After cackling about how his hit rate went up due to my linking to his blog, Orca is whining that I didn’t link to him the next time. Whatever. At any rate, Minnesota’s favorite Nancy Hopkins wannabe came up with this amidst more obfuscatory posturing:
As for Vox’s comment, clearly he seems to be backing off a bit on the issue–as well he should.
I’m not backing away from anything. Just ask Bartholomew, he seems to think I post on nothing else. And still, not a single critic has even come close to addressing my first question, (now clarified thanks to IF):
Did women’s suffrage enhance, degrade or make no difference to American liberties as laid out in the Bill of Rights?
There is no discussion to be had when my critics are afraid to even take a stand on the very simple question of whether suffrage has been a positive, a negative or an irrelevance. It must be one of the three, for there are no other possibilities. (Although “I don’t know” is a reasonable response.) Of course, hiding behind a meaningless fog of words in an attempt to avoid taking a position is the first defense of the intellectual coward.
Now, it is true that Orca’s arguments of a post hoc, propter hoc fallacy would seem to admit that American liberties have been degraded since women began voting, but this still falls short of answering the question.
So, which is it sport? Your ball. Positive, negative or irrelevant?