Fat bitch political rant

[lordrrr]

Link to the supreme intelligence: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Just to remind you all, these are people who vote. Oh yes, be afraid.


Discuss her lack of intelligence and the absolute lulz this video produces.

[Sylvanus]

There should be a test to be allowed to vote. This chick is too retarded to form a cogent argument about a simple issue, how can she understand the differences between any of the major candidates and have an informed opinion when voting?

I recently read Vox Day's response (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)to a similar problem:

Equalitarians don't seem to understand that the primary role of the military is to do very bad things to people, many of whom don't deserve it:



Rapists in the Ranks (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
The stories are shocking in their simplicity and brutality: A female military recruit is pinned down at knifepoint and raped repeatedly in her own barracks. Her attackers hid their faces but she identified them by their uniforms; they were her fellow soldiers. During a routine gynecological exam, a female soldier is attacked and raped by her military physician. Yet another young soldier, still adapting to life in a war zone, is raped by her commanding officer. Afraid for her standing in her unit, she feels she has nowhere to turn. These are true stories, and, sadly, not isolated incidents. Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.

The scope of the problem was brought into acute focus for me during a visit to the West Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center, where I met with female veterans and their doctors. My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41% of female veterans seen at the clinic say they were victims of sexual assault while in the military, and 29% report being raped during their military service.


This isn't shocking, this is entirely predictable. It was predicted, as it was one of the many reasons that sane individuals have opposed women serving in the military from the very start. The idea that you can overcome Man's moral resistence to murdering people so that he will kill on command without having any impact whatsoever on his other moral restraints is a classic example of the Education Fallacy.

Soldiers have always raped women; a kinder, gentler, more civilized military that is incapable of rape is also a military that is going to crumble in disarray before the onslaught of military forces less concerned with social niceties and more focused on winning wars. As every brilliant commander who ever loosed his troops on a defeated city knew, military discipline has its limits and attempting to stretch those limits risks sacrificing discipline entirely. And if you don't want the hard men on the front lines subject to military discipline with their attentions focused on an external enemy, then where do you want them? Wandering around suburban malls? Working as policemen and security guards? With sufficient training, one can turn a human wolf into an extremely effective sheepdog, but one can never hope to turn him into a toy poodle.

It's worth noting how one soldier explains why soldiers have so much contempt for the female "soldiers" in their midst: "As an infantryman in the Army, my view is that the simple fact of the matter is that the large majority of women in the military are not soldiers. They may wear a uniform...even passed basic training..but they are not soldiers. They are chicks who like to dress like soldiers. They expect special treatment for being female (and often get it), have lower standards, have almost no respect for military courtesy and discipline, pay lipservice to equality and then cry foul when they get treated the same as their male co-workers, and all to often, their advance in paygrade is tied not to their job performance, but who they are sleeping with. Men don't take them seriously because they don't take the job, the standards of military culture, their fellow servicepeople, or themselves seriously. I have no doubts that there are legitimate cases of rape and assault within the military, but since the military became coed, fraternization has gone rampant and it is very hard...very hard....to be able to distinguish the legitimate cases from the ones where a female is screaming sour grapes because she tried to trade sex for rank and lost out on the deal...particularly if the "victim" already has a reputation of sleeping around to get things she wants. That is why so many cases get dropped because of lack of evidence."

[wonderbucks]

lol. you just going to have to deal with stupidity.

[Rowan]

I recently read Vox Day's response (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)to a similar problem:

Let me get this right; Vox Day’s argument is that both murder and rape are morally wrong and therefore, if you teach people to murder they will invariably rape – clearly he rejects free-will. Then, because evidently this weak casual argument is not sufficient, he goes on to claim that if you prohibit rape that will stretch discipline to the breaking point and result in military disarray. In light of this reductionist position (for which he provides no substantial supporting evidence) he concludes that women should never have been allowed in the military at all. He then wraps up his position by quoting some random misogynistic soldier who seems to have difficulty distinguishing between rape and consensual sex – hands up who knows the difference; I’ll give you a hint, the key word is consensual. This Vox Day doesn’t seem to posses any more cognitive prowess than Skitso316; however, unlike Skitso316, he seems to be a raving bigot. Honestly I’m more concerned about who Vox Day is voting for.

