Vox Popoli

Aaron Kinney offers an exemplary object lesson in the common mistake of elevating theory over observation. This is made even more amusing by his numerous errors in logic and reading comprehension, some of which appear to border on overt intellectual dishonesty. Of course, he’s an atheist, so there’s no moral reason he shouldn’t dissemble if he feels the need to do so. Consider:

To Vox, rape is only immoral if you subscribe to the arbitrary dictates of an Abrahamic creator-God. Also, Vox thinks that everyone is owned not by themselves, but by God. So much for the libertarian concept of self-ownership!

No, it is self-evident that one can only claim that rape is immoral if one subscribes to a coherent moral code which presents a rational basis for universality, (or at the very least makes a claim, however dubious, to universality). As I have demonstrated, many individuals, past and present, have subscribed to coherent moral codes which do not consider rape to be immoral or consider it at most to be a petty crime worthy of minor compensation. Most people today do not even pretend to subscribe to a coherent moral code; they make arbitrary decisions based on their feelings at the time. Christians are one of the very few groups who possess a coherent moral code which presents a rational basis for universality – I note that this assertion is supported by a vast panoply of non-Christian intellectuals, past and present. Aaron also conveniently leaves out that I expressly stated that there may be other such moral codes, but neither Aaron nor anyone else has even attempted to present one.

Despite 17 years of Christian fundamentalism, Aaron managed to somehow miss the very basis for Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. In fact, Vox does not think that everyone is owned by themselves, but by Satan. Jesus Christ had to die in order to pay the price to redeem humanity, hence the phrase “Blessed Redeemer” that appears in so many Christian hymns. I recommend a children’s book called “The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe” which might help Aaron understand this concept; if the book is too difficult, I’m told there is a movie which makes much the same point. (Before Aaron tries to misquote my own words against me, I note that the word “rightly” is an adverb, which modifies the verb “belongs”. Apparently he’s as good with grammar as he is with theology.)

As for the libertarian concept of self-ownership, one always has the right to sell oneself to another individual.

Vox thinks that if a woman flirts with a man, then he can fuck her and she has no grounds for protest. Where are the libertarian values of non-coercion, individuality, and the right to self? And how does Vox define “traditional Western morality” anyway? I’m assuming he means Christian morality, which isn’t a morality at all, but an arbitrary dictate from an all-powerful authority figure (again, where are the libertarian values? Libertarians don’t blindly submit to self-appointed authority figures and their dictates). But I would contend that Christian morality is not “traditional Western morality.” If anything, Biblical morality could be called “traditional Middle-Eastern morality,” but that’s quite a bit different.

Vox does not think that, Vox has never written that and Aaron is guilty of exaggeration at best, outright lying at worst. As for the question, I might as easily retort: where are the libertarian values of self-responsibility and independence, not to mention justice, in taking exception to the statement that a woman is responsible for the consequences of her actions? The contention that traditional Western morality is not synonymous with and largely derived from Christian morality is willfully and demonstrably absurd and anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge must consider it laughable. The equation of Christianity with blindness is an unsupported assertion, while the one equating a postulated ultimate authority – aka God – with a “self-appointed authority figure” is a dishonest and illogical caricature. If God as described exists, he is the legitimate and ultimate authority. If he does not exist, then how can he appoint himself?

Eventually, Vox makes his anti-libertarianism quite clear:

As I have previously asserted, most atheist and agnostic morality is parasitical, the cultural residue of previous generations.

Vox has really put himself in a bad spot here. First of all, he accidentally declared with a proverbial bullhorn that he either doesn’t understand, or he totally rejects libertarianism. Secondly, he sets up a straw man about atheism. Atheism, in itself, has nothing to say about morality…. I would pay money to see a “might = right” moral code that is truly derived from the negative claim of atheism.

Along with his difficulties with grammar and theology, Aaron demonstrates a failure to grasp the concept of intellectual vaccuums and the nature of the things that tend to fill them. And yet, he sees the same vaccuum I do, indeed, all he does here is repeat what I have previously stated on a number of occasions: atheism has nothing to say about morality. The atheist is provided no basis with which to condemn rape or any other evil by his atheism, and because he lacks this basis, he is therefore forced to rely on concepts such as “might makes right” when he wishes to condemn the action of another but is unwilling to play moral parasite and piggyback on the morality of others.

