitlements? ya...one of biggest shocks of my youth was reading how quickly the brits cast aside churchill and defense spending *immediately* after ww2 iot spend on socialist health care system. great effing idea

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 1:27 PM  

China will not directly confront Japan or India, even if the Pax Americana is removed - nukes. Like 7th century Islam, China would move into power vacuums, straight south. That would be the near entirety of the former Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

This is a simple theory: immigration dilutes and diminishes America's tech and economy - America can no longer extend itself militarily into global scenarios. The Pax Americana ends. Fait accompli's by way of non-intervention pacts are shoved in our faces by whatever countries decide to once again embark on empire-building. Nigeria, Iran, Russia, Brazil, China - take your pick.

This is why raced-based liberalism is a suicide cult - they determine success and failure by race. What I describe has happened many times in the past. It will happen again. The one new wrench in the monkey is political correctness. New ideology, but in the end, same failure. People have no idea of the extent to which the Pax Americana has stabilized the world. Look at the world before WW II.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 19, 2013 1:46 PM  

So, here we have the ultimate response to the feminists having fainting spells over Vox saying feminist policies were worse for women than rape. Those polices eventually lead to rape anyway.

I'm beginning to think MAPI might be an insult to idiots.

Anonymous Athor Pel March 19, 2013 2:04 PM  

Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Anonymous Asher March 19, 2013 2:24 PM  

I dont see a problem. Societies have always had a tidy solution to excess males: slavery. I expect slavery to make a comeback.

As you have sown so shall you reap.

Anonymous 11B March 19, 2013 2:25 PM  

Fait accompli's by way of non-intervention pacts are shoved in our faces by whatever countries decide to once again embark on empire-building. Nigeria, Iran, Russia, Brazil, China - take your pick.

Nigeria doesn't have the demographics to do much. They pose more of a threat to the West from the excess population that they will try to unload. Iran is not a threat. Half their population is non-Persian and their birth rates are dropping. Russia has got to undo 70 plus years of Bolshevism that is still wreaking havoc on their birth rates. Brazil is what the USA is becoming. In other words if the the multiculti USA will be unable to project power, then Brazil is already there. China is the only one that would appear to have the brains and money to do something. But even they have problems.

Anonymous Asher March 19, 2013 2:31 PM  

@ JartStar

Of course abortion is about killing out of convenience. Th logical conclusion conclusion though is to wonder why only individual womenget to kill out of convenience but the rest of us dont get that lixury.

A simple solution to homelessness presents itself.

Also, that there is any particular "gay" gene is preposterous. Whatever genetic inputs to homosexuality there may be are certainly spread over hundreds of genes.

Anonymous Razoraid March 19, 2013 2:33 PM  

Meanwhile, Americas' vibrant youfs are ganging up on and raping high school boys. Of course you'll never hear about this story in the mainstream media. Shocker, I know.

Anonymous Razoraid March 19, 2013 2:34 PM  

Ooops. Here's the link. Sorry about that.

http://www.wmctv.com/story/21676328/three-students-charged-with-rape-of-special-needs-student-at-west-memphis-high

Anonymous Josh March 19, 2013 2:42 PM  

A simple solution to homelessness presents itself.

How compassionate of you.

You've said before you're an atheist, correct?

Anonymous Anonymous Man March 19, 2013 2:57 PM  

The rapes have nothing to do with sex ratios, feminism or abortion. They have everything to do with male psychopaths who, hopefully, will all be found, locked up and the key lost.

Anonymous Daniel March 19, 2013 3:00 PM  

Like Scalzi.

Anonymous Alexander March 19, 2013 3:01 PM  

Indeed. If anything, we need MORE feminism to counteract this totally coincidental rape culture forming from a completely random increase in male psychopaths.

Blogger ajw308 March 19, 2013 3:03 PM  

Huh, Asher talks about genes meanwhile Razoraid shows what looks like a cultural phenomenon...

Anonymous Anonymous Man March 19, 2013 3:04 PM  

It's no surprise that most commenting on this site, including the author of the post, has no time to actually condemn the rape, but rather find a completely unconnected scapegoat that satisfies some sort of ideological perspective and likely adheres to rather sick fantasies. It would not be surprising to learn the that in addition they are supportive of the rape gangs.

Anonymous bw March 19, 2013 3:16 PM  

Rabbits hate Math. And Nature.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter March 19, 2013 3:20 PM  

It's no surprise that most commenting on this site, including the author of the post, has no time to actually condemn the rape, but rather find a completely unconnected scapegoat that satisfies some sort of ideological perspective and likely adheres to rather sick fantasies.

So, if we all condemn the rapes, they will stop?

What a simple solution. I wonder why no one has thought of it before?

Anonymous Red Comet March 19, 2013 3:24 PM  

I've also seen it put out there that ghetto violence is in part due to thugs having to outfight each other for the few ghetto broads that aren't land whales.

Anonymous Unending Improvement March 19, 2013 3:36 PM  

"It's no surprise that most commenting on this site, including the author of the post, has no time to actually condemn the rape, but rather find a completely unconnected scapegoat that satisfies some sort of ideological perspective and likely adheres to rather sick fantasies. It would not be surprising to learn the that in addition they are supportive of the rape gangs."

Yes, you got me.

I think it is every man's right to rape as many women as he pleases. I think the patriarchy calls that consensual sex, no?

Blogger The Observer March 19, 2013 3:40 PM  

Remember:

"The Rabbit People have three weapons and three weapons only. The first is to demand submission to their terms by virtue of the sensitivity imperative. If their interlocutor is unwilling to do that, they quickly move to the name-calling and the inevitable psychological analyses, again in the hopes of the interlocutor's submission. (This, by the way, is where most people crumble and permit themselves to be sidetracked into defending themselves against the charges that they are a raciss, sexiss, homophobiss rapiss.) Their final weapon is exclusion, which can be seen in the way feminized atheists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, (unlike Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens), shun debate with potentially competent opponents, and in the way gamma bloggers like Scalzi habitually attempt to attack people and arguments without so much as identifying them or even providing links to the arguments they are attacking."

#1. "It's no surprise that most commenting on this site, including the author of the post, has no time to actually condemn the rape,"

#2 "but rather find a completely unconnected scapegoat that satisfies some sort of ideological perspective and likely adheres to rather sick fantasies."

Just as predicted, rabbits gonna rabbit.

So, when're the threats to kick us out the warren going to come?

Anonymous Alexander March 19, 2013 3:46 PM  

This poses a problem for rabbits though. Presumably when dealing with people who you claim are 'pro-rape', you face a bit of a catch-22 when you threaten not to have sex with them.

Anonymous VD March 19, 2013 3:58 PM  

It's no surprise that most commenting on this site, including the author of the post, has no time to actually condemn the rape

On what grounds do you condemn rape? Seeing that it was a gang rape, obviously utilitarian morality must view it as a positive moral act.