[Sylvanus]

Let me get this right; Vox Day’s argument is that both murder and rape are morally wrong and therefore, if you teach people to murder they will invariably rape – clearly he rejects free-will. Then, because evidently this weak casual argument is not sufficient, he goes on to claim that if you prohibit rape that will stretch discipline to the breaking point and result in military disarray. In light of this reductionist position (for which he provides no substantial supporting evidence) he concludes that women should never have been allowed in the military at all. He then wraps up his position by quoting some random misogynistic soldier who seems to have difficulty distinguishing between rape and consensual sex – hands up who knows the difference; I’ll give you a hint, the key word is consensual. This Vox Day doesn’t seem to posses any more cognitive prowess than Skitso316; however, unlike Skitso316, he seems to be a raving bigot. Honestly I’m more concerned about who Vox Day is voting for.

His argument is that when you train a person to defy natural law and go around killing people for a living, then that person's boundaries of morality begin to breakdown.

The quote from the soldier was hardly misogynistic, it is the truth. I've been in the military, I've never been forward deployed, but I know that women aren't designed for the rigors of the military. Since they can't play on a level field, they change (read: break) the rules and find their own way of getting ahead. Also, I see nothing that says he doesn't know the differnence between rape and consensual sex. What he refers to is Fraternization, and is illegal in the military.

[xanodel]

Let me get this straight:

Because killing people under military already allows a person's boundaries on morality to crumble, we should just go ahead and consider it natural. Because rape cannot be avoided, it should be allowed, without any punishment.

That's beautiful logic right there. Since we can't stop people from murdering each other, let's just let it happen; each man to his own, never mind human survival overall. It reminds me of this anthropology research showing humans are the only creatures that easily allows for killing of its own. Amazing ain't it?

It's an amazing way of disciplining people. Once you defeat them, rape, loot and burn; then they get mad, declare war on you later, and rape loot and burn. The cycle continues, as does the perpetuity of human stupidity. When the hell do we learn that just because it's accepted and normal doesn't mean it's necessarily right or most effective?

As for how females are treated in the military, my question is simple. Perhaps it's not so much they can't take it, as the standards used for the guys themselves are wrong?

[Rowan]

His argument is that when you train a person to defy natural law and go around killing people for a living, then that person's boundaries of morality begin to breakdown.

So he’s assuming a moral and/or psychological correlation between lawfully killing enemy combatants on the battlefield and illegally raping one of your own soldiers? That’s just charming.

The quote from the soldier was hardly misogynistic, it is the truth. I've been in the military, I've never been forward deployed, but I know that women aren't designed for the rigors of the military.

I am not going to take this anecdotal nonsense seriously. This is no different from racists backing their assertions on their prejudiced experiences. You hear it all the time; ‘I’m not racist, but you don’t to understand what those people are really like.’ It’s pathetic and it’s fallacious.

Also, I see nothing that says he doesn't know the differnence between rape and consensual sex. What he refers to is Fraternization, and is illegal in the military.

What he actually says is:

fraternization has gone rampant and it is very hard...very hard....to be able to distinguish the legitimate cases from the ones where a female is screaming sour grapes because she tried to trade sex for rank and lost out on the deal

Fraternization and rape are not hard to distinguish – the fact that the US army seems unable to do so should be considered a stain on their reputation.

[acyckowski]

Vox Day starts out okay, but then goes on to prove he really has no idea WTF he is talking about.

Equating the killing act with rape is tenuous, at best, but completely unsubstantiated by his arguments. The military's killers--infantrymen, tankers, and artillerymen--are all men, in all-male units. Units with women are, by law, support units, and quite frankly many support units fail to instill discipline and adherence to standards in all their soldiers, not just the women. That rape occurs more frequently in undisciplined units should be no less surprising than increased incidences of drug use, gang violence, and other felonious acts. Using the general requirement of a military to kill as an excuse for tolerating violent crime in the ranks is an abject failure of leadership; where it occurs, the entire chain-of-command ought to be (and often is) punished.

As every brilliant commander who ever loosed his troops on a defeated city knew, military discipline has its limits and attempting to stretch those limits risks sacrificing discipline entirely.

