Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: evolution and the slippery slope

Mike Williamson answered the question I posed to him in response to his claims about creationists.

1. How do creationists “pose a serious threat to society”?

Society only functions when the majority of the people agree on basic fundamental ideas. A critical mass of people who believe reason and evidence don’t matter is a slippery slope to tyranny.

Williamson’s reasoning is totally specious here.  The overwhelming majority of Americans were creationists from the very beginning, and yet somehow, with the exception of the Lincoln presidency, managed to avoid slipping into tyranny.  And, as a matter of fact, there is a positive correlation between the number of non-Creationists in the United States and the growth of increasingly intrusive government.

Williamson is engaging in the very intellectual dishonesty he falsely imputed to me by erroneously attempting to equate “creationists” with “people who believe reason and evidence don’t matter”.  I am a creationist.  I also believe that reason and evidence matter a very great deal indeed.  Williamson has asserted a false dichotomy that my mere existence is sufficient to expose.  And I am very far from the only creationist who not only believes reason and evidence matter, but utilizes them more adroitly than Mr. Williamson does.

Moreover, Mr. Williamson’s entire argument is based on a demonstrably false assumption that a belief in creationism necessarily conflicts with a belief in evolution by natural selection.  While I am a creationist who is skeptical of the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection as described by Richard Dawkins, it should be obvious that creationism and evolution by natural selection are at least potentially complimentary because natural selection intrinsically requires genes from which to select.  As the brighter sort of evolutionists are fond of pointing out when pressed, evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life, it only concerns the transformation of one existing species into another.  Even to a mere +3 SD intelligence like Mr. Williamson, it should be readily apparent that evolution by natural selection cannot possibly take place via the mutation of nonexistent genes.

Only evolution by natural selection combined with abiogenesis can be considered to be intrinsically opposed to creationism, and even that is debatable given that logic dictates the artificial replication of abiogenesis by scientists would offer more support a creator behind the abiogenesis than it taking place by time and chance alone.

2. There are an estimated 1,263,186 animal species and 326,175 plant species in the world. Assuming the age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years, what is the average rate of speciation?

The technical definition of species is somewhat iffy, at times arbitrary, and needs more work to be fleshed out.

Mr. Williamson not only cannot calculate a rate that absolutely must exist if his belief in evolution by natural selection is true, but admits that he cannot even define the species whose origins he strongly implies are incontrovertible. It should be apparent that he is not defending actual quantifiable, testable, and replicable science here, he is defending his irreligious faith in a particular historical science fiction that may or may not have any basis in fact.  That doesn’t mean his faith may not be logically well-founded, it merely means that he cannot even begin to provide scientific evidence for what he is claiming is beyond skepticism. This is philosophy, not modern science.

3. How many mutations, on average, are required per speciation?

See above.

It is interesting, is it not, how even the most blindly faithful evolutionist runs from the sort of precision and quantification that is absolutely necessary if something is to be considered genuinely scientific in any meaningful sense?  Being both trained and well-read in economics, the reader can safely believe me, I know pseudo-science when I see it. Biologists like to appeal to physics as the foundation of their claimed authority, but the fact of the matter is that if physicists were as haplessly ignorant and as unable to provide predictive models as evolutionary biologists, no one would take them very seriously either.  This is why Daniel Dennett’s atheist logic is always so amusing: he asserts we are to trust biologists because physicists get amazingly accurate results.

4. What scientifically significant predictive model relies primarily upon evolution by natural selection?

Nothing as precise as physics, but holding a life science to that standard is stupid. Our understanding of genetics, animal behavior patterns, and in an incomplete way, social science, are all aided by the concept of natural selection.

Holding a life science to precise standards is stupid?  That should be news to all those idiots working in genetics and medical science. And what about those amazingly accurate results Mr. Dennett promised us? In addition to that insulting blunder, Williamson resorts to trying to blatantly move the goalposts.  But it’s not really his fault. What choice does he have? He can’t cite any scientifically significant predictive models that rely primarily upon evolution by natural selection because they don’t exist.  After more than 150 years, TENS is still a useless and onanistic “science” that has little purpose beyond trying to prove itself.