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 4:03 PM  

What I don't get is why anyone would think anyone else needs to publish a disclaimer saying, "by the way, I am against rape." I think we can take it for granted that the only people actually in favor of rape are rapists. Since we have organized a society of laws wherein rape is illegal, one can safely presume, at least for now, the anti-rapists hold sway in America, though it may be tenuous and shaky without the YWCA to constantly remind men it is wrong. I might forget otherwise.

This is the almost unbelievably silly moral high ground politically correct misfits think they occupy. They make statements about things no one is for or against. "Stand Up Against Murder!" "Don't Torture Your Mother To Death!"

Liberals entertain fantasies that people are actually in favor of a return to slavery and Jim Crow and sanction rape. Why stop there? Why not disembowling and devil-worship? No one's ever asked me if I worship the devil - maybe I do. I should maybe release some kind of statement to the effect I do not and therefore pull one more tooth from the diversa-arsenal of the goofball progressive liberal.

Do I need to make authoritative declarations about everything under the sun, enumerating each one? What about pulling the heads off of cute little kitty cats and making sandwiches out of babies? Pro or con?

This reveals the sad and pathological addiction liberals have to persecuting other people in stupid witch hunts while demonstrating they have a paranoid feeling of persecution themselves from vast, shadowy, and formless forces of evil that has basically crystalized into Scalzi and N.K. Jeminsin's bigoted depiction of straight white males, the world's gangsters and holder-downers of unlucky astro-physicists in Haiti.

Anyone who thinks R.E. Howard and Lord Dunsany were trying to prop up white male power systems should have their head examined but this is exactly what Jeminsin says. Evidently she has pored over the texts in scholarly research to satisfy herself even elves are whites and orcs are blacks. But in liberal racist-anti-racist land where they've never seen a minority they didn't like even if they practice obvious hate speech as does Jemisin, they nominate them for Nebula Awards. Can you believe these morons actually invite Jemisin's advise on race? That's like Jews asking for Louis Farrakhan's stamp of approval.

Anonymous JartStar March 19, 2013 4:09 PM  

It's no surprise that most commenting on this site, including the author of the post, has no time to actually condemn the rape,

Can we have one post without Scalzi being condemned?

Anonymous Anonymous March 19, 2013 4:11 PM  

You'd think that as often as James May bitches about N.K. Jemisin he'd know how to spell her name properly.

Nevermind that liberals "entertaining fantasies that people are actually in favor of a return to slavery" only have to listen to things like where a panel member at CPAC said that blacks had it pretty good under slavery.

"Bigot depiction of straight white males". Really?

Anonymous . March 19, 2013 4:12 PM  

India should put up signs everywhere that say "Rape Free Zone" -- that'll fix the problem right there!

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 4:17 PM  

11B, I didn't say they were a threat to the West, quite the opposite. What I said is that if they were given a completely free hand, without any threat of interference from America or Europe, what would they do when push comes to shove and their populations need resources or maybe they simply like naked conquest.

In this context, Nigeria is certainly a threat to other African nations. Almost 200 million and growing at the speed of light.

Look at a map, remember what Japan did, what Germany did. So, without constraint, what does Egypt do? They do what they once did: make Sudan a part of them, take its oil and remove the threat to the Nile's flow.

What does Iran do, and don't be fooled by a falling demo in Iran, that will take a hundred years to start. Iran had two empty seats its parliament for Bahrain until a relatively few years ago. They claim Bahrain, and they would take it, and also Oman and the shi'ite majority oil fields of S. Arabia. Iran also takes the states to their north.

Were it not for America, who owns Kuwait?

I'm talking about the difference in a threat assessment between what they would do and what they can do. Right now no one in the world can really do anything by way of conquest. Does anyone really believe the Middle East wouldn't conquer Europe if they could?

Don't kid yourself - once America is laid low it will be back to a balance of power where countries form alliances to protect themselves. Right now the world's weakest countries have us. But for how long? 10-20% of Mauritania are slaves - and that's WITH us.

Anonymous So delicious March 19, 2013 4:21 PM  

"Meanwhile, Americas' vibrant youfs are ganging up on and raping high school boys. Of course you'll never hear about this story in the mainstream media. Shocker, I know.

Ooops. Here's the link. Sorry about that.

http://www.wmctv.com/story/21676328/three-students-charged-with-rape-of-special-needs-student-at-west-memphis-high"

The irony of him posting a link to the story on a mainstream media source is delicious.

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 4:25 PM  

For someone who's a pedantic moron about typos you suddenly have trouble understanding someone who making a sarcastic point about modern ghettos and someone who's actually in favor of slavery.

Were you by any chance referring to this quote by Michelle Bachmann for which she got such scorn?

"A black child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during slavery. The recent disintegration of the African American family is due in large part to the mass imprisonment of black fathers."

Is that your idea of "pro-slavery?"

Anonymous Apparently sarcasm and idiocy are the same thing March 19, 2013 4:29 PM  

You realize that I said "a panel member at CPAC" right? If I had wanted to reference Michelle Bachmann, it would have been easy to do so?

I do like that you're giving your own examples now though. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Av0NZ1IWfk

Anonymous Anonymous March 19, 2013 4:34 PM  

9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape. It's Democracy for the children.

Anonymous 11B March 19, 2013 4:45 PM  

James May,

This is probably not the place to go into too much detail on the points you bring up. Suffice it to say that I think you know that America is screwed because of demographics, and so on that I believe we agree.

In the end I really don't care what happens in the world if we continue on the present trek of Euro nations being demographically replaced. If a future multi-culti EU or USA is still around and being threaten by China or Iran, I'd have to say I'd root for either of them to wipe out the multicult. The lefties have done everything to destroy the Civilization I love, so I sure as hell won't shed a tear or drop of blood defending theirs.

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 4:49 PM  

So you agree there's nothing wrong with the statement by Bachmann.

I used it because she's actually someone and so is in a position to mainstream idiocy.

If Scalzi wasn't the Prez of the SFWA, I'd mention him much less. He has the power to influence people. So does Um Kay gEminski, as a Nebula nominee.

Some doof nobody standing up who may or may not be a plant is no one to quote or base an argument on. The principle behind each is the same, at least according to you.

Anonymous Logic isn't your strong suit, eh? March 19, 2013 4:55 PM  

Oh, look at you trying to move the goalposts.

You said those people don't exist. It's obvious from that video that they do. It's obvious from the comments on that video and from articles about that video that there are far more than one of them. These are not "fantasies" that Liberals entertain. There are actually people who believe that shit.

There are actually people who believe that white males are currently being oppressed in America. One of them on this forum thinks that John Scalzi is one of the ones oppressing them. :)

Anonymous Josh March 19, 2013 5:07 PM  

You said rape twice.

I like rape.

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 5:11 PM  

Even the liberals hosting the show didn't agree on whether the guy was a plant. And for a restless pedant, you seem to once again suddenly play fast and lose with what I actually said. And even if I did say "no one" in America is in favor of slavery, would that parse itself in a pedant's mind to every last person in America?

You think exception equals rule and that says a lot about how your mind works. I'm sure I can find people who eat dirt and still say no one eats dirt without the pedant parade stomping and jumping on common usage.

And "no one" thinks white men are oppressed in America. That's an idiot's response to someone bringing up a principle and defending it and then saying I'm just an identity freak like Scalzi and jemsmsmdudf are.

I don't defend identity - I defend principle. Turn jemisdfz's words around and they belong in Stormfront and Scalzi's little ditty is the condensed version of anti-Jewish screeds.

You can always tell how much someone believes in what they're saying when they're afraid to even use their own name. That's "afraid" as in A-F-R-A-I-D.

Anonymous Ferd March 19, 2013 5:15 PM  

"This is the gift of politically correct liberalism to the world. SF writer's used to consider it their job to write against such things. Now they're more concerned with zombies and tribbles and the color and gender of the writer. Those who once warned are those who will destroy."

SF writers were the politically incorrect. Their writings were revolutionary, soaring and expansive of mind and soul. How it did it all go to manure pits with the likes of Scalzi and others?

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 5:17 PM  

Mr. Incognito has signaled he's in favor of a return to an antebellum South in his refusal to denounce Bachmann's hateful tirade in favor of a time when blacks lived far better lives. Mr. Incognito: evidently from a family of generations of anti-black, racist anti-Abolitionists who hated John Brown and probably dug up his body and ate it.

From this I assume Mr. Incognito's great granpaw laughed while he bayoneted black soldiers taken prisoner when he rode with N.B. Forrest. How can you justify your position Mr. pro-Bachmann supporter?

Anonymous Jimmy March 19, 2013 5:25 PM  

The US have more women than men. It should be a good thing, but it isn't.

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 5:25 PM  

Well, you have to know you're in a manure pit before you object to it. How does one write the equivalent of an anti-Jewish tract without the least self-awareness or irony?

It's like saying I hate Adolph Hitler for killing Jews but love Crandolf Bitler and the shrews he hated. Is anyone fooled by bigotry just by changing the skin color? Really?

Can't wait for Scalzi's sequel, "Jews: The Easiest Way to Money There Is." Clever racist arguments are always clever racist arguments and without fail. Probably some Siberian dude who's never seen a black guy is wondering what the hell he did and how he can rub the stain away.

Anonymous Razoraid March 19, 2013 5:35 PM  

@so delicious

The irony of him posting a link to the story on a mainstream media source is delicious.

Last time I checked NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and FOX News are mainstream. So many ironies, so little time.

Blogger tz March 19, 2013 6:04 PM  

Women were once considered property, thus valuable and protected by men - fathers then husbands. They have been freed from that.

It may have been suboptimal, however in Christendom women had dignity. This is from natural law. Natural law has been rejected, which leaves what - depending on perspective - is either comic or tragic. Or maybe mere stupidity.

Scratch one bitch.

Blogger tz March 19, 2013 6:17 PM  

The US have more women than men. It should be a good thing, but it isn't. There are many things which outnumber men in the USA, e.g. Trees.

It's no surprise that most commenting on this site, including the author of the post, has no time to actually condemn the rape

[VD:]On what grounds do you condemn rape? Seeing that it was a gang rape, obviously utilitarian morality must view it as a positive moral act.


Ah, that is the difficulty in trying to enter the temple of Themis (justice, sans blindfold). Before you can condemn rape, you must condemn all the antecedent evils which society creates - mainly abortion and feminism - which enable it.

It is easy from both a Christian and Natural Law perspective to condemn Rape, yet on the same basis you must condemn far more loudly and actively the rest of the problems and legal errors.

You cannot laud half the evils yet praise the other half - just because you don't like that they are evil.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell March 19, 2013 6:41 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Anonymous Man March 19, 2013 7:30 PM  

"On what grounds do you condemn rape? Seeing that it was a gang rape, obviously utilitarian morality must view it as a positive moral act."

The obvious threat to anyone who comes in contact with you that is inherent in your celebration of rape is tempered considerably by your dimwitedness, your lack of commonsense and the childish passive-aggressiveness that shows through in your comments.

You should adjust your skirt. Your gamma is showing.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 19, 2013 7:45 PM  

This is why your leftists are so fond of Muslims: they exhibit the appropriate speech patterns. For instance, they never say "Muhammad" without adding "(peace be unto him)" or some such.

This soul, I believe, expects the world will be a better place if the words for things they dread were always followed by "(which is a very bad thing)".

Thus:

It's no surprise that most commenting on this site, including the author of the post, has no time to actually condemn the rape (which is a very bad thing), but rather find a completely unconnected scapegoat (which is a very bad thing) that satisfies some sort of ideological perspective (which is a very bad thing) and likely adheres to rather sick fantasies (which is a very bad thing). It would not be surprising to learn the that in addition they are supportive of the rape gangs (which is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad thing).

Anonymous Anonymous Man March 19, 2013 7:53 PM  

"This soul, I believe, expects the world will be a better place if the words for things they dread were always followed by "(which is a very bad thing)"

This soul knows that the world would be a better place if there were fewer bloggers that celebrated the rape of women.

Anonymous VD March 19, 2013 7:56 PM  

The obvious threat to anyone who comes in contact with you that is inherent in your celebration of rape is tempered considerably by your dimwitedness, your lack of commonsense and the childish passive-aggressiveness that shows through in your comments.

Don't try to change the subject. On what grounds do you condemn rape?

You should adjust your skirt. Your gamma is showing.

Sure it is. On what grounds do you condemn rape, little rabbit.

Anonymous VD March 19, 2013 7:57 PM  

This soul knows that the world would be a better place if there were fewer bloggers that celebrated the rape of women.

That soul hasn't even offered a single justification for condemning rape yet. On what grounds do you condemn rape?

Why are you so unwilling to offer any grounds for condemning rape? Is it because you secretly celebrate it?

Anonymous Jack Amok March 19, 2013 8:18 PM  

9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.


Well, 9 out of the 10 participants anyway. Two wolves and a sheep, and all that.

Anonymous Anonymous Man March 19, 2013 8:31 PM  

"On what grounds do you condemn rape?"

I could relate how being raped impacted my mother and my Aunt. But it seems highly unlikely to make a difference given your celebration of that crime, indicating your sociopathic lack of empathy and your chilling disregard for social order.

But, in the end your question is beside the point. My mother and aunt were still raped and you still celebrate this.

Wouldn't the blog be better named, "In Celebration of the Rape of Women?"

Now, adjust that skirt, Gamma Boy.

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 8:44 PM  

So you only condemn rape because it happened to your mother and aunt? What about the few billions who happen to not be in your genealogical cross-hairs? You've implied if it had not happened to blood kin you'd have little cause to deplore it. I don't think "soul" means what you think it does. Time for a reboot pal. My own condemnation of rape would be less tribal in nature.

Anonymous GCM March 19, 2013 8:47 PM  

The better question, VD, is on what grounds do you defend rape?

Because, supposedly, as an educated man, you ought to know why rape is indefensible.

Anonymous jla March 19, 2013 9:01 PM  

Education without salvation often leads to damnation.

Anonymous Anonymous Man March 19, 2013 9:14 PM  

"So you only condemn rape because it happened to your mother and aunt? What about the few billions who happen to not be in your genealogical cross-hairs? You've implied if it had not happened to blood kin you'd have little cause to deplore it."

Like the writer of this blog, you too demonstrate the possession of a narrow and small mind, unable to think or interpret in even the least expansive manner. Perhaps you too are a celebrator of rape. Who knows.

Go join Gamma Boy in the Gamma Lair. There you can join with the other skirt-wearing gamma boy in deflecting as rapidly as possible or simply wallow in his wickedness.

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 9:17 PM  

With a slave, slave, here,
and a rape, rape there,
as long as it's not my Aunt,
I really don't care.

You know who wrote that? Socrates.

Anonymous physphilmusic March 19, 2013 9:45 PM  

Wouldn't the blog be better named, "In Celebration of the Rape of Women?"

The problem with your attitude is that you think the most important response towards a certain issue is the utterance of a sufficiently enthusiastic, superficial, outward expression of moral outrage. A response saying anything other than that is for you, evidence of pure unadulterated evil.

In other words, critical thinking and reasoning mean nothing to you. What's important are just words - maintaining a facade of being on the moral high ground. You think that if enough people openly utter these words of condemnation, then these rapes will stop. But that's utter bullshit. It's all fake and hypocritical - a kind of race to see who can say the most convincing condemnation. It's not a race to see who can come up with the best solution - but a race to see who can talk the most shit about the assumed party to blame, i.e. white heterosexual males.

The result is that nothing changes, only more outrage and hysteria - eventually resulting in drastic measures that must be undertaken in order to suppress facts and dissent.

Anonymous VD March 19, 2013 9:54 PM  

I could relate how being raped impacted my mother and my Aunt. But it seems highly unlikely to make a difference given your celebration of that crime, indicating your sociopathic lack of empathy and your chilling disregard for social order.

Perhaps you could, but you haven't. You still haven't answered the question. On what grounds do you condemn rape? You've been asked repeatedly and you still have provided absolutely no grounds for condemning it or even refraining from celebrating it.

How can you possibly demand that I, or anyone else, condemn rape when you cannot provide a single reason it merits condemnation?

But, in the end your question is beside the point. My mother and aunt were still raped and you still celebrate this.

My mother and my aunt had lunch yesterday. What is wrong with raping your mother and your aunt? You still have not provide a single reason to claim there is anything wrong with rape. Perhaps, given the familiarity of your mother and aunt with rape, they could provide you with a reason. Because you just don't seem to be able to produce one.

For the sixth time, on what grounds do you condemn rape?

The better question, VD, is on what grounds do you defend rape?

It is not a better question, because I am not defending rape. Anonymous Man, on the other hand is condemning it with no rationale at all. On what grounds do you claim that rape is wrong?

Because, supposedly, as an educated man, you ought to know why rape is indefensible.

My education is not supposed. Regardless of what I ought to know, why is rape indefensible? I have heard a lot of assertions but I have yet to hear anyone give a single reason that it is wrong.

Anonymous gcm March 19, 2013 9:59 PM  

Words are permanent, actions are temporary--Confucius

[At least that is what James May told me]


"It's not a race to see who can come up with the best solution - but a race to see who can talk the most shit about the assumed party to blame, i.e. white heterosexual males."

Do women falsely accuse men of rape? Absolutely. Do men force themselves upon women who clearly indicated they are not interested in having sex with them? Absolutely. Do men tell other men to game women, which may or may not lead to a situation in which rape is a distinct possibility? Absolutely.

It is a matter of acknowledging first and foremost declaring that rape is illegal and immoral. Then, we can determine whether rape actually occurred by examining the situation and circumstances.

Anonymous physphilmusic March 19, 2013 10:10 PM  

It is a matter of acknowledging first and foremost declaring that rape is illegal and immoral.

Every time we hear of a case of murder, is it a matter of acknowledging first and foremost declaring that murder is illegal and immoral?

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 10:16 PM  

I think I said they were permatemp.

Anonymous James May March 19, 2013 10:30 PM  

Michelle Bachmann propagandist, antebellum nostalgia buff and supporter of a return to chattel slavery wants moral guidance on how to parse rape beyond mere empathy for immediate family members victims of a fait accompli. Your plates pretty full there Mr. A. Do you want to know how much Jupiter weighs?

Anonymous gcm March 19, 2013 10:49 PM  

VD--"My education is not supposed. Regardless of what I ought to know, why is rape indefensible? I have heard a lot of assertions but I have yet to hear anyone give a single reason that it is wrong."

You want a rabbit to state specifically why rape is wrong. Since you are a [supposed] educated man who is an expert on this subject, there is no need to offer those reasons, since you already know. Why tell you what you had learned, since you [allegedly] have an "off the charts" IQ, for it would be insulting to an alpha.


But if one was to speculate, for shits and giggles, assume X is a man of faith (hell, a non-denominational evangelical Christian), who relies on the "good book". On one hand, the Bible divinely sanctions rape**. Daughters had been betrothed or sold outright, with their husbands having there way with them; female slaves bore proxy babies; women captured during war were claimed as wives or concubines; widows submitted to their brothers-in-law until they produced sons.

On the other hand, if X looks to the Roman Catholic Church**, it states "rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them."

--Article 6, The Six Commandment, Offenses Against Chastity, Catechism 2356


What to do, what to do...

Anonymous The other skeptic March 19, 2013 11:22 PM  

They'll get their asses beat. The Vietnamese mangled them twice in two border wars and what the Japanese did to them....

And, of course, the US defeated the Vietnamese, so there is no problem, is there.

Also, I guess that the Russians will resupply the Vietnamese as well. I mean, it's gotta be easy to fly that stuff across China or ship it there via Cam Ranh Bay.

BTW, who would you have bet on in 1861?

Blogger mmaier2112 March 19, 2013 11:28 PM  

Wow... da bunnys reely beez dum.

Blogger mmaier2112 March 19, 2013 11:29 PM  

James May: "You know who wrote that? Socrates."

LOL'd, I did. Most heartily.

Anonymous Anonymous Man March 19, 2013 11:37 PM  

"The problem with your attitude is that you think the most important response towards a certain issue is the utterance of a sufficiently enthusiastic, superficial, outward expression of moral outrage."

Heck I don't need that. I'd settle for a simple head fake toward the notion that victim of rape isn't to blame. But even that isn't going to happen.

Instead, Gamma Blog Boy wants to question the nature of good and evil and closely examine the warrant for the condemnation of rape and the the elevation of empathy.


"You think that if enough people openly utter these words of condemnation, then these rapes will stop. But that's utter bullshit."

No, I just find it fascinating to come across those little people who still believe the victim is to blame and got what they had coming, when what they did to deserve it is be born female. You ever stop in your tracks at the zoo and see the strange looking primate with the hairless ass and a wad of poo in their hands? It's pretty disgusting and off-putting. But, you stop and look nonetheless. It's that kind of fascination.


Blogger The Observer March 19, 2013 11:48 PM  

It seems like rabbit-man continues attacking with the weapons of the rabbit and still refuses to answer the question.

Anonymous The Observer Misses Details March 19, 2013 11:55 PM  

Obviously, you were not paying attention. The question has been answered. Read SLOWLY, you'll find it.

Blogger The Observer March 20, 2013 12:13 AM  

Nope. Not answered why it should be condemned.

Hop along now.

Anonymous Alexander March 20, 2013 12:25 AM  

And yet, by and large the ilk support the traditions of civilization that have a depressing effect on rape rates... but we all secretly support it.

Not to mention the abortion crowd has shown me that if I don't like something, simply not doing it myself is a sufficient action to take. In fact, condemning someone else for their personal choices with regards to their sexual activities makes me a raciss sexiss homophobic dipshit.

Also, I do not believe you are an Anonymous Man. White Knights tend to come across as self-flagellating even while scorning everyone else. 'We' language. You, on the other hand, seem to view men as 'other'.

Anonymous The Observer Misses Details March 20, 2013 12:28 AM  

Then you are fucking blind. Maybe you can count. Including this comment, go back 9 comments. Or, perhaps you can tell time. 10:49 p.m.

It's getting late, gamma, time for your pj's, Maybe mommy can read you a bed time story.

Anonymous Alexander is a raciss sexiss homophobic dipshit March 20, 2013 12:29 AM  

Yep!

Blogger The Observer March 20, 2013 12:49 AM  

Of course. It was a reply by a certain "gcm", and not a certain "anonymous man". And since it is impossible under the guise of the internet to determine whether "anonymous man" is "gcm", especially since neither identified one as the either, let alone both, "anonymous man" still has not answered the question.

I'll leave Vox himself to meet that point, since this is his debate, but I notice that the rabbit-cannons are still firing away, noticably cannons of type #2.

Anonymous bob k. mando March 20, 2013 12:53 AM  

The Observer Misses Details March 20, 2013 12:28 AM
Then you are fucking blind. Maybe you can count. Including this comment, go back 9 comments. Or, perhaps you can tell time. 10:49 p.m.




so, the only answer you can reference to the question makes two assertions, in order to be AGAINST rape you must:
1 - be a Christian
2 - subscribe to the Roman Catholic interpretation of doctrine

by your 'reasoning', not only are non-Christians of ALL types free to rape but ALL Christians of a non-Catholic persuasion are also free to partake.

perhaps you'd like to revisit your assertions? you know, given that the vast majority of the commenters here are not RCC and that there are many agnostics and atheists.


of whom, i am aware of none who are actually in favor of rape. in stark contrast to several who start foaming at the mouth every time the subject of JOOOOOOSSSS comes up.



just to spell it out for you; i believe Vox is looking for a generally applicable prohibition against rape. cuz, you know, the specific incident under discussion took place in a majority Hindu nation with a significant Muslim population and literally dozens of smaller sub-religions as well.

making appeals to RCC moral authority for a situation in India is just downright idiotic.

and we can't have you preemptively hanging an MPAI sign on yourself.

Anonymous GCM March 20, 2013 2:03 AM  

To: The Observer

I am not Anonymous Man. Believe it or not, I don't freaking care. Regardless, gamma, address the points in rebuttal.



Bob Sacamano...

"...just to spell it out for you; i believe Vox is looking for a generally applicable prohibition against rape."

You're moving the goalposts. A hypothetical was offered to the inquiry "I have heard a lot of assertions but I have yet to hear anyone give a single reason that it is wrong." There was no caveat that the response had to focus on an event that occurred in India, nor was there any mention of what you claim was his intention. But, gammas come to the defense of their own kind, so I understand. Now, a response was crafted, not THE response, which happened to be religious in nature. I am sure there are other justifications.

"so, the only answer you can reference to the question makes two assertions, in order to be AGAINST rape you must:
1 - be a Christian
2 - subscribe to the Roman Catholic interpretation of doctrine"

Strawman. I did not make an assertion, I simply explained their position. I did not indicate whether I supported or opposed that perspective.

Your turn--Do you agree or disagree with that point of view? Do you think this position is reasonable or unreasonable? Please explain thoroughly.


"by your 'reasoning', not only are non-Christians of ALL types free to rape but ALL Christians of a non-Catholic persuasion are also free to partake."

False assumption. That is YOUR interpretation. I made no such inference.


"making appeals to RCC moral authority for a situation in India is just downright idiotic."

VD never asked for cultural context, just a general statement on the matter. Again, you are trying to move the goalposts.


Indeed, what are Indian thoughts on the matter?

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/antirape-bill-makes-stalking-acid-attacks-punishable/article4525991.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/rape-and-the-crisis-of-indian-masculinity/article4214267.ece


"and we can't have you preemptively hanging an MPAI sign on yourself."

Considering you are a mental midget, your therapist must be proud of your progress. Maybe you will receive some time to take another Rorschach Test. I heard that is your favorite.

Anonymous GCM March 20, 2013 2:03 AM  

To: The Observer

I am not Anonymous Man. Believe it or not, I don't freaking care. Regardless, gamma, address the points in rebuttal.



Bob Sacamano...

"...just to spell it out for you; i believe Vox is looking for a generally applicable prohibition against rape."

You're moving the goalposts. A hypothetical was offered to the inquiry "I have heard a lot of assertions but I have yet to hear anyone give a single reason that it is wrong." There was no caveat that the response had to focus on an event that occurred in India, nor was there any mention of what you claim was his intention. But, gammas come to the defense of their own kind, so I understand. Now, a response was crafted, not THE response, which happened to be religious in nature. I am sure there are other justifications.

"so, the only answer you can reference to the question makes two assertions, in order to be AGAINST rape you must:
1 - be a Christian
2 - subscribe to the Roman Catholic interpretation of doctrine"

Strawman. I did not make an assertion, I simply explained their position. I did not indicate whether I supported or opposed that perspective.