This is something weak commanders do, not brilliant ones. Military discipline does have its limits, but that is not an excuse for weak moral character. There really is no equivalence between the controlled violence applied by a professional soldier and the wanton destruction caused by a paid amateur. It is a difficult and delicate job to train a psychologically healthy adult to overcome a lifetime's worth of societal prohibitions against killing, then to restrain himself when the situation requires it, and then further to reach the kill/no-kill decision, with imperfect information and his life on the line, in fractions of a second. By comparison, it's child's play to desentitize somebody completely.

Rape is entirely different. Society has taught the soldier that rape is wrong, the military continues to tell him that it is wrong, so there is little ambiguity if an individual decides to do it anyhow. Tolerating such an action is not "brilliance," it is depravity.
/end first rant/

/begin second rant/
I'm not so sure about this whole "natural law" argument that equates killing with murder and an erosion of general morality. It seems to me that the law of nature is "kill or be killed." I would submit that my moral and ethical standards are in fact higher than those of the common man, despite (or perhaps because of) the violence I must be capable of both applying and restraining. While it does not require moral strength to do violence without conscience, it requires just as little moral strength to absolutely refrain from it: if a person will fight for no value, principle, or person, then that person will compromise all values, principles, and people.
/end rant two/

Fraternization and rape are not hard to distinguish – the fact that the US army seems unable to do so should be considered a stain on their reputation.
It's not at all difficult to distinguish, unless the unit suffers from a top-to-bottom, left-to-right, complete and absolute breakdown in discipline and leadership. When this does happen, and rape (or any other violent crime) occurs, heads should and do roll. If you consider it a stain on an organization that bad people do bad things and good people are not always able to prevent them, then I will not try to persuade you otherwise.

Now, in the actual prosecution of crimes, the proverbial "date rape" is often hard to prove from an evidentiary standpoint. It would not surprise me that a prosecutor with weak evidence would choose to go for a slam-dunk on the lesser offense than to risk an acquittal on the greater offense. This happens all the time in civilian courts, as well. It's an unfortunate consequence of the presumption of innocence.

[Aronnax]

There should be a test to be allowed to vote. This chick is too retarded to form a cogent argument about a simple issue, how can she understand the differences between any of the major candidates and have an informed opinion when voting?


Attempting to get the thread back on track, voting tests are a bad idea, they fly in the face of the concept that "all men are created equal". Then comes in the questions "How smart would you have to be in order to vote?" and "Could a test system be manipulated to remove certain voters from the pool?".

Most of the voting public self screens, most presidential elections have around a 60% voter turn out.

[Kitsune]

Rowan:

Day merely points out two things:

1.) That, surprise!, when you train people to be killing machines, it screws them up in the head.
2.) That there have always been natural predators amongst man and, surprise!, a career in killing has a certain appeal to them.

At no point does he make any assertions about anything being "good" or "acceptable". He just points out these two fairly evident truths.

[Rowan]

Kitsune,

Vox Day reductively equates lawfully killing enemy combatants on the battlefield and illegally raping one of your own soldiers in order to further a misogynistic agenda.

[Kitsune]

Kitsune,

Vox Day reductively equates lawfully killing enemy combatants on the battlefield and illegally raping one of your own soldiers in order to further a misogynistic agenda.

No, he simply points out the two things I mentioned previously.

Day's only extrapolation is that, in our little war planet in this war universe, all other factors being equal, the army with the most made-insane killing machines and born-insane killings machines will come out victorious.

At no point does he make any value-judgments. He only points out what is true. Whether or not Day considers these truths "good" or justifiable is not touched upon in this quote.

You're misrepresenting your justifications of your own personal, moral outrage as a logical "argument".

Something our type is quite frequently guilty of, I fear, and an area where we have something to learn from the INTPs.

[Rowan]

Day's only extrapolation is that, in our little war planet in this war universe, all other factors being equal, the army with the most made-insane killing machines and born-insane killings machines will come out victorious.

Even if this were the full extent of Vox Day’s claims (his misogynistic soldier quote suggests otherwise) Vox Day is still wrong. Discipline, technology and propaganda are the biggest factors in military victory, not high rates of insanity and rape. To illustrate my point, imagine a tenth century Nordic Berserker against a twenty first century fully equipped US soldier.

[Kitsune]

Even if this were the full extent of Vox Day’s claims (his misogynistic soldier quote suggests otherwise) Vox Day is still wrong. Discipline, technology and propaganda are the biggest factors in military victory, not high rates of insanity and rape. To illustrate my point, imagine a tenth century Nordic Berserker against a twenty first century fully equipped US soldier.