Our understanding of genetics was not, and is not, aided by the concept of natural selection. The mindless adherence to evolution by natural selection actually inhibited the initial acceptance of Mendelian genetics, hence the need for the “Neo-Darwinian Synthesis” that finally allowed biologists to move on with the real science while still genuflecting respectfully to Saint Darwin.  However, as I noted, we’re already seeing biologists admit that clinging to Darwin and Darwinism is unhelpful, and it won’t be too terribly long before they admit that the concept of natural selection is largely irrelevant with regards to manipulating genes as well.

5. Which of the various human sub-species is the most evolved; i.e. modified by mutation and natural selection from the most recent common human ancestor? Which is the least evolved?

There is no such thing as more evolved or less evolved. Evolution is not a linear progressive process where species “get better” over time. It is an amoral process. Genes either get passed on or they don’t. All evolution can tell is is which traits are more likely to thrive in specific environments. As for which human group has the most mutations from the baseline original human group, no idea.

Oh, Sweet Darwin! Someone obviously didn’t understand the question.  It must be that pesky dearth of IQ points again. Since evolution by natural selection concerns the selection of mutations, there are most certainly “more evolved” and “less evolved” species; the reason the coelocanth is called a “living fossil” is because it has fewer mutations that have been selected over time than most other extant species.  And it would not be possible to produce phylograms if it were not possible to declare which species was more evolved or less evolved from the purported common ancestor.  Williamson not only incorrectly assumed the idea that “more evolved” means “better”, he incorrectly assumed that was the only possible meaning for the term even though I provided him with a different one.

6. Is the theory of evolution by natural selection strengthened or weakened by the claim that most DNA is devoid of purpose?

Strengthened. Junk DNA would seem to indicate evolution is a chaotic process with some unnecessary leftovers, which weakens the claim of specific intelligent design.

I just wanted to get him on record here.  Remember, the ID model suggests that most DNA is NOT devoid of purpose.  So, if junk DNA turns out to be more than junk, that will show that ID is a successfully predictive model and thereby provide scientific evidence for the idea that creatures on earth did not evolve by natural selection, but were designed.  It will also show that another predictive model based on evolution by natural selection failed. Again.

I await any evidence that any creature on Earth is “intelligently” designed.

The usual response is, “but you don’t know the designer’s criteria,” which is a copout and unfalsifiable.

Any objective observation shows that every life form on Earth works just well enough to pass on its genes to its offspring. Most of the time. Those that don’t go extinct.

I’d like to see someone explain the “intelligence” behind a human foot, which no longer works as an effective grasper, and is not nearly as effective as a hoof for walking. Without modern footwear, we’re prone to serious mechanical failure of the joints and bone, usually shortly after our prime reproductive time.

And tiny babies will clutch with their feet when picked up from a crib, an instinctive hangover from our brachiator ancestors.

Keep an eye on genetic science. As we begin to learn more about how to manipulate genes, then we should begin to discover evidence of past genetic manipulations, if there is in fact any to be discovered.  As for infelicities of design, I fail to see how anyone who has ever used Windows Vista or Windows 8 can claim that suboptimal design is evidence of an absence of either intelligence or design.

Religion has really become a bad joke. Physics destroys creation myths. Biology destroys creation myths. Geology destroys creation myths. Either Creation is a tale told to Bronze Age peasants as a way to explain a universe they couldn’t grasp, or this God person is running a serious long con.

It’s hilarious to watch an alleged “genius” trot out crap that was debunked a half century ago.

I will leave it to the resident physics PhD to demonstrate the absurdity of his claim about physics.  I’ve already shown that biology cannot destroy creation myths because it doesn’t deal with them. As for geology, I can do no better than to quote the immortal words of Dr. Sheldon Cooper, “geology isn’t a real science”.

I will first mention that I am not a genius, “alleged” or otherwise, as I reject the idea that it is related to a specific IQ and I have no accomplishments that would merit the title. But I fear Mr. Williamson woefully misinterpreted that very significant peer-reviewed paper of fifty years ago that he cites, as it quite clearly not only defended, rather than debunked, the “crap” that I trotted out, but also provided absolutely conclusive scientific evidence for the existence of a Creator God as well as the precise age of the Earth down to the millesecond.  It’s a pity I cannot quite recall the name of the highly reputable scientists who authored it or the exact issue of Nature in which it was published, but perhaps Mr. Williamson could be a lamb and remind us.

Mailvox: rhetoric is not science

Michael Z. Williamson takes a page from the true faithful of global warming and Keynesian economics by attempting to defend what is supposed to pass for science with pure rhetoric:

Watching Creationists criticize evolutionary theory is like watching the Brady Bunch criticize the Heller Decision. It would be cute if they didn’t take themselves so seriously, and pose a serious threat to society.

What I find amusing about this is that I was an evolutionary skeptic long before I was a Christian.  And one of the primary reasons I was a skeptic is because as absurd as some of the arguments presented by the creationists struck me, no evolutionist ever demonstrated an ability to address the questions posed to them.  Instead, they always – always – attempted to discuss the Book of Genesis, the age of the Earth, Christianity, the public school system, or some other topic totally unrelated to the one at hand.

That is why I am still a skeptic concerning the secularism’s epic myth, despite having read every book ever published by Richard Dawkins, despite having read Wilson, and Gould, and Shermer, and Hauser, and a number of other well-regarded evolutionary popularizers.  At this point, it might be more accurate to say I am an evolutionary skeptic because I have read those books and been astounded by the obvious logical flaws, evasions, and handwaving that I have encountered in them.

But since Mike is a Standout Author, and therefore capable of exceeding the customary limitations of discussion point-repeating progressives, I assume he is able to rise above the mere rhetoric and actually defend evolutionary theory.  Let’s find out by asking him six simple questions that should be no problem for any man with a solid grasp of the subject.

  1. How do creationists “pose a serious threat to society”?
  2. There are an estimated 1,263,186 animal species and 326,175 plant species in the world.  Assuming the age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years, what is the average rate of speciation?
  3. How many mutations, on average, are required per speciation?
  4. What scientifically significant predictive model relies primarily upon evolution by natural selection?
  5. Which of the various human sub-species is the most evolved; i.e. modified by mutation and natural selection from the most recent common human ancestor? Which is the least evolved?
  6. Is the theory of evolution by natural selection strengthened or weakened by the claim that most DNA is devoid of purpose?

And Stickwick, who happens to be both a Christian and a physicist, beat me to showing how Mike’s attempt to tar all religious people as simplistic binary thinkers was not only demonstrably false, but amusingly inept:

One of the (many) major problems with religion is that its followers insist there has to be a right and wrong answer, and only one of each.

2 + X = (more than 5). Solve for X. One answer only, please.

“There is only one answer: X > 3. Every other possible answer is wrong: it’s not X = 3 and it’s not X < 3.

It’s
absurd to point to our limited understanding of nature and say that
since one person had it partially right and someone else had it
partially right, therefore there is more than one answer. You don’t know
that. And you’ll be hard pressed to build a convincing case, let alone
prove, that there is ultimately more than one right answer to something.
Science doesn’t proceed that way. Also, since when have religious
people insisted there is only one wrong answer?”

Mr. Williamson, with all due respect, you don’t appear to realize that you are not only dealing with a number of people here who are smarter than you are, but are also better educated in science than you are. It may help to keep in mind that at Vox Popoli, those who live by the rhetoric tend to die quickly and brutally by the dialectic.

Here the rhetoric is only used to dance on the grave afterward.

Mailvox: GRR Martin and the Left

DH, one of the increasingly less token liberals here, asks about my assumption that he would enjoy George Martin’s novels:

Hey you started me thinking about why you presume that as a token liberal I would be predisposed to enjoy or not be disappointed by Martin’s ASOIAF series. What if anything is the link as you see it between leftism and Martin’s works?

  1. Martin’s world is intrinsically amoral. There is little in the way of Christian or high pagan morals in the Julian mode; even Jaime and Cersei’s incest is only noteworthy for its effect on her sons’ claims to the Iron Throne.
  2. Martin’s world is essentially secular.  While he does a credible job of creating an alternate religious system and making use of it for plot purposes in a meaningful quasi-medieval manner, there is only two characters out of the huge cast who appear to be religious in any meaningful sense.  That being said, I very much liked the sea-based religion of the Greyjoys, but even there, Martin was unable to convey the emotional aspect of a strongly held faith. It was like watching a blind man attempt to describe color.
  3. Martin’s world is entirely nihilistic. There is no point to anything except the pursuit of power, and to a lesser extent, sex and money.
  4. Martin is, as he has declared, a feminist, and although his commitment to realism prevents him from giving in too heavily to the Warrior Woman trope that presently infests fantasy, science fiction, and urban fantasy, he created the ludicrous Brienne of Tarth and the equally silly Sand Snakes as a nod to it.  I went to high school with a heavily recruited basketball star who, at 6’6″, was both taller and bigger than Brienne.  She was strong, but, (and this is what the SF/F writers always leave out), she was incredibly slow.  The main reason women cannot fight men is not because they are weaker, although they are, but because they are so much slower.
  5. The sex in ASOIAF is almost invariably perverted. Although married couples have children, and therefore presumably at least occasionally have sex, Martin is more likely to describe a sexual encounter between a dragon and a pig than a conventional one between a married couple. The absurd Reek-assisted wedding night of the Bastard of Bolton demonstrated that Martin is aiming to shock the reader in the manner that so excites leftists.
  6. As it is said, Martin never met a Stark he didn’t want to kill.  Every honorable character seems to be stupid and meet with a bad fate, while the amoral but clever survive. Like most intelligent leftists, Martin values cleverness over every other virtue.

So, amorality, secularism, nihilism, feminism, perversion, and a cleverness fetish.  Throw in sword control, abortion, and progressive taxation, and it would tick all the boxes.  Oh, and let’s not forget the cornucopia of Daddy issues!  I’m not saying they are bad books, the first three are really quite good. But there is little of traditional or civilizational value to them; about halfway through A Dance with Dragons, I found myself beginning to sympathize with the Others.  Say what you will about them being murderous and dead, but at least it is an ethic of sorts.

Mailvox: in defense of “squee”

Perlhaqr attempts what I can only see as a futile defense:

I have to admit I’m somewhat confused by your diagnosis of scalzification via use of the word “squee”.  I use that term all the time, and I’m one of Correia’s Alphas. I don’t see the ideological binding of the term, I’m afraid.

The binding is not ideological, but socio-sexual.  Now, I don’t happen to know what “one of Correia’s Alphas” might be, but I find it very hard to conceive that Perlhaqr is either a sexual ALPHA as per Roissy or an Alpha Male according to the socio-sexual hierarchy. He might as convincingly attempt to defend his predilection for hair-braiding or high heels.  Alphas do not menstruate, they do not use their iPhones to self-shoot in bathrooms, (they seldom have iPhones in the first place), and they most assuredly do not “squee” over anything.

One can be excited.  One can be pumped, jacked, or psyched. One can rejoice, one can enthuse, and one can celebrate.  But one can no more be an alpha male and “squee” than one can queef, lactate, or get pregnant.  Only gamma males like McRapey, who revel in their perverse delusions, consider it not only fitting, but downright cool, to express themselves in terms that are popularized and primarily utilized by junior high school girls.

Should he wish to lower the probability of attractive adult women recoiling in disappointment, disgust and outright horror, Perlhaqr may also wish to consider excising “OMG”, “ZOMG”, “soooooooo”, and “One Direction” from his vocabulary.

Mailvox: combatting ignorance

Phoenician, in his imitable style, can’t even understand Wikipedia when he quotes it:

“The 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law states that “The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.” As of now, 88% to 92% of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions. […]

A combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a highly operational force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers. The unit undergoes training like any combat infantry. The IDF commando K9 unit, Oketz, also drafts females as elite combat soldiers.”

You’re a moron, Dipshit.

I do so enjoy when Pharyngulans comment here.  All they ever manage to do is publicly demonstrate that their IQs are at least two standard deviations below mine.  In this case, he clearly fails to understand the significance of the fact that 8 to 12 percent of the roles in the IDF are closed to women; those are the actual combat roles.  Women in the IDF are simply not permitted to serve in any combat role.  They haven’t served in them since 1948. They are allowed to train for combat, but they are not permitted to actually perform any combat role for the very reasons I originally cited and more.

“Women serve in support and combat support roles in the IDF, recently they have been allowed additional options but they still do not serve in active combat.  Around the world there has been some discussion about whether or not women should serve in active front-line combat. In Israel it is clear that despite the vast contribution of women in the military, active combat is not an option. This decision is based on the physical and biological differences between men and women but also for moral reasons. As Michal, a combat fitness instructor in the IDF, says, “No one wants to even think of the possibility of an Israeli girl falling into the hands of the enemy.” Our history is already filled with too many such stories of atrocities.

The Israeli military has always combined the practically of combat with the morality of our Jewish way of life. For political reasons women’s groups have tried to break down barriers but the simple fact is that physically women are not capable of doing the job men do. There was an attempt to integrate women in the Search and Rescue units but it was discovered that a great deal of physical damage was caused to them as a result of the increased effort. Even the girls who were integrated into the anti-aircraft unit suffered great physical damage during the long hikes. They suffered more than 30% more stress factors than the boys.”

Wake Up is dubious:

Congratulations on your exploits in Tekken.

Yeah, it wasn’t a video game, it was a similarly dubious active-duty Marine officer with significant combat experience.  He doesn’t mock the martial arts any more.  Nor would you if you tried to last even one minute against me or any other Dragon from my old dojo.  I’ve seen no shortage of doubters and mockers.  No one ever remained that way after stepping onto the mats and experiencing what a combination of speed, strength, experience, and training can do to the average tough guy.  We never did any choreographed fight demonstrations either.  We simply gave people a pair of gloves and told them to take their best shot.  Most of them did exactly the same thing.  Step-step-cock-grimace-BIG rear hand.  The rest tried the midsection tackle.

RealMatt, on the other hand, is simply misinformed:

The odds of a person trained in every single martial art ever known to man, with little to no real life fight experience, performing well in an actual fight, are very low.

Totally false.  It depends upon the school and the training.  The first time I got into an actual fight after I’d had a few years of training, it took me about ten seconds to incapacitate the guy with an arm bar after breaking his nose.  There is a very real difference between the fighting schools and the non-fighting schools.  I’ve been knocked out and had bones from my nose to my toes broken in training, whereas in the four real fights I was in, no one ever even managed to touch me.  In my experience, heavy contact sparring with someone who is trained is a lot harder than real fighting, as untrained brawlers not only tend to present a myriad of open targets, they advertise what they are going to do.

For example, they have a tendency to lead with their face, which is when the guy cocks his rear arm back as he leans or actually steps forward.  This is a very, very bad mistake against a trained fighter and usually results in eating a jab.  The instinctive grapplers, on the other hand, like to tackle at the waist.  That is how the aforementioned Marine managed to put himself in position to get his neck snapped so quickly.  Go with the flow, drop the arms, slide the left up and over, grab, twist, and lock.  Then ride to the ground, but carefully.

However, most men tend to start with punches, so my preference is usually to sidestep and catch the arm as it comes at me, pull it past and pivot to either a) slam the guy face-first into a wall if it is there, or b) keep turning and put him down on the ground in an armbar if it is not.  If the wall is there, I jam his arm up high behind his back while he’s stunned, then turn him and sweep his legs to put him down.  Then I put one knee on the back of his neck while keeping his arm pinned high. I also try to speak reassuringly, telling him to calm down, it’s all right, and so forth. They can’t do anything in that position, but you don’t want them to panic and cause you to break something.  The combination of the shock, the pain, and the helplessness usually causes them to relax in short order.

The only time this didn’t work without a problem was the second time, because I stopped with the guy pinned against the wall.  He seemed calm enough, so I stepped back and let him go, at which point he lunged at my bouncer friend.  That was how I learned not to stop until the guy is not only temporarily incapacitated, but down as well.

Mailvox: the failed metaphor

Congratulations to A. Man, who is the 150th commenter in the last five years to announce that I have, yet again, jumped the shark.  It’s amusing how often that metaphor has been heard from overly optimistic critics during the time when the readership has grown from 240k to 930k per month, especially when these critics are often the very same individuals who demand to know where they can find any indication of the economic and societal collapse I have predicted:

“Feminists are objectively worse than Nazis”

It’s nice to see that you were able to fully clear the shark.

“This
is what the feminist’s vaunted concept of equality means. This is what
it has always meant: the legal protection of a woman from all and any
consequences of her actions. This includes a woman’s ability to break
any contract at will, to steal from anyone as she pleases, and murder
even the most innocent without having to even hear a whisper of protest
to make her uncomfortable.”

The odd thing is that you know this
isn’t true, you know this statement cant be defended…and yet you make
it still. How does that work? What kind of reconciliation do you do in
your mind?

First, feminists are objectively worse than National Socialists.  I have demonstrated this in both logical and empirical terms.  The unborn and the recently born are much more helpless than international Jewry. The cost in human lives of feminism is quite clearly greater than the cost of National Socialism or Fascism ever was.  It could be debated whether feminism or communism has been more costly in those terms, but the mere fact that the matter is debatable suffices to prove what a terrible and evil ideology feminism is.

Second, the statement not only is true, but it can be easily defended. There is no reconciliation necessary to defend it because it is based on straightforward observation.  I direct the following questions to A. Man.

  1. Did American women not demand, and do they not presently possess, the right to break marital contracts at will?
  2. Have feminists not defended the right of women to kill men who abuse them?
  3. Does the feminist definition of abuse include non-physical abuse?
  4. Have feminists called for ban on actions that make a woman feel uncomfortable?

Mailvox: Republican hatred of Ron Paul

Stickwick wonders why conservatives react in such a stereotypically liberal manner to Ron Paul:

I have a question about the conservative perception of Ron Paul. Rachel Lucas seems like a reasonable right-of-center person whose political views are moving towards libertarianism. In fact, she now refers to herself as a libertarian. However, she still hangs on to the idea of American interventionism. In a recent post she criticizes McCain for his criticism of Rand Paul and for his overly-interventionist policy, but agrees with Ace that *some* interventionism is necessary:

I don’t agree with it, but at least their position is stated reasonably. What I find odd is how her commenters are using this as an opportunity to dump all over Ron Paul. Here’s a typical example:

“For the record, I cannot STAND Ron Paul. Fiscally he makes sense, but in every other conceivable way he’s a senile, batshit crazy old fuck.”

Why do some right-of-center people get so vitriolic about Ron Paul? They go right past “I strongly disagree with his ideas on foreign policy,” and straight to “crazy old fuck.” This is exactly the sort of thing they denounce when the left gets personal in its attacks or calls right-of-center ideology a “mental disorder.”

Why do conservatives call Ron Paul crazy instead of just disagreeing with him? Would you shed some light on this?

It’s not at all hard to understand why so many conservatives hate Ron Paul with all the fury of a thousand suns.  The reason is that he shames them for their hypocrisy.  He reveals the inconsistency in their non-conservatism.  He forces them to confront the fact that they are not the proponents of small government and liberty they believe themselves to be.

Big government, international interventionist, and monetarist “conservatives” hate Ron Paul for exactly the same reason the Pharisees and Sadducees hated Jesus Christ.  Because he exposes their intrinsically false nature to themselves.  And the reason they dismiss him as crazy instead of responding rationally to the arguments he presents is because they know they cannot do so without losing.

Mailvox: rabbits gonna rabbit

And Asher’s gonna asher:

“He’s not dumb but when I point out that without science and
philosophy everything that makes his art media possible wouldn’t exist.
It doesn’t even register with him.”

It clearly runs in the family.

“The most obvious possibility is that the “it” refers to science being a necessary condition for various art media used by my brother. However, the reference doesn’t make any sense given the context which is that I am aware of the scientific advances that make my brother’s visual art possible.

The other possibility for Vox’s “it” is that “things” don’t register for me. Fine, but that is, in itself, an empty reference. What things? Everything? Some things? If not everything then what set of things? Vox doesn’t make this clear, and, in doing so he ends up sounding like Amanda Marcotte.

Yes, science being a necessary condition for various art media is clearly the most obvious possibility.  And yes, I sound EXACTLY like Amanda Marcotte.

“Your “it” has no clear object of reference.”

It is sufficiently clear to the sufficiently intelligent.  I often find Asher’s take on things to be more than a little fascinating.  It’s rather like watching a retarded Spock in action.  His attempts at ad hominem are the best; they resemble someone attempting to trash talk in a language they’ve studied for three semesters in college.

“And I suppose you your mother find sex response to attract, yes?”

Mailvox: the line between F and SF

An SFWA author writes concerning the upcoming SFWA election:

 I voted for you and my ballot’s going out tomorrow in the mail. I thought your opening statements were hilarious! Outlandish, too….  But anyway I liked most of your ideas for SFWA.

The idea of establishing two Nebula awards — one for SF and one for F is really over the top. They overlap. Just as a good story also overlaps with dark elements. (Which we politely do  not refer to as “horror” but it is.) This is the main reason I’m writing you –I’d like to know just how you would possibly chop SF & F in half –when novels and stories contain elements of both. “Hard” sf isn’t the only definition of Science Fiction. “Hard SF” implies that there is some explicit element of science explained within the story or novel (which Landis and Haldeman do well) but it’s not the only element and anything we imagine becomes fantasy.

This was my response:  In answer to your question, those nominating a novel for a Nebula Award would be expected to indicate that they considered the nominated work to be either F or SF as part of the nomination process.  A novel that received both SF and F nominations would have both types of nominations counted but would be put up for the award in the category that received the most nominations, assuming that it received enough combined nominations to qualify.  If the author happened to disagree with the categorization and the difference between the two categories was between one and three nominations, then the category would be switched at the author’s request.

Obviously, if everyone nominates something that is clearly Fantasy and the author prefers it to compete in the Science Fiction category because he believes he is the second coming of Isaac Asimov or because he thinks it will be easier to beat out Star Trek 562: Spock Takes a Nap than the most recent rewrite of a Brontë novel published by Tor Books, there would be no reason to accommodate that.

But if a book could be reasonably considered to be either science fiction or fantasy, to such an extent that it is unclear to the readers, there is no reason not to permit the author to determine which category the book most properly belongs.

Mailvox: impeccable girl logic



How can one possibly hope to refute these fiendish adversaries?  Or to confound their impeccable and diabolically clever arguments?  And seeing as how Miss Paradis is not only breaking out logic, but Latin, I can only conclude she must be a witch!  In fear and desperation, I attempted to dismantle her argument, but there were simply no flaws to be found!

  1. I did, indeed, write that widespread rape makes a society uncivilized whereas widespread female employment makes a society demographically unsustainable.
  2. And in doing so, I did, without question, show a certain lack of empathy.
  3. And furthermore, this dreadful dearth of empathy did inspire the Paradis sisters to collect THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FIVE DOLLARS from similarly disgusted individuals and give it to an incest charity… in my name!

Thereby proving, beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt, that my thesis concerning the demographic unsustainability of widespread female employment and the relative damage it causes to society vis-a-vis widespread rape can only be completely and totally incorrect.

I stand corrected.  Quod sherat demonstrandum.

UPDATE:  Miss Paradis expounds upon her dialectical approach: “I’m not attempting to refute an illogical argument. The argument is
based on false premise and was meant only to be inflammatory, either
that or your ‘super intellect’ has no understanding of capitalism.”