Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: And yet they wonder….

JH writes what I am apparently supposed to regard as what passes for a rebuttal to yesterday’s WND column. The amazing thing is that there will be people who genuinely regard this as not only a coherent reply, but a decisive one:

If men are so much more moral than women, why is it that 96% of the people in jail in the U.S. are male? And are you really suggesting that men self-sacrifice more than women? Have you ever known a mother? One last thing: when I was in the 5th grade, my teacher informed me that “boys are just smarter at math” and that was the reason there were only boys in the accelerated math group in my class. There was no testing – that would’ve been too fair – she had just picked 3 boys that she thought were “smart at math.” All of us have to deal with bad attitudes in our lives at some time; it’s not just boys. Did someone just break up with you?

First, I never claimed that men are more moral than women. Second, even if I had, JH is confusing legality with morality. Yes, I really do believe that men are more self-sacrificing than women; how many female Medal of Honor winners are there? How many women have ever been known to act by the motto “men and children first”? It pains me to have to point out the obvious, but most women who are mothers very much want to be mothers. Self-sacrifice is about sacrificing your desires, not fulfilling them, and it is no more inherently self-sacrificing for the average woman to be a mother than it is for the average man who enjoys the clean lines of the unadorned female form to contribute to the college fund of a young, sartorially-challenged woman.

And since I attempt to make it my habit to answer even the most ridiculous questions, yes, I have been acquainted with the occasional mother. I did not, as it is often held, spring fully armored from the black helmet of Darth Vader. But we have to thank JH for not only demonstrating my point about women and logic with her deeply compelling tale of her fifth grade math class which apparently overturns decades of standardized math tests, but also the way in which few women are capable of considering an issue without making it personal. But no, no one broke up with me, I am not bitter about anything except last season’s NFC championship game, and I am totally indifferent your willingness or unwillingness to perform sexually for me.

Mailvox: exiting Omega

DG wonders how to apply Game in his situation:

I need some help. I’m very new to Game. I got started on my little adventure into this after a disaster of nuclear proportions with the last girl I was seeing. A conversation about masculinity, femininity and the roles men and women play in relationships set me on the journey.

Quick bit on me – in 2008 I took the “red pill” on the world (not women yet) and started questioning everything. While we may agree or disagree on points, we share similar outlooks in that much of what is conventional is likely a lie perpetrated for someone’s advantage. I am a Christian currently, former atheist for 16 years and then agnostic in 2009. I mention this because my faith and adherence to it affects what I can and cannot do.

I was a beta in HS, became a lesser alpha in college when my body finally decided to step it up (I was a late bloomer, I dropped 20 pounds of fat, put on about 15 pounds of muscle and grew 4 inches in my freshman year). Suddenly I was looking attractive and compared to the men at my university, I was golden. But then when I converted, I decided to be “nice.” Stupid me! I should have realized you can be an alpha and not be a douche, but my whole game was asshole game and never realized it until now. I have two major questions/requests. I’ll try to keep them short and to the point.

1) Where do you suggest that someone start if they are a complete newb and need to reverse their beta-tude? No matter what you are shooting for: STR, LTR, marriage, casual dating/sex, whatever, you need to know Game.

2) I mentioned the disaster that was the last woman. As Roissy described in an old post about what to do to win and ex back, everything he said not to do, I did. Oh yes, and then some. I went from alpha to omega in this girl’s eyes for sure. While I have no intentions of winning this girl back (it would take a miracle from God, and I’m not counting on getting one on this issue) or being her friend (I don’t keep female friends anymore, utterly useless), I can’t cut her out entirely from my life. I still need to deal with her and encounter her…at my church of all places. How do I deal with her when we are in the same room and when I do actually need to speak with her or work with her? I may not be able to recover my omega status in her eyes, but I certainly do not wish to feed it.

I think the best way to work one’s way out of beta-tude, or as I would refer to it, gammatude, is to stop judging yourself on the basis of what women think. Here’s how. Take a good look at the men around you, the men you know well. Consider what you think of them, of their strengths and weaknesses. Then compare your opinion to what women think of them. Are the results similar in any way, shape or form? I tend to doubt it.

The main reason that I could not care less what the female collective happen to think about pretty much everything is the result of the extreme dichotomy between what I thought of the men in my social circle at the time and what women thought of them. With a few notable exceptions, the men that were most highly regarded and sought after by women were the weak and insecure ones, the shallow, treacherous and useless ones. Once I could no longer take seriously what they thought about other men, it became impossible to care what they thought about me as well because I no longer considered them capable of judging me in a reasonable manner, whether they thought well of me or not. “In a way, I actually judge her for not breaking up with me sooner.” I have far more confidence in the average dog’s ability to distinguish between a good man and a bad man than the average woman’s and I don’t lose any sleep over what the average dog happens to think of my actions.

Given DG’s familiarity with Game, he can probably guess what developed as a result. At the superficial and social level, women respond to genuine contempt like catnip, probably because it is one of the more powerful forms of DHV. Note that I’m not talking about dislike or hate here, only the same sort of well-merited contempt for a ludicrously irrelevant opinion that The Special One would demonstrate for a soccer journalist.

As for Disaster Girl, the right thing to do also happens to be the polite thing to do. Don’t live in fear of her and don’t give her a moment’s thought when she’s not around you. Treat her in an entirely polite and civil manner, keep your conversations short and to the point, and make it very clear that what’s done is done and you have no interest in revisiting the past. Don’t give her any information about your life, if she asks how you are doing, just reply “very well, thank you,” and change the subject if she gets curious and starts probing. That will probably get her rationalization hamster spinning on its wheel; there is nothing that piques a girl’s curiosity like a former flame who has inexplicably stopped showing interest in her.

Then be sure to expect the probable test and don’t fail it by promptly dissolving into desperate gamma mode when she pulls a 180 on you and starts telling you how confused she is and how she thinks she might have made a mistake and so forth. Just remain perfectly polite, decline to pursue every dangling olive branch she offers, and tell her that you’re ever so pleased that after everything that has happened between the two of you, she’s still such a good friend. Be a Crimson Artist and flip the script on her.

Of course, if you really want to get out of the Omega box for good, show up at one -and only one- church event with a very pretty and somewhat inappropriately dressed girl with stripper hair. Don’t act like she’s your girlfriend or behave obnoxiously, just behave normally and let all the little gossips assume whatever they want to assume. And when asked about her later, just say “well, it’s kind of complicated” and leave it at that.

The fact is that Christianity inhibits Game for the obvious reason that Man is fallen. That’s just a reality that the Christian man has to accept and remind himself that pleasing the world and its women is not his mission on Earth. But the Bible demands male dominance and female submission too, just in a different form. Jesus Christ was seldom nice and he did not come to assuage anyone’s feelings but rather to make them feel so abysmally bad that they were willing to repent of their sins. The need to abandon asshole game should never be confused with the duty to assume gamma. Jesus is, after all the ultimate ALPHA as well as the Omega.

Strategy games for starters

DB asks a reasonable question:

If you have time would you mind recommending a good strategy board game for someone who has only ever played Risk and Axis and Allies.

Ideally it can be played by only two people but can handle more if needed. I would like something that doesn’t take days to play, an hour or two, no more than three. A game whose rules can be easily understood by beginners. While I could probably pick up complicated rules fairly quickly those I play with may not be as oriented toward such thinking.

There are so many games out there that I don’t know where to even start looking.

My go to game for beginners is War at Sea by Avalon Hill. It’s simple, historical, and balanced towards the Allied player so it’s a good game to help a less experienced gamer develop confidence while learning the importance of anticipating an opponent. It also makes it very easy to understand why the Axis lost WWII. However, I’m sure others will have alternative suggestions.

Mailvox: Fear-based strategy

DS disagrees with today’s column:

Afghanistan is important, although it is being mishandled to the “nth” degree by people who know nothing about combat. Afghanistan was/is the base for the Taliban and they were using it as such for their incursion into Pakistan. The government of Pakistan is at best, wobbly. Pakistan has nukes and the wherewithal to deliver them into the hands of the likes of Al Qaeda or simply launch them against either us or Israel.

By keeping the Taliban fragmented and on the run were have been preventing that from happening. Now maybe you want to wake up to an air burst over the Midwest (or 2, or 3) taking down our grid, our nation and our way of life, followed by mass starvation in our cities, or to read the morning paper and see that Israel no longer exists, but I don’t.

First, it is ludicrous to think that occupying Afghanistan is somehow tantamount to defending American territory against nuclear attack. The invasion of Afghanistan not only destabilized Pakistan, but renders a terrorist nuke more likely since terrorism is a fundamentally non-military option. Keeping the Taliban “fragmented and on the run” in no way inhibits their ability to acquire nuclear technology from North Korea or Iran.

Second, it is remarkable to see DS attempt to argue that we should occupy Afghanistan in defense of Israel. I don’t think even Justin Raimondo at his most peacenik paranoid would draw a connection between the one and the other. This attempted defense isn’t so much hapless as complete gibberish. Anyhow, if Israel’s survival truly depends on occupying Afghanistan then let the IDF do it. As they have demonstrated for 30 years, they are more than capable of occupying territory populated by a hostile people.

Fear seldom leads to clear thinking, least of all when the thinking required is strategic.

Mailvox: Game recommendations

DP requests advice:

Hello Vox, greatly enjoy your blog and articles. In ref. to your post on gaming, the article got me thinking that perhaps from a ‘reaction time’ and ‘mental sharpness’ standpoint, I should invest in something for my aging mind too.

So I am looking for some guidance (without having to ask the local teenagers) on platform and game choices. I am a 47 yr old guy with young kids (boy 8, girl 10) and obviously grew up with Space Invaders, and never really touch them since. The kids have a DS each, but no big game setup (xBox, etc.).

I have deliberately not bought anything to avoid having slugs for children, but now starting to think there may be some advantages to a controlled, limited use (and maybe some fun family time to boot).

So, questions:

1. Platform suggestion? (don’t really have the money to buy new, but perhaps last year’s model from the local pawn shop?)
2. Games? (We are attempting to bring our children up in a Christian household, so the beloved wife will not support a blood fest, but perhaps there are combat or ‘pilot’ type games that help with mental sharpness/reflexes, but keep the gore down?)
3. Any other suggestions or comments.

1. PlayStation 2. The games aren’t very different than the so-called nexgen ones, and in fact, some new games are still being released for it. You can buy one used for around $50 and excellent games for as little as $5. And, of course, download D-Fend Reloaded for playing great old DOS game like Wing Commander and TIE Fighter.

2. Madden 2008 for PS/2 is still fun and I prefer it to the newer X360 versions. NCAA Football is good too, but I don’t know what year is best since I haven’t played NTSC games in years. Some of the classic Arcade compilations are really good. Downloading MAME and classics like Ms Pac-man, Donkey Kong, and Sprint 2 is free and the games can be played on any system bought within the last five or six years.

3. Check out the emu scene and don’t be afraid to dig deep. There are tons of great games that no one plays anymore but are still great fun. Games like Pilot Wings 64 or Castle Wolfenstein aren’t any less fun even if they are technologically outmoded.

Mailvox: Underzog!

A self-styled hero of Zionism writes WND in response to my solution for the Middle East conflict:

Why does a newspaper that boasts a rational policy on the Middle East still keep those anti-Semites, Pat Buchanan and his mini me, Vox Day?

Get rid of them – or if you’re not going to get rid of these Nazis, then at least, have a special designation for them. WorldNetDaily has in its commentary a section called “out of left field.” I suggest a compromise for Pat Buchanan and Vox Day. Maybe you can have a section called “from the brown corner” as WND has “out of left field.”

Placing the editorials of Pat Buchanan and Vox Day in something called “from the brown corner” still keeps the anti-Semites on WND but makes it clear that they are brown in political leanings; i.e., the color of the Nazi storm troopers (brown battalions). It’s a good idea, no?

He also wrote directly to me:

You’re jest sooooooooo funny in your anti-Semitic taunts. We obviously have a young Pat Buchanan waiting to pick up the Jew hating torch when that draft dodging Nazi passes away. But, I have an idea, too. The Catholic church has a lot of pederasty and the Libertarians, of which you proudly call yourself, are the party of child molestation; therefore, if the Jews should leave Israel because of the evil of others, the children in the Catholic Church and of Libertarain party members should wear reverse chastity belts to cover their backside so that those Christians and Libertarians cannot sodomize them. If Jews are to vacate Israel because of the whining evil of others, it certainly makes more sense, at least, for a particular denomination of Christians and Libertarians to spare their male children the evils of pederasty comitted by them by giving those children reverse chastitty belts to protect them from the child molestation of the Libertarians and the Catholic priests. Such an action certainly makes more moral sense than destroying Israel because some Muslim/Arab savages murder and whine about Israel.

If not all Christian denominations support child molestation as the Catholic denomination does, you Libertarians certainly do support the child molesters: http://www.fortfreedom.org/b29.htm . I give the URL here, but that is superflous as you already know this about your fellow Libertarians.

Remember to get some bright Libertarians to design a reverse chastity belt to protect male kids from the perils of sodomy from Libertarains as they are the party of child molestation.

Ha ha ha…. Tee hee hee, nyuck nyuck nyuck; etc. Do you think you’re funny? Well, I can be funny, too, as in this letter. Are you amused my Jew baiting friend?

Frankly, yes.

Mailvox: IQ vs genius

MB inquires about my relative dearth of creative accomplishment:

Would you care to expound on the idea that simply possessing a genius IQ in no way presupposes that the owner will produce genius art work or scientific discovery? For example, I perused your novel Summa Elvetica and within the the first few pages could discern that your prose was workman-like and ordinary (as opposed to Shakespeare or my own fiction).

Whereas your discursive prose and arguments are a cut above the general punditry. I would surmise that focus has much to do with it. You have focused little on what makes for profound and beautiful in the creative, I would guess, and more on other things.

So, do you feel disappointed that your creative work is weak while your opinion work is excellent, or simply practice the art for the pleasure and not the result as so many guitarists enjoy strumming a few tunes while incapable of demonstrating the instrument’s potential and scope?

First, I reject the idea of genius-level intelligence. Intelligence is real and IQ is a reasonable measure of it, but it is not synonymous with genius. Intelligence is nothing more than raw intellectual capacity while genius is a proven form of intellectual achievement. There are geniuses who do not have an unusually high level of intelligence while the vast majority high-IQ level individuals are not geniuses. That latter category, I regretfully have to admit at this point, would appear to include me… although should my most recent technological innovation achieve a sufficient level of success, people will eventually reach an entirely different conclusion. Suddenly the dilettante vanishes and is replaced by the Renaissance Man. Such are the vagaries of reputation.

I must also take exception to MB’s description of Summa Elvetica as a weak creative work based on what appears to have been more of a perusal than an actual reading. While its prose is admittedly no more than functional, when viewed from a structural perspective, SE is arguably among the most creative works of fantasy fiction to be published in recent years. I think it would be a travesty to ignore those aspects and simply lump the novel in with all of the stagnant vampire and zombie fluff that has been published of late. Consider, for example that the Black Gate reviewer actually confused the fictional Question of Aelven anima with a real one composed by Thomas Aquinas. I may not be playing the guitar as well as the more notable soloists, but I am indubitably playing it in a different and innovative manner. In any case, I like playing it regardless of the result.

Now, as to the notion of whether my creative works have been hampered by my lack of focus, that is almost surely the case. But not to any great extent. Due to diminishing marginal returns, I don’t think that focusing more on fiction would significantly improve my prose style. Based on my extensive reading, I believe you either have it or you don’t, and I simply don’t. Compared to the writers I admire, I am wholly mediocre when it comes to writing prose and it is only my intelligence that permits me to surmount that on occasion by adding other elements that readers of a more intellectual inclination may find interesting. I don’t think my commentary is actually any better in that regard, it’s just that the bar is set so low by the professional journalists that practically anything looks good by comparison. It’s much harder to come out well in a comparison with Tanith Lee and Guy de Maupassant than with Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd.

Also, in the case of commentary, those aforementioned other elements are much more important than the prose. No one cares how beautifully you might happen to write about bond yield spreads, but they care a great deal about knowing if you have correctly ascertained the next area of debt contagion.

Mailvox: libertarian success

JY asks about the prospects for an applied libertarian society:

Do you believe that the success of applied Libertarianism is at all related to a society’s “collective morality”? The question I’m dealing with is whether a form of limited government, which some Libertarian’s advocate, is sustainable apart from a moral society (in this case, by “moral society” I mean one that closely aligns with the general Judeo-Christian ethic).

Not in the slightest. Libertarianism is a secular defense mechanism against evil; a moral Christian society can tolerate and survive big government much better than a purely secular one due to the limits built into Christian morality. Those limits will be violated from time to time, Man being fallen, but the centuries-long history of hundreds of Christian near-absolute rulers who never once engaged in the sort of routine butchery of their people that secular irreligious rulers regularly do shows that it is secular and immoral societies that are the most in need of libertarian government.

The problem is not that people are not Christian enough to pursue libertarian government, it is that they are not intelligent enough. Anyone who seeks special favors from a government empowered to grant them is a self-interested, shortsighted, gambling fool, because the government that can give can also take away and will do so whenever its own interest comes into conflict with the individuals.

Non-libertarians want cheap government health care, but they don’t want the government to deny them care or euthanize them when their health care threatens to become expensive. The problem is that most people are insufficiently intelligent to recognize that the former necessarily dictates the latter.

UPDATE – TZ points out an omission: I don’t think you answered the question that was asked: “whether a form of limited government, which some Libertarian’s advocate, is sustainable apart from a moral society”

Fair enough. Okay, my answer is this: no form of limited government is sustainable in the long term because no form of government is permanently sustainable. The most that can be said is that a moral society can be sustained longer than an immoral one, regardless of whether the form of government is limited or unlimited.

What books would you recommend for a young person (teen) just forming political ideas, leaning libertarian?

A lot of Robert Heinlein. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Tunnel in the Sky are probably the two best. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is the conventional work that has probably has the most influence on current libertarians. Orwell’s 1984 isn’t libertarian per se, but is well worth reading. And Hayek’s Road to Serfdom is a must. Unfortunately, I haven’t read much in the way of explicitly libertarian philosophy or ideology that I find worth recommending.

Mailvox: the thin, blue, and not very bright line

A police officer responds to today’s column on public pensions:

Some public pension systems are over the top. Here in Oregon, most public employees contribute nothing to their pension funds. When I was a police officer in SoCal, my pension fund was a contract. I contributed so much per paycheck and it was matched by the public entity I worked for. Periodic raises and benefits were negotiated without threat of strike or public demonstration.

I chose police work because I liked it. No one held a gun at my back and said be a cop. Just as no one held a gun at another man’s back and told him to be a carpenter. You accept the good and bad as with any profession. As far as my pension is concerned, it is subject to the same cutbacks as any pension system would be given the current economic downturn. Plus, I pay for any increase in medical premiums for me and my spouse, just as millions of other retirees do.

Lastly, to make the statement about police officers not risking their lives like a Marine in Afganistan shows your ignorance. A police officer is under the gun every single day he or she is on the job. Every time you knock on a door, you do not know who or what is on the other side. Statistics show it. People can do four years in the Marines and never hear a shot fired in anger. I suspect that you, Mr. Day were never in the military and have never worked a shift in a patrol car. How pathetic.

To which I responded thusly: “It would appear that police work doesn’t require much in the way of mathematics or logic. If you believe being a policeman is more dangerous than being a combat soldier in a war zone, you clearly don’t know the first thing about statistics. In any case, no amount of potential danger justifies being paid over $100k per year for not working. Especially when there is no money to pay for the non-delivery of services.”

Our police friend makes a massive error of basic logic by comparing all HYPOTHETICAL police danger to ACTUAL Marine Corps combat zone danger. It’s true that some Marines can serve four years and never hear a shot fired in anger, but most police serve their entire career and never hear one either. I would have thought this was obvious, but since it might benefit our enbadged protectors to have it spelled out slowly for them, I shall herewith do so.

800,000: Total number of US police officers
126: Number of US police officers “killed” in the line of duty in 2009.

70,000: Total number of US troops in Afghanistan
318: Number of US troops killed in Afghanistan in 2009

Obviously, a police officer is 28.8 times less likely to be “killed” in the line of duty than a soldier is to be killed while stationed in a combat zone. Furthermore, the reason that I put quotes around the term “killed” is that barely half the police “killed” were, in fact, purposefully killed by anyone. The 126 number includes heart attacks, car accidents, and even one entitled “accidental” which could be anything from slipping in the shower to autoerotica gone awry. The comparable number is actually 58, which means that the average soldier currently faces 62.7X more risk of death than does the average policeman.

I don’t think the “danger” argument is one that police would be wise to utilize in order to justify why they are paid so much more in salary and pension plans than America’s soldiers.

Mailvox: where is the love?

KC is concerned about my willingness to express my opinion about others’ capacity for applied intelligence:

Vox, I enjoy reading your blog a lot of the time: you provide interesting stories and insight into them, and I appreciate your faith. However, might I suggest that you refrain from labeling “most people regardless of what they believe” inane/idiots? It seems very judgmental of you and makes me question your fundamental attitude towards humanity or what God is capable of doing in/through the least of us. It often seems as though you place more worth in the intelligence of your fellow man than their fundamental worth in God.

An impoverished farmer in Korea that has received no education and is, by all secular account, worthless intellectually could have MUCH more to teach me about the Kingdom of God due to his close relationship with God than the most highly acclaimed theological intellectuals.

Acts 13When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say.

All I am saying is that Jesus “cherished” the unlovely and unintelligent because they were human. You might not have MEANT that uneducated/unintelligent believers are to be “cherished” less in an absolute sense, as I know you are speaking to an intellectual wanting to learn intelligent Christian arguments. However the basis of faith and love of God is not primarily supposed to come from our ability to grasp high falutin arguments but a fundamental heart change and love of God and neighbor. Valuing intellectualism above this makes it an idol as abhorrant as the golden calf. 1st and 2nd commandments, man.

I know, and you know, you’re a lot more intelligent than many people in a lot of ways however that really means nothing in God’s eyes, as he has given us all everything we have. What we will be judged on is our hearts, and our hearts are only changed when we willingly submit ourselves to his desire for us, greatest of which is for us to LOVE. I don’t know you and don’t want to presume to have more insight into your attitude than I do. However, you – I think you know this – very often do not present yourself as loving and hurting for humanity (actually I seem to recall you boasting about your arrogance!), but as an annoyed and in some instances even amused observer at the shortcomings, failings, and sin of your fellow man. For instance, you more quickly laugh at the deeply delusional feminist who is in confusion about how her former choices have led to her current pain than show compassion. Obviously her choices were/are bad and she is not accurately perceiving reality but should we LAUGH AT her? Is that would Jesus would do? Is that the attitude God wants you to cultivate in yourself and share with others? Or should you feel deep compassion for the pain her sins have caused her and the state of the secular world that is so deeply influencing people to make decisions that will lead them to eternal condemnation?

Anyway, I hope that you will receive this with an open heart and not attack me if you do respond to me. I don’t know if anyone else has shared this with you but it from what I have observed, it is area in your life that is not congruent with the way Christ would have you think and behave. We are not to cultivate an attitude of mocking, dismissing, and writing off those immersed in this fallen world, but to continually beseech God for a heart of compassion and desire to see them brought to the Light. Have you meditated at all on 1Corinthians 13?

I think KC is operating under a severe misapprehension with regards to my opinion of intelligence. In my opinion, it is no more judgmental to declare that someone is “an idiot” or “inane” than to declare that he is “short” or “brown-eyed” or “Asian”. It’s just an observable fact, based on the individual’s behavior which indicates either a lack of cognitive capacity or a disinclination to use one’s cognitive capacity in a rational manner. While one can argue over the legitimacy of the application of the observation, once the matter has been demonstrated to a reasonable degree, there is no reason beyond the vagaries of etiquette to shy away from applying the correct label to an individual. And Internet etiquette is a very different thing than RL etiquette.

I would be the very last one to argue that God cherishes the unintelligent. Compared to Him, we are all complete idiots and yet He loves some of us anyhow. [Idiots and the Scripturally ignorant will please submit their erroneous arguments about God loving everyone equally here.] And given that I believe an impoverished, uneducated North Korean farmer is more useful and possesses more intrinsic human value than a Goldman Sachs investment banker with an Ivy League diploma, I don’t find it hard to imagine that God might find genuine value in him as well. But love and an accurate summation of cognitive use and capacity are simply two different things. I think it would correct to chastise me if I was walking around and attempting to hurt people by telling them how idiotic they are without any provocation, but that’s simply not the case here.

The statistical fact of the matter is that most people, the overwhelming majority, are functionally sub-normal. Since 50% of the population possesses IQs below 100 and a majority of the population with IQs above 100 observably spend absolutely no time thinking about anything, one can only conclude that most people are idiots regardless of one’s individual vantage point. And we’re all functional idiots from time to time; I could certainly fill weeks of blog posts about my own lapses into functional idiocy.

But getting back to KC’s primary point, I see no love in indulging the idiocy of others and none in enabling idiotic behavior either. I believe the Biblical model is to speak the truth, to provide a clear warning of consequences, and then to let those who willfully choose or are for one reason or another doomed to idiocy experience the full and unmitigated consequences of their actions.

As for any subsequent pointing and laughing, well, KC has probably got a relevant point there. Mea maxima culpa. I shall in the future endeavor to focus solely upon the surgical dissections and leave any amused appreciation of the artistry to others.