Hence the "all other factors being equal".

Those are some pretty unequal factors you propose.

[Rowan]

Hence the "all other factors being equal".

Those are some pretty unequal factors you propose.

Saying "all other factors being equal" in this context doesn’t make any sense – it’s like saying if pigs fly then X, so X; put tenth century Nordic Berserkers in a modern army and they would be next to useless; they would lack the discipline and technical knowhow necessary to function. The point about discipline is important – insane people are ill fitted to highly disciplined organizations. Rape is not necessary for a modern army to function competently – indeed, that kind of undisciplined barbaric behaviour is antithetical to the behaviour expected from a competent, disciplined modern army.

[Kitsune]

Saying "all other factors being equal" in this context doesn’t make any sense – it’s like saying if pigs fly then X, so X

...whu?

[Rowan]

...whu?

Let me put this differently; because these factors are too interactive to compartmentalise you cannot meaningfully talk about “all other factors being equal” in this context. It’s like saying ‘if Y then X, not-Y therefore X’, which is clearly fallacious.

[Latte]

As kitsune has tried to explain, there is nothing in the quoted paper that suggests the author condones rape within the military.

He merely points at the surface of the issue that the only thing holding many people back from hurting their fellow man is a set of moral instructions they have been indoctrinated with by their society while growing up that they believe breaking would cause them to be a "bad person", a person of lesser value relative to others, that is.

Breaking some of these, especially the viewed harsher ones such as murder, may cause a massive change in a persons own view of identity, sometimes leading to the breaking or following of morality rules they've learned becoming obsolete or suppressed in relation to their view of themselves.


I think the reason people have jumped to conclusions about the intended message of the author in this thread is due to the common held view that if you understand how someone came to do something, you can't blame them, and instead must see them as victims, something which would definitely clash completely and create a sort of paradox within a Te-logic organization of world view highly depending on identifying things, actions & people under categories as well as applying properties to the in addition to using the concepts of justice, fairness, good/bad... etc.

The best way to think about this is with a pure "how does it work" logic, as everything else will turn into an endless discussion of the concepts stated above which would lead nowhere, except maybe another weak free will discussion.

[Kitsune]

As kitsune has tried to explain, there is nothing in the quoted paper that suggests the author condones rape within the military.

Precisely. Day lays out two rather evident truths and then, as it's in relation to the topic, cites a quote which he merely says is "worth noting". At no point in the quote (the overall quote, that is, not that of the soldier) are any value judgments made.

Rowan's "argument" boils down to, "I dislike some of the directions the facts Day cites could be taken into, therefore Day is wrong."

[Rowan]

This debate has been reduced to an argument from repetition; Kitsune makes a point, I retort, Kitsune doesn’t understand, I repeat, Latte repeats Kitsune’s point, Kitsune ignores my retort preferring to quote Latte and, surprise, agree with him – before appealing to ridicule and (simultaneously) appealing to motive – in fact I disagree with Vox Day’s so-called facts, which are reductionist; as I have explained three or so times now.

the overall quote, that is, not that of the soldier

Which can just be casually discounted because it is inconvenient to your slant?

[Trivani]

Rowan,

People that have no real experience to draw upon use abstractions to try to prove their point. Intellectuals have a bad reputation partly for that reason. Vox Day's quote shows that he has real experience, and reflects reality rather than your pure abstractions.

[Rowan]

Rowan,

People that have no real experience to draw upon use abstractions to try to prove their point. Intellectuals have a bad reputation partly for that reason. Vox Day's quote shows that he has real experience, and reflects reality rather than your pure abstractions.

Trivani,

By abstractions I assume you mean my unwillingness to let offensive fallacies slip and by real experience you seem to mean weak anecdotal evidence. Anti-intellectualism has a rather grim and shameful history; I would advice you against indulging in such dangerous trends.

[ShaiGar]

Let me get this right; Vox Day’s argument is that both murder and rape are morally wrong and therefore, if you teach people to murder they will invariably rape – clearly he rejects free-will.

Agreed. I would murder, if there were not restrictive punishments and a high likelyhood of being caught. But I would never rape.

[MrEPenguin]

She is probably one of those idiots who loves animals more then people. :stunned: