Author: VD

VPFL Week 6

67 Winston Reverends (4-2)
44 Moundsview Meerkats (1-5)

63 Judean Rhyneauxs (4-2)
52 RR Redbeards (2-4)

65 Blackmouth Banksters (4-2)
50 Meigs Marauders (3-3)

69 Valders Quixotes (4-2)
68 Bane Sidhe (4-2)

77 MS Swamp Spartans (3-3)
61 Greenfield Grizzlies (1-5)

This is your weekly NFL discussion thread. I picked up Lance Moore, so naturally Hakeem Nicks is Questionable on the same week that Arian Foster sits. It appears unlikely to be my year… but at least I should be able to beat the woeful Grizzlies, LdT notwithstanding.

Hearts and minds of hate

Nicholas Kristof underlines the intrinsic absurdity of the current line of neocon justification for the Afghan Occupation:

[I]t seems to me a historic mistake to justify our huge military presence in Afghanistan as a bulwark to protect the women. In fact, most women I interviewed favored making a deal with the Taliban — simply because it would bring peace. For them, the Taliban regime was awful, but a perpetual war may be worse. Take Pari Gol, a woman from Helmand Province whom I met here in Kabul. She despises the Taliban and told me on this trip that back in 2001, “I prayed that the Taliban would be defeated, and God listened to my prayers.”

Yet in the fighting since then, she said, her home was destroyed and her husband and daughter were both killed by American airstrikes. She is now living in a mud hut here — fuming at the Taliban, the Americans and the Afghan government. “I hate all of them,” she told me.

It is a huge mistake. The occupation of Afghanistan cannot be justified under any reasonable measure anymore. It should be obvious that the neocons are not going to win many of the required hearts and minds when their “liberation” of Afghan women comes via the deaths of their husbands and children. No doubt there are a few pro-abortion, anti-marriage feminists who would see this as a perfectly viable strategy, but should come as no surprise to sane observers that the violent military occupation of a country very seldom causes the occupiers to be loved.

Given that the latest Wikileaks documents prove that America’s occupation of Iraq has killed nearly three times more innocent and uninvolved civilians than all enemy “insurgents”, “terrorists”, or “violent extremists” combined, it is eminently clear that the Bush-Rumsfeld strategery has completely failed. And the Obama administration has been making a classic strategic mistake in stubbornly reinforcing failure; we are fortunate that it has not been successful in expanding the war to include Iran and Pakistan as well.

“The Iraq War Logs released by WikiLeaks on 23 October 2010, contain 54,910 records compiled by the United States military whose numerical fields register 109,032 violent deaths between January 2004 and December 2009. These casualty records contain four categories of casualties, ‘Civilian’ (66,081 deaths), ‘Host Nation’ (15,196 deaths), ‘Enemy’ (23,984 deaths), and ‘Friendly’ (3,771 deaths).”

Perceptive observers will note the way in which the views of the Afghan women are consistent with the theory of Game. The relative security of the Taliban are preferred to the risks of war and the nominal “freedom” it promises. The fact that they are almost certainly right in this case does not alter the fact that the inherent female preference exists.

New NFL policy

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of the NFL attempting to protect players from serious harm and permanent injury. I remember the outcry when helmet-spearing was banned, but that didn’t harm the sport in the least much less turn it into a girl’s game. And no Vikings fan who remembers Duane Rudd playing linebacker is going to confuse hard hits for good tackling; hitting someone hard and then celebrating the hit as the ball-carrier keeps his feet and runs past you is not what football is all about.

But, as the Vikings’ locker room has noted, there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in the league’s current posturing. It is ludicrous to claim that the concerns are primarily driven by player safety when chop-blocks at the knees of offensive linemen are still permitted. (Note that this was the pet cause of noted NFL softie Dr. Z; a rule requiring blockers to face what they hit above the knees was his perfectly reasonable solution.) It’s hard to argue that quarterbacks don’t require some protection when few starters manage to make it through a season anymore, but over the years I’ve noticed that it’s usually the special teams players, not the stars, who wind up with the most serious injuries.

Mailvox: Hollywood history

Hitler was not the German National Socialist Workers Party. Nor was the converse true. Imprecision in language often leads to needless confusion, which is why DJ felt it necessary to ask for clarification regarding an apparent historical contradiction:

In your book The Irrational Atheist, you mentioned that Hitler received 95% of the vote at one time. On Bill Maher’s show Mr Reiner mentioned that he never received 33% of the vote, which is correct?

In general, if there is a discrepancy between something I have written and something that a Hollywood figure assserts on Bill Maher’s show, I suggest it is entirely safe to assume that the Hollywood figure is incorrect. It never hurts to check, of course, but seriously…. In this particular case, Mr. Reiner happens to be wrong, and wrong on no less than three levels. The Weimar Republic was a parliamentary system, not a presidential one, so the German electorate was not voting for Hitler in the national elections to which Mr. Reiner is clearly referring; they were voting for National Socialist parliamentarians. That’s a mere technicality and would not normally justify comment except that Mr. Reiner’s statement is more than a little misleading given the American context of his remarks; keep in mind that Margaret Thatcher, (or more precisely, the parliamentarians of the Conservative Party, a group which included Mrs. Thatcher), only won 35.8% of the vote in the 1979 UK election.

Moreover, the statement also happens to be factually wrong. The National Socialists won 43.9% of the popular vote in the March 5, 1933 election, taking 288 of the 647 seats (44.5%) in the Reichstag. And that 1933 election was actually the third straight one in which the National Socialists won more than 33% of the popular vote, as they had won 37.3% and 33.1% in the previous two national elections. There was nothing democratically illegitimate about the National Socialists; the hitherto dominant Social Democrats (SDP) never controlled more than the 39% of the parliamentary seats that they won at the peak of their electoral strength in 1919.

As for my statement, I was not referring to the general elections, but rather to the four post-1933 national plebiscites that retroactively combined the offices of Reich Chancellor and Reich President and transferred the joint authority of the combined office to Adolf Hitler, approved the Austrian Anschluss, undsoweiter.

“What’s staggering about Hitler’s democratic appeal is not that he managed to win an average of 95.9 percent of the vote in the four plebiscites, but that he did so with 95.5 percent of the registered voters showing up to vote. That’s a serious democratic mandate!”
– The Irrational Atheist, p. 188

Mailvox: the student exhibits mastery

A sends in an after-action report of an encounter with a self-styled champion of evolutionary psychology:

Evolutionary Psychology has always been a thorn in my side, and while I agree with the fundamentals of Game, I’ve never thought of it as any proof positive that EP as a whole was viable. I’m admittedly not an expert on the subject — both my degrees are in the field of humanities — so I always find myself drawn to your blog when EP (or any evolutionary field for that matter) is the topic of conversation.

I typically don’t post to forums, including Vox Popoli, as I see my time quickly get sucked away by the activity, but recently at another forum I found myself compelled to post because I so strongly disagreed with the statements of another poster who is an adamant supporter of both TENS and EP. When it came to EP, rather than get sucked into an assumptive argument, I took a page out the VP book and just flat-out questioned the science behind evo-psych, including its ability to make measurable predictions, etc. His response managed to simultaneously be laughably predictable and surprising to me. As to my challenges to EP, this is all he could muster:

“I didn’t expect you to be credulous towards my claims, and unfortunately I don’t have carefully compiled case studies to present…Psychology is enormously complex, and it would be unrealistic to expect the sort of definite predictions that can be made of simple systems…this comment of yours is analogous to saying that because a meteorologist’s predictions are only accurate 50% of the time, meteorology is not science. You have a right to such an opinion, but while holding such an opinion, it would be unlikely that you would develop much understanding of the science of meteorology.”

This retreat was of course entirely expected, but the part that threw me for a loop is what he continually fell back on as his defense — a claim that my discourse with him was entirely predicted by him based on evo-psych:

“However, I have discussed the pattern of events occurring in our dialog on this forum in the past, and anyone who paid attention can observe for themselves whether things play out as I’ve described. My response to you was more for the purpose of illustrating the pattern to long time readers here, than for the purpose of persuading you that I’m correct.”

In summation, his attempted defense was that our discourse was not one of simple and genuine disagreement, but rather a challenge for pack dominance. That he could not back up these assumptive claims or his ex post facto prediction seems typical of the dogged defenders of EP. Previously, I would have engaged in a discussion of the minutiae of social behaviors, but this time I went directly to the foundation of these pet theories and happily watched as he engaged in foolish hand-waving. I just wanted to drop you this email to say thanks to you and the Ilk for providing me with a vital technique for taking guys like this to the woodshed.

I was greatly pleased to be apprised of this fine example of foundational sapping put into action. While I am often disappointed by the poor quality of argumentation exhibited by commenters on this blog who, despite literal years of examples having been set before them, still a) rely upon emotional rhetoric, b) attempt illegitimate logical shortcuts, c) fail to comprehend the argument they are criticizing, and d) inappropriately apply otherwise effective techniques, so it is a real pleasure to read a correct and competent application of one of my favorite techniques.

Foundational sapping is extremely effective because it simultaneously attacks both the argument and the individual presenting it without utilizing any unfair ad hominem or committing any other logical fallacies. And because it is based on the sound principle of MPAI, it is applicable in most circumstances. Not all, but most. Very few individuals actually know anywhere nearly as much as they pretend to know, and intelligent, educated people are far more prone to engage in intellectual bluffing than most because a) they have a larger knowledge base from which to bluff, and b) they are often quick enough to latch on to a hint and use it to conceal their lack of relevant knowledge. But despite their pretensions, they usually provide indications that they don’t have a firm grasp on their subject; in the first quote, for example, note the ungrammatical use of the word “credulous”. Lofty language used improperly is a strong sign of an intellectual charlatan.

This is why I constantly stress the importance of asking questions in debate. (Granted, I don’t do it often in the comments, but that’s because I have set the stage with my post and will usually recognize when a predictable counter-argument is being made. Most of my questions are intended to confirm that someone is making an expected counter-argument.) While the conventional Socratic method is less effective than most people seem to imagine, mostly due to its common use of false constructions to which the interlocutor is required to agree, its focus on the use of questions to pin down the interlocutor’s precise position renders it an important part of one’s intellectual arsenal.

Some readers will have noticed that those who consider themselves to be defenders of “science and reason” not only dislike asking questions, but in some cases even claim they have no need to know, let alone understand, what their interlocutor is saying. (Look up the borderline retarded Courtier’s Reply, by way of example.) This is why they either avoid debates or get repeatedly trounced by every half-competent opponent; an unwillingness to understand the argument made by the other side is almost perfectly synonymous with making a commitment to lose the debate.

Foundational sapping requires not only understanding the argument being made, but more importantly, understanding the basic assumptions that support it. As A discovered with the would-be champion of evolutionary psychology, very few individuals possess even a rudimentary comprehension of the basic assumptions that provide the foundations of their argument, so the easiest and most reasonable way to defeat the argument as well as incidentally destroy the credibility of the individual presenting it is to ask questions that concern those foundations. And when the interlocutor rapidly retreats into hand-waving and strange self-laudatory pronouncements, you will know that not only have you won the encounter, but that the interlocutor knows it as well. As does everyone witnessing it.

Of course, the converse side of utilizing this method of debate is the awareness of how easily it can be turned against you if you are foolish enough to take untenable positions with the notion of bluffing your way through. I don’t recommend doing so; the ability to say “I don’t know” is not an admission of weakness or stupidity, but rather an important sign of intellectual integrity and intelligence. On a tangential note, argumentative bluffers always suspect everyone else is bluffing too; they invariably interpret a failure or refusal to initially provide supporting evidence is certain proof of an inability to do so. Baiting and trapping this sort of individual is so easy that a child could do it.

The best thing is that on those rare occasions when you find yourself in a discussion with someone who actually knows what they are talking about, you will usually learn something that is either interesting or useful. Even if you end up getting your head metaphorically handed to you, the experience will allow you to make more effective arguments in the future. One should not enter into argumentative discussions with a “win or lose’ mentality, but rather a “win or learn” one. There is no shame in being bested by someone of superior intelligence or information, the only shame is in the inability to either admit that one has been bested or learn from the experience.

Yeah, but no

Ilana hasn’t given up yet:

UPDATE IV (Oct. 19): STILL ABOUT DEADBEATS. From all the reports so far, FBN’s Gerri Willis’ being the latest, it is as I said. The defaulters owe boatloads of money. The bankers bungled the paper work in a manner that verges on the criminal. The reality, in as much as property rights go, comports with my distillation on this post and the one linked to it, “Financial Paperwork Crisis (No Conspiracy Thinking, Please).”

Here is the evidence of a large-scale conspiracy that Ilana was requesting. Needless to say, there is plenty more that can be presented if necessary, since this doesn’t even involve Bank of America: “In mid-2006, I discovered that over 60 percent of these mortgages purchased and sold were defective,” [Richard M.] Bowen, former chief underwriter for Citigroup’s consumer-lending group testified on April 7 before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress. “Defective mortgages increased during 2007 to over 80 percent of production.”

I’m still waiting for Ilana to explain how the defects in these “defective mortgages” which made up over 80% of the $1 trillion in mortgages being purchased and sold each year by Citi, have anything to do with “deadbeats”. And at what point does it become irrational to decry “conspiracy thinking” when more and more people within the banking industry are being forced to admit that both the law and the chain of title were intentionally broken literally millions of times? How many billions of dollars in put-back claims must be filed and/or settled before skeptics are compelled to admit that a) there was a large-scale conspiracy to break the law, and b) it is not about deadbeats and the foreclosure fraud is merely a consequence of the preceding mortgage transference fraud?

Moreover, I note that the definition of “conspiracy” is “a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.” Note that the conjunction is “or”, not “and”. There was nothing “secret” about what the banks did in creating MERS or securitizing the mortgages; these were matters that explicitly involved public filings as well as expensively tasteful brochures. We can set aside the question of whether what they did was “evil” or not; there is no need to dive into the tangential morass of a morality debate here. But there is no question that what a rather large combination of people in the banking industry are confirmed to have done was “unlawful”. So, to describe the mass mortgage fraud as a genuine and proven conspiracy is correct and it is logically incorrect to make a rhetorical appeal to “Conspiracy Thinking” in order to argue against the observable facts of the matter. There is nothing theoretical about this particular conspiracy when it is already a matter of public record.

One can quite reasonably argue about the eventual economic and political impact of the fallout from the exposure of the conspiracy. Karl Denninger and I think it will be serious and near-term, Mike Shedlock and Calculated Risk believe it will be moderate and play out over time. But at this point, no one informed on the situation can pretend that there was not a large conspiracy to illegally transfer mortgage titles and sell fraudulent securities that preceded the consequent foreclosure-related frauds.

I don’t feel your pain

Empathy Quotient Test
Your score: 23

That was a little surprising, considering the results from that Asperger’s Quotient test a bunch of us took two or three years ago. I suppose this indicates that despite possessing a normal ability to read other people, I can’t be bothered most of the time. Actually, that sounds about right.

So take the test and report back. Or not. I am reliably informed that I don’t much care.

Bring me the head of Elizabeth Moon

The science fiction community is not just fat and unemployable, by and large, they’re also significantly less intelligent, educated, and informed than they think they are. Consider this ridiculous reaction to Elizabeth Moon’s perfectly reasonable statement about her lack of enthusiasm for the so-called Ground Zero mosque:

If you change the first paragraph to reflect the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (and make a couple of minor edits for clarity) you get something that highlights the assumptions made in the original post:

I know–I do not dispute–that many Christians had nothing to do with the attack, did not approve of them, would have stopped them if they could. I do not dispute that there are moderate, even liberal, Christians, that many Christians have all the virtues of civilized persons and are admirable in all those ways. I am totally, 100%, appalled at those who want to burn the Bible (which, by the way, I have read in English translation, with the same attention I’ve given to other holy books) or throw paint on churches or beat up Christians. But Christians fail to recognize how much forbearance they’ve had. Schools in my area held consciousness-raising sessions for kids about not teasing children in Christian-defined clothing…but not about not teasing Jewish children or racial minorities. More law enforcement was dedicated to protecting churches than synagogues–and synagogues are still targeted for vandalism. What I heard, in my area, after Oklahoma City, was not condemnation by local churches of the attack–but an immediate cry for protection even before anything happened. Our religious group, and many others (not, obviously all) already had in place a “peace and reconciliation” program that urged us to understand, forgive, pray for, not just innocent Christians but the attackers themselves. It sponsored a talk by a Christian from a local church–but the talk was all about how wonderful Christianity was–totally ignoring the historical roots of Christian violence.

This is a impressively stupid analogy, given that the reported OK City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was not a Christian. His religion, by his own attestation, was “science”, although strangely enough I have yet to hear scientists blamed for OK City. And it is downright bizarre to accuse Ms Moon of being a racist, given the rather obvious fact that Islam is not a race.

However, there can be no doubt that Ms Moon is clearly guilty of showing the greatest disrespect for Progressive America’s Most Favored Minority. Therefore, I disagree with those who call for her to be stripped of her status as Guest of Honor at WisCon. She should clearly be stripped of her SFWA membership, her books should be publicly burned, after which proceedings she should be stoned on stage at WisCon. I have written SFWA President-For-Life John Scalzi regarding this very serious situation and expressed my expectations that he will not only put this deeply appropriate punishment for holding an opinion contra the SWPLSFWA majority in motion, but throw the first stone himself.

UPDATE: “SF3 has withdrawn the invitation to Elizabeth Moon to attend WisCon 35 as guest of honor.”

I am SHOCKED and OUTRAGED by this action by the committee of SF3! Elizabeth Moon must not be permitted to hide from her hurtful and racist words! She must be punished! In PUBLIC! She must be stoned! On STAGE! Her books must be BURNED!

And the Internets trembled

The Dread Ilk are breeding! The Mad Aussie writes from Down Under:

Just wanted to let you know personally that Sarah [aka Crystal Lake] and I got engaged on Sunday. Rest assured I did it with class, style, and of course, some wine glasses filled with piss…. I don’t have a clue right now how it’s going to unfold yet, I hear Sarah’s mum has ideas, so I’ll give it time. Anyway, there you go, the ilk, your blog, the world, the way, the light, this beer, Bane rolling his eyes.

Congratulations to both Jamie and Sarah. I wish them a happy, fruitful and life-long marriage.

Muslim is the new black

I have to admit, I do find the latest employment incident to be moderately amusing. I mean, it’s not exactly news that NPR is Ground Zero for SWPL political correctness, so its actions are educational in certain regards:

National Public Radio terminated the contract of commentator Juan Williams after he said on Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor” that people wearing Muslim garb on airplanes made him “worried” and “nervous.”

Of course, people wearing Muslim garb on airplanes make everyone, including other Muslims, nervous everywhere from Moscow to New Dehli. This is most likely because Muslims, unlike every other religious group, have been known to blow up airplanes upon which they are flying. And it’s not as if the SWPL management at NPR doesn’t know this, but they would literally rather die than face the cognitive dissonance between reality and their progressive ideology.

It is interesting to learn that Muslims now outrank blacks in the progressive hierarchy, though. It wasn’t all that long ago when blacks were at the top of the pyramid; I wonder if Jesse Jackson could survive his “Hymietown” remark if he made it today. We know from l’affaire de Sanchez that Jews still outrank Hispanics, but the Williams firing calls into question who is presently SWPL America’s Most Favored Minority.