More later….

Aaron fails the first test:

News flash: Vox Day is NOT a libertarian. See this link for proof:

I’ll get to this in more detail later this weekend, but it’s quite simple to refute. Libertarianism is a POLITICAL ideology, not a moral framework or a religion. Regardless of one’s morality or religious faith, one can subscribe to a political viewpoint which refuses to impose it on others.

I daresay that Aaron can’t point to a single example of where I betray libertarian values – with the possible exception of abortion, a subject wherein I have already explained that the Libertarian Party position is in error – due to my Christian faith.

My analysis will perhaps be colored by the fact that I just drained a bottle of Australian Shiraz – I must say that Spacebunny entirely failed to uphold her end of the deal, her loss as it was quite good – but this is how I see it:

Group A: Germany, Poland, Costa Rica, Ecuador.
The home team got set up by the committee again. There’s no way these things are done blind.

Group B: England, Sweden, Paraguay, Trinidad & Tobago
England should walk through without a problem. Paraguay was only dangerous back when what’s his name used to stone everyone, then score the winning penalty.

Group C: Argentina, Holland, Serbia, Ivory Coast.
I still remember Bergkamp’s classic goal against Argentina; Rob van Persie’s been stepping into his boots at Arsenal, but I doubt he can do it againt the Argys.

Group D: Portugal, Mexico, Iran, Angola
Mexico is OVERRATED. The USA should have had this seed and would have won this group.

Group E: Italy, USA, Czech Republic, Ghana.
The closest thing to a Group of Death in this tournament. The Italians, the Americans or the Czechs could easily win this group. The USA’s balls-out attack will either crack the Italian defense or lead to a complete disaster. Paolo Maldini is aging and Nesta looked vulnerable when I watched Milan play earlier this year, so the Americans’ chances of taking the group are reasonable.

Group F: Brazil, Japan, Australia, Croatia.
Jamie wept….The Asian teams are better than most people realize. Brazil is soccer royalty, but on merit. Ronaldinho has been unbelievable this year for Barcelona.

Group G: France, South Korea, Switzerland, Togo
France should walk away with it, but Switzerland hung with them surprisingly well and nearly knocked them off in the Euro qualifiers. This is perhaps the most unpredictable group, even if it’s not as strong as Group E.

Group H: Spain, Ukraine, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia.
The last and least. Spain, a classic choker, would probably fail to get out of groups E or G, but they should be able to make it to the knock-out stage before falling apart this time.

Bomb… or just another pathetic Official Story:

At least one passenger aboard American Airlines Flight 924 maintains the federal air marshals were a little too quick on the draw when they shot and killed Rigoberto Alpizar as he frantically attempted to run off the airplane shortly before take-off.

“I don’t think they needed to use deadly force with the guy,” says John McAlhany, a 44-year-old construction worker from Sebastian, Fla. “He was getting off the plane.” McAlhany also maintains that Alpizar never mentioned having a bomb.

“I never heard the word ‘bomb’ on the plane,” McAlhany told TIME in a telephone interview. “I never heard the word bomb until the FBI asked me did you hear the word bomb. That is ridiculous.” Even the authorities didn’t come out and say bomb, McAlhany says….

“I was on the phone with my brother. Somebody came down the aisle and put a shotgun to the back of my head and said put your hands on the seat in front of you. I got my cell phone karate chopped out of my hand. Then I realized it was an official.”

It’s interesting to see how the authorities always view communications with the outside world when they are busy defending the people, isn’t it. McAlhany is lucky that the wielder of the shotgun didn’t pull the trigger… after all, he might have had a bomb too!

Is there anyone out there who happens to be a wargamer and/or enjoys mindless, repetitive work in Photoshop? I want to create a Fifth Frontier War module for VASSAL, and while I’ve already completed the digital map, I have neither the time nor the apititude for doing the counters. If you do, let me know and I can provide the scans for the source art.

There’s no way this game gets played without rk’s technological meisterwerk, so it’s got to be done sooner or later. Alternatively, if anyone knows how to pull jpgs out of a Cyberboard gamebox, that might serve as a halfway measure.

By the way, since there appear to be a few wargamers who are unacquainted with VASL/VASSAL, you simply must check it out. It’s the true 21st century boardgaming medium.