Your turn--Do you agree or disagree with that point of view? Do you think this position is reasonable or unreasonable? Please explain thoroughly.


"by your 'reasoning', not only are non-Christians of ALL types free to rape but ALL Christians of a non-Catholic persuasion are also free to partake."

False assumption. That is YOUR interpretation. I made no such inference.


"making appeals to RCC moral authority for a situation in India is just downright idiotic."

VD never asked for cultural context, just a general statement on the matter. Again, you are trying to move the goalposts.


Indeed, what are Indian thoughts on the matter?

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/antirape-bill-makes-stalking-acid-attacks-punishable/article4525991.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/rape-and-the-crisis-of-indian-masculinity/article4214267.ece


"and we can't have you preemptively hanging an MPAI sign on yourself."

Considering you are a mental midget, your therapist must be proud of your progress. Maybe you will receive some time to take another Rorschach Test. I heard that is your favorite.

Anonymous Agent Elmer March 20, 2013 2:34 AM  

Shhhhhhhhhh.... I can waping.

Blogger The Observer March 20, 2013 2:59 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger The Observer March 20, 2013 3:02 AM  

Edited for formatting errors:

GCM:

So since you state that you are not Anonymous Man, Anonymous Man has not made a reply to VD's question explaining his statement, and you concede that by your admission. Whether you care or not is irrelevant. Glad we cleared that up.

Number two, I did not contest the points made in the 10:49 PM post in any form. I merely contested that Anonymous Man has not given a reply to VD stating his position, which by your own admission he had not done at the time I contested this (although he appears to have taken your stance as outlined in the post). Hee hee. For someone who speaks ill of moving goalposts, you do it a lot, rabbit.

We can all be waping now, Elmer.

Anonymous Koanic March 20, 2013 6:42 AM  

Rape is wrong because it carries a higher chance of conception, which leads to births. Most people are idiots. Idiots are usually wrong. Thus rape is wrong. QED.

Anonymous bob k. mando March 20, 2013 8:15 AM  

GCM March 20, 2013 2:03 AM
You're moving the goalposts.




i moved nothing. Vox's argument is Vox's to make. and Vox and i make a semi-regular point of implying that the other is behaving somewhat foolishly.

i simply pointed out a structural problem with your provided answer, that it applies ONLY to followers of Roman Catholic teaching. i do not stipulate to the authority of the Catholic church or the pope so your answer has as much meaning to me as if you had asserted that Hugo Chavez says that it is moral to nationalize foreign national property in Venezuela.

you're making an appeal to an authority which the vast majority of the planet doesn't even recognize.

have you seen the internet list of fallacies? you might want to go over that.



GCM March 20, 2013 2:03 AM
bob k. mando
"so, the only answer you can reference to the question makes two assertions, in order to be AGAINST rape you must:
1 - be a Christian
2 - subscribe to the Roman Catholic interpretation of doctrine"


Strawman. I did not make an assertion, I simply explained their position.




here, dumbass, i'll quote directly from your own post:
"But if one was to speculate, for shits and giggles, assume X is a man of faith (hell, a non-denominational evangelical Christian), who relies on the "good book". On one hand, the Bible divinely sanctions rape**. ...
On the other hand, if X looks to the Roman Catholic Church**"


given that you don't even understand the difference between Old Testament and New Testament AND that you make arguments that you don't understand that you've made i'm hardly likely to bother wasting time trying to actually teach you actual real world Christian doctrine.

if you want to prove me wrong, all that is necessary is that you point out the "non-denominational evangelical Christian's" who approve of rape.



GCM March 20, 2013 2:03 AM
Your turn--Do you agree or disagree with that point of view?


on WHAT point of view? on your assertion that non-denom evangelical Christians approve of rape? on your assertion that Catholics disapprove of rape?

here, i'll confuse the hell out of you. my answer is, "None of the above."

i'm a non-denom Christian who disapproves of rape. pretty much the same as every Christian and Jew on the planet. why are we against rape? tis a holy mystery.

otoh, Muslims teach that there is nothing wrong with rape in the Dar al Harb. India, as a Hindu ruled country, is part of what?

as sad as it is when a humanist, atheist douche-hammer parasitizes his moral code from Judeo-Christianity, it's even sadder when said douche-hammer is simultaneously incapable of explicating the actual point of Judeo-Christian doctrine that he's stealing his morals from.



Anonymous bob k. mando March 20, 2013 8:15 AM  


GCM March 20, 2013 2:03 AM
VD never asked for cultural context, just a general statement on the matter. Again, you are trying to move the goalposts.


it's basic internet etiquette that the original post in a thread establishes guidelines and boundaries for the subsequent discussion thread.

perhaps you'd like to familiarize yourself with the subject of Vox's original post before you continue?




GCM March 20, 2013 2:03 AM
Indeed, what are Indian thoughts on the matter?


who cares?

those are hindu controlled news media outlets. for crying out loud, IT EVEN SAYS HINDU IN URL.

i don't know if you've noticed this, but muslims regularly disagree with Hindu morals and ethics. quite violently.

further, all of the acts being legislated against in those stories are ALREADY illegal. it's just that the Indians are following the US lead in establishing an unequal-before-the-law ( iow, UN-Constitutional in the U.S. ) consequence for acts specifically against women.


now, i'm going to be afk for several days, OTR. by the time i get back this thread will likely be inactive. try not to injure yourself on the sharp and pointy objects.

but i'll leave one pointy object out for you:
do you think that Vox has advocated rape?

if so, please quote the statement where Vox does so.

Anonymous James May March 20, 2013 8:32 AM  

The Fox and the Rapes was a limerick not written by John Scalzi because it points out the moral and mechanical difficulties of rapes and in the end says it's not worth it.

John Scalzi's fantasies about forced seductions, "control" and discipline are a diabolically clever immorality tale because he at once spills out his innermost secret cravings right on the internet and then invites more rape comments so he can give donations to RAINN as if to say, I didn't want to really want those rapes anyway.

Scalzi also wrote a thinly veiled racial limerick about the dangers of white privilege which unfortunately gathered in Jews as well, and the provisional hero of Scalzi's Elder's of Zion manifesto analogue is noted whitey hater and fellow Tor and SFWA colleague N.K. Jemisin, because she is black and a female. Scalzi openly states on his website the moral hero of "white privilege" is a "Gay Minority Female."

Jemisin openly admires Samuel Delany who complained about the Jewishness of the racist SF writers of his day in his article "Racism and Science Fiction" where he writes "since the late ’30s, that community, that world had been largely Jewish, highly liberal" It's plain to see that Scalzi is all but a diabolist swimming in a sea of racial bigotry.

Rather than role playing games like Flint's 1632, Scalzi perhaps fantasizes about invading Europe, doing away with Jewish privilege and raping the women whose grapes would otherwise be too high for a nerdy Tribble-loving wimp like Scalzi.

Like her moral mentor Delany, Jemisin complains that epic fantasy was a secret conspiracy to maintain white (Jewish) systems of male power. Jemisin says “Because the 'fantasy' most EF delivers is of white male power & centrality."

She has also written "Is writing epic fantasy not somehow a betrayal? Did I not somehow do a disservice to my own reality by paying so much attention to the power fantasies of disenchanted white men?"

This is clearly a person who has such a marked disdain for whites, she must ask if even working in the field constitutes a moral betrayal of the "reality" of her own racial ideals.

Jemisin also said "Rambo" was a racial fantasy about "One White Guy Against The Endless Brown Hordes."

Jemisin openly expresses disgust for Tolkien as the symbol of white power fantasy and also because of his dark-skinned orcs. As if in response to Jeminsin's racial literature, Tolkien wrote "I have the hatred of apartheid in my bones; and most of all I detest the segregation or separation of Language and Literature. I do not care which of them you think White." Hear that? Tolkien doesn't think much of your race-baiting either.

By using the catch-all "white," Jew-haters who love Obama, a man who spent 20 years in a racist cult under his Jew-hating mentor Rev. Wright, who in turn gave his cult's highest honor to the most famous black Jew-hater in America, Louis Farrakhan, can avoid the most conspicuous attentions of the Anti-Defamation League, but for how long.

Gee, I wonder who Scalzi and Jemisin voted for?

The platform that Jemisin made her white power observation on is Tor Books, owned by the Macmillan Group. The wiki says Macmillan was "Established by Georg von Holtzbrinck in 1948, the group first began as a German book club."

The German newspaper the Atlantic Times in 2009 mentions that in 1998 "Vanity Fair magazine exposed Georg von Holtzbrinck's ties to the Third Reich, printing the index card documenting his party membership and accusing him of spreading Nazi ideology through magazines."

We all know the evil one in Scalzi's piece are white males but in principle, Scalzi and Jemisin share an intellectual and philosophical space with Joseph Goebbels in their open racial disdain.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza March 20, 2013 8:34 AM  

I forgot to blame rapeymcraperson or McScalRaRa!!

Anonymous physphilmusic March 20, 2013 9:06 AM  

Heck I don't need that. I'd settle for a simple head fake toward the notion that victim of rape isn't to blame. But even that isn't going to happen.

You're doing exactly what I said. The question is, will adding a sentence along the lines of
"And yes, of course the victim is not to blame for this rape - I'm not excusing those rapists for their actions"
be anything more than meaningless lip service? Does it help to reduce rapes? Does it identify any causes? Does it even help the victim? Nope. It's all just phony sympathy. And the craziness of it is that anything other than this display of phony sympathy is taken as a "celebration of rape".

Instead, Gamma Blog Boy wants to question the nature of good and evil and closely examine the warrant for the condemnation of rape and the the elevation of empathy.

No, he wants to know where exactly do you get the warrant to morally condemn rape. Shouldn't this be easy to state, as you seem so enthusiastic in condemning rape? Right now, you're like an activist who doesn't know why she's supporting a certain cause.

No, I just find it fascinating to come across those little people who still believe the victim is to blame and got what they had coming, when what they did to deserve it is be born female.

Again, that's slanderous bullshit. The original post simply stated that the rapes are at least partially the result of skewed sex ratios, which was caused by the enabling of sex selective abortion. Feminism, with its support of the pro-abortion position and its rise in India, is at least partially responsible for this. Hence feminist policies might actually lead to more rapes.
This is actually a pretty tame post. Why don't you read it again?

Anonymous Roundtine March 20, 2013 9:49 AM  

The gift that keeps on giving. Baby bunny, hop hop hoppity doo, baby bunny ooohh ooooh oooh.

Anonymous Anonymous Man March 20, 2013 10:09 AM  

"Again, that's slanderous bullshit. The original post simply stated that the rapes are at least partially the result of skewed sex ratios"

Those Skewed Sex Ratios can be immoral bastards the way they sneak up on a guy and force him to rape a woman. Now, I'm not saying that Skewed Sex Ratios are all bad. Many contribute to society through their adoption of the least Ratios among us and and raising them to be contributing Ratios as though they were their very own product. But the fact is, There are those Skewed Sex Ratios in our society who have lost their moral equation and simply go around willy nilly encouraging humans to rape other humans and the poor humans just can't control themselves.

Anonymous physphilmusic March 20, 2013 10:14 AM  

So are you insinuating that skewed sex ratios have no effect on male-female relations? Or that by condemning rape in a strong enough manner, it won't any effect?

Anonymous James May March 20, 2013 11:04 AM  

Rape is wrong. Did you hear that thump? That was every rapist in the world falling down dead. Words have power. Go to Scalzi's blog and laugh at the 404. Promise one final donation and enjoy a now rape-free world.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard March 20, 2013 12:34 PM  

Those Skewed Sex Ratios can be immoral bastards the way they sneak up on a guy and force him to rape a woman. Now, I'm not saying that Skewed Sex Ratios are all bad. Many contribute to society through their adoption of the least Ratios among us and and raising them to be contributing Ratios as though they were their very own product. But the fact is, There are those Skewed Sex Ratios in our society who have lost their moral equation and simply go around willy nilly encouraging humans to rape other humans and the poor humans just can't control themselves.

I take it you do not believe in "rape culture".

Anonymous GCM March 20, 2013 9:10 PM  

Bob Sacamano...


“i moved nothing. Vox's argument is Vox's to make.”

“i simply pointed out a structural problem with your provided answer, that it applies ONLY to followers of Roman Catholic teaching.”

And, again, VD never directly asked for a general response, which I provided, and then YOU made the stipulation.


“i do not stipulate to the authority of the Catholic church or the pope...”



Good for you!


“you're making an appeal to an authority which the vast majority of the planet doesn't even recognize.”

It's not MY appeal, it is the position of ONE religious group.


“given that you don't even understand the difference between Old Testament and New Testament AND that you make arguments that you don't understand that you've made i'm hardly likely to bother wasting time trying to actually teach you actual real world Christian doctrine.”

Since you are in and out of the mental ward, let me repeat--X, a non-denominational evangelical Christians, follows the Bible. Regardless, one could reasonably argue the Bible condones rape. Now, if X looks to the RCC (that is, inquires about its position), X will discover that the RCC specifically condemns rape. Regardless if X is a NDEC, or if X does not adhere to the Bible, or if X does not follow the RCC, there is a disconnect between the Bible and the RCC. It’s not rocket science, pal!



“i'm a non-denom Christian who disapproves of rape. pretty much the same as every Christian and Jew on the planet. why are we against rape? tis a holy mystery.”