Outside is not a mythical place.

Unfortunately, this is all too true. Uploaded superintelligences don’t like the Big Room, with its green shag carpet and incandescent lights. And the dirt. Not to mention things that generate odors.

If I could figure out a way to play soccer in my basement, I’d never have to leave the house again. When I build my mansion, it will leave even veteran Cribs watchers astonished. A house just isn’t a home without a minefield, a fully equipped weight room and an underground indoor soccer field.

“WARNING: Trespassers will absorb kinetic energy in excess of their ability to maintain corporeal integrity.”

Bane notes an observable phenomenon:

what is it with these effiminate menstrual-male pilot fishes that swim with these angry femisharks, anyway?

We’ve all seen them. Wild haired, wide-eyed behind Harry Potter glasses, mouthing feminist propaganda and doggerel alongside their larger, more threatening sistern, with their man-purse over their shoulder and ready to shake their skinny fist at you the moment their Alpha Bitch gives them permission. She usually makes them hold the sign, while she works the bullhorn.

There were more than a few of these on my campus, although being a heavily Greek campus, the serious feminists were mostly in the professariat. Our student feministas were so backward and half-hearted that they still dated men, those few that were attractive enough to do so, anyhow.

Aside from the Sexist Pornographer incident, wherein the White Buffalo and I achieved Campus Hero status at the Pyhrric price of one defaced Stephanie Seymour poster, they were inobtrusive, holding Take Back The Night rallies while trying to stay out of the way of drunken couples heading homeward for a little date rape.

I remember there were two guys who always hung out with the grotesquoisie, one of whom had lived with Big Chilly and the White Buffalo before me. Unsurprisingly, both pilot fish eventually came out of the closet… in retrospect, the Greg Louganis poster he left behind was probably the first clue.

From NRO’s Corner:

On October 26, a state civil jury sitting in Manhattan found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey liable for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (a Port Authority complex). Yes, you read that correctly. In its wisdom, the jury found that the Port Authority was SIXTY-EIGHT PERCENT RESPONSIBLE for the bombing, which killed six (including a pregnant woman), injured over a thousand, and caused damages possibly into the billions.

The jury found that the terrorists who constructed the urea nitrate bomb, cased the WTC repeatedly, planted the bomb in a rented van parked in the underground garage, detonated it, sent letters claiming responsibility for their handiwork, and warned (correctly as it turns out) that the attack was just the beginning, were THIRTY-TWO PERCENT RESPONSIBLE for their bombing.

I have already explained how within the non zero-sum framework of morality, a victim can be responsible without lessening the guilt of the attacker one iota. But here, the American legal system demonstrates – in what I consider to be an impressively ludicrous manner – that even in a zero-sum situation, it is perfectly legal and correct to consider the extent to which the victim is responsible for his victimization.

The Port Authority should have known better than to dress in such a slinky manner… clearly, she had it coming.

Not Doh-San himself, of course, merely the idea expressed here:

#3. There is context and there is context. Before flaming someone, be sure you’ve read enough of that person’s writings to have a feel for what that person is really all about.

No, no, a THOUSAND times NO! For all that I have inadvertantly allowed the various ideas presented here from time to time to be polluted by my personality – and perhaps this is inevitable – their verity or lack thereof has nothing to do with me or what I’m about.

The truth is what it is. If I am so fortunate as to occasionally get within shouting distance, so much the better. But it does not depend on me. I have no doubt that the individual mentioned in Doh-San’s is a decent human being, but that is totally irrelevant. So, too, is my decency or lack of it.

The beauty of the Internet is the way in which the dross can be stripped away. I find myself regretting my inability to remove the personality from my postings, because the conversations are so much more interesting to me when they are devoid of the petty meanderings of the personal that are so inescapable in person. This is why I am as indifferent to personal praise as I am to personal criticism, to even mention something in that context is to miss the point!

For example, it is well-known that I loathe Me So Michelle, the media whore. But I think no more about the natural person behind it than I do about… Romanian curling. (I honestly don’t think I’ve ever given curling a moment’s thought, and definitely not the Romanian variety.) I find the train wreck that passes for Amandagon’s thinking to be irresistibly fascinating, but I have more interest in the personal life of my nameless ASL 9-1 – who isn’t even a real cardboard counter, but a digital one – than I do in hers.