Ding, ding, ding. Folks, we have a gamma. See, what is that hard to admit to it? Great job, Sparky. Thanks for capitulating.


“as sad as it is when a humanist, atheist douche-hammer parasitizes his moral code from Judeo-Christianity, it's even sadder when said douche-hammer is simultaneously incapable of explicating the actual point of Judeo-Christian doctrine that he's stealing his morals from.”



Don’t be too hard on yourself (or VD). God loves you!


“but i'll leave one pointy object out for you:
do you think that Vox has advocated rape?

if so, please quote the statement where Vox does so.”

You can read, it’s right there in the thread, gamma!


James May--"Rape is wrong. Did you hear that thump."

Another gamma who capitulated.

Anonymous Unending Improvement March 20, 2013 10:23 PM  

Bring your rifles boys and girls, we got rabbits in this thread to cull.

Anonymous Anonymous March 20, 2013 11:56 PM  

In GMC's world, a person stating the obvious - who while doing so makes rather clear the absurdity of such an action - has 'capitulated'. Sounds like a rabbit has found a new favorite word....

Anonymous bob k. mando March 21, 2013 12:42 AM  

GCM March 20, 2013 9:10 PM
And, again, VD never directly asked for a general response, which I provided, and then YOU made the stipulation.


Vox never directly asked for a general response? which you then provided? so now, by your own assertion, you are providing answers to questions which were never asked?


truly, you have a dizzying intellect. i am suitably unimpressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0




GCM March 20, 2013 9:10 PM
Regardless, one could reasonably argue the Bible condones rape.
...
there is a disconnect between the Bible and the RCC. It’s not rocket science, pal!




there is no 'disconnect' ( at least on this question, for the RCC ), 'pal'.

once again, you are blitheringly incompetent on the subject of Old vs New Testament and what that means doctrinally.

if you want to keep asking why the Bible says to rape, you need to address your question to the Jews, not the Christians. even so, i've never heard of a Jew who was in favor of rape either.

this is what comes of a publicly educated humanist trying to debate theology.

and don't think that we haven't noted that you have thus far proven completely incapable at presenting a NON-religious justification for why 'rape is wrong'.

the only thing you've managed to establish so far is that it is your personal opinion that the Bible obligates 'Christians' to favor rape. to bad your opinion has nothing to do with what the Bible instructs.


GCM March 20, 2013 9:10 PM
It's not MY appeal, it is the position of ONE religious group.


the position of ONE religious group?

tell you what, how about you present us with ONE Christian ( however far you want to stretch that term ) group that *advocates for rape*. even Jack Mormons call what they do 'marriage'. and there are many here who consider Joseph Smith to have been every bit as Satanic as L. Ron Hubbard.




bob k. mando
“but i'll leave one pointy object out for you:
do you think that Vox has advocated rape?

if so, please quote the statement where Vox does so.”



GCM March 20, 2013 9:10 PM
You can read, it’s right there in the thread, gamma!



the thread title is, and i quote, "Men have gone berserk".

yep. that's a ringing endorsement of rape. if you're an effing retard.

apologies to effing retards everywhere for having compared you to GCM.

Anonymous GCM March 21, 2013 10:25 AM  

"Vox never directly asked for a general response? which you then provided? so now, by your own assertion, you are providing answers to questions which were never asked?"

Whoops, I misspoke. "Vox ONLY asked for a general response", I should have stated. I originally make that distinction.

Recall...You're moving the goalposts. A hypothetical was offered to the inquiry "I have heard a lot of assertions but I have yet to hear anyone give a single reason that it is wrong." There was no caveat that the response had to focus on an event that occurred in India, nor was there any mention of what you claim was his intention...


Now, one more time, for the slow-witted. There are Bible passages that condone rape. It is doctrine, regardless of the source. There is a major religious group--the Roman Catholic Church--that condemns rape. If you cannot see the folly, then you are intellectually stunted. Looks like you drank the poison, fuckface.


“Men have gone beserk”. The title is vague. It can mean anything, like “gammas running amok”.


"and don't think that we haven't noted that you have thus far proven completely incapable at presenting a NON-religious justification for why 'rape is wrong'."

I provided A justification, one stated by a religious group. For a "non-religious justification", say please.

Anonymous Anonymous March 21, 2013 10:54 AM  


GCM = fail troll

Anonymous bob k. mando March 21, 2013 12:21 PM  

GCM March 21, 2013 10:25 AM
There was no caveat that the response had to focus on an event that occurred in India
...
The title is vague. It can mean anything,


excepting, of course, for the fact that this entire thread is dependent on a post about a gang rape in India in which "Men have gone berserk".


does the raping have anything to do with the berserking? i dunno. the title seems to be vague. it COULD mean anything.




GCM March 21, 2013 10:25 AM
There are Bible passages that condone rape.




quote them.

there are VERY few passages which could be considered 'problematic' by those of good faith.

however, clowns such as yourself almost invariably lead with the passages which explicitly describe the Jews sinning against the explicit will of God.

it's as if you were to show up and claim that incest is 'Biblical' because of the actions of Lot.

the only thing you actually demonstrate is your gross incompetence.



GCM March 21, 2013 10:25 AM
A hypothetical was offered to the inquiry "I have heard a lot of assertions but I have yet to hear anyone give a single reason that it is wrong."


no.

you offered a hypothetical which claimed that Christianity does AND does not say that rape is wrong.

you, yourself, cannot even determine whether or not Christianity is against rape.

except that you can't provide any examples of Christians who are for it.

absence of evidence not being evidence of absence and all that, in your little mind this 'proves' that either Christians are categorically in favor of rape or should be.



GCM March 21, 2013 10:25 AM
There are Bible passages that condone rape. It is doctrine, regardless of the source.


even better, now you're asserting that rape IS Biblical and that every single Christian on the planet is wrong ... about his own religion.

let's revisit the question you were supposed to be answering for Vox:
On what grounds do you condemn rape? Seeing that it was a gang rape, obviously utilitarian morality must view it as a positive moral act.

instead you've provided an argument which you feel asserts that rape is moral.

isn't it curious how your mind works?




GCM March 21, 2013 10:25 AM
I provided A justification, one stated by a religious group. For a "non-religious justification", say please.


i'd settle for a justification AGAINST rape which you actually believe.

curious how you can't provide one. no, i won't be saying please.

you damn yourself with your own failure to provide a justification which you would be willing to attempt to defend.

Anonymous Bob Sacamanto... March 22, 2013 6:39 PM  

needs lithium.

Anonymous bob k. mando March 23, 2013 10:53 PM  

laughter is the best medicine.

and your infantile attempts at reasoning bring a smile to my face.

Anonymous Bob Sacamanto... March 26, 2013 7:25 PM  

cannot defend his own arguments, so he just makes shit up and hopes it sticks.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts