Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, July 21, 2016

The other way they get their rocks off

Jihad Watch (linking to the UK's Daily Mail Online): US-backed Syrian “rebels” screaming “Allahu akbar” behead small boy as “spy”

I fully expect that they raped the boy before murdering him to make their snuff film.

Here is a comment that well expresses exactly what I was thinking when I saw the (pre-murder) photo --
"Look at their friendly smiling faces.

Take the little, soon to be brutally murdered, boy out of the picture and any immigration officer would only see nice young syrian refugees who need our help and support.

They’re amongst us already.

By the thousands.
"

THAT is the face of Islam ... smiles while preparing for brutal murder.

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

I'm smarter than Vox Day!

A recent Vox Day post is one of his interminable screeds concerning his social interactions with "gamma males", toward the end of which he writes: "Once more, Camestros provides us with sufficient evidence to safely conclude that if IQ is a reasonable measure of innate intelligence, his is considerably lower than mine. It's funny that despite being such a questionable metric, a similar percentile just seems to keep showing up no matter how it's measured.

[Bell-curve graphic result from the linked on-line quiz (*), according to which his English vocabulary is 30150, which is said to be in the top 0.01%]

Of course, my actual vocabulary is probably more than twice that, but then, we're not counting Italian, German, French, or Japanese vocabularies.
"

[Edit: Can you see me rolling my eyes? Having a massive Italian vocabulary has next to nothing to do with one's English vocabulary]

Normally, I avoid on-line quizzes, especially ones purporting to measure or reflect IQ. But I took this one (*). The quiz result claims that my English vocabulary is 30325 (also in the top 0.01%, obviously).

So, according to Vox Day himself, I likely have a higher IQ than he does.


(*) It's 50 multiple-choice synonym/antonym matches. [EDIT: If you dare, take the quiz and post the result in the commbox]

Here is a comment posted to the quiz, which seems to me to be the best explanation for a high score -- "... Also, I'm seeing in comments that people are trying to correlate their score with their educational levels (or brag that they got a high score with relatively low education). I would posit that one's score has less to do with formal education and more to do with how much one reads."

Myself, I understand -- and use in writing -- a much greater vocabulary than I use in speaking.

Continue reading ...

Monday, July 11, 2016

All Lies Matter

Douglas Wilson: All Lies Matter

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Finding 'Lydia McGrew'

From time to time, I notice that one of the search terms that brings visitors to this dusty little corner of the internet is "Lydia McGrew", which fact is slightly interesting to me (if not to Gentle Reader).

Those who end up here due to a search on "Lydia McGrew" may, if you wish, add this little fact to your on-going opinion of her -- back in October of 2015, I strongly criticized a particular act of bitchiness (*) on her part toward a regular poster at What's Wrong With The World. As I knew she would, she deleted (**) the posts I'd made at WWWtW ... and at some time after that, added my user-name to their list of banned commenters (**).


(*) and let me be clear that I used the word 'bitchy' to describe her behavior, used in deliberately, and stand by it.

(**) women *hate* to have their behavior, no matter what it is or how outrageous, criticized by a mere man; there is *nothing* that enrages the average woman more than for a mere man to dispassionately criticize what she has done.

Continue reading ...

Morality ... and God!

Victor Reppert: "If the Christian God exists, doesn't he get to decide what is right or wrong? Or could an existing God be mistaken about, for example, whether gay relationships are right or not.

Consider the following scenario: God created the world, and decreed that marriage was the only proper place for sex, and that marriage was a relationship between a man and a woman. But, he got it wrong, and gay was really OK.

Is that scenario even possible?
"

Legion of Logic: "Can God be wrong about morality? Can the creator of chess be wrong that bishops move diagonally?

The only way God could be wrong about morality would be if either he didn't create the universe, or morality somehow transcends both God and the universe. But in any scenario in which God created the universe and morality does not transcend both, then God can't possibly be wrong ...
"

me: Moreover, if one posits that morality transcends God-the-Creator-of-the-Universe, all one has actually done is assert-without-reason that there is a God-Above-God-the-Creator ... and then we are right back to Square One with nothing "solved" from the point of view of the person who wishes to set himself up as competent to put God-the-Creator on trial.

==========
Morality exists if and only if there are persons -- which is to say, free agents -- for moral obligations obtain only between persons/agents. That is, a person does not have a moral obligation to a rock, nor a rock to a person, for only agents may have moral expectations which impose corresponding moral obligations upon other agents.

Moreover, morality exists if and only if there are persons in communion or relationship, for moral obligations obtain only between persons in relation to other persons. That is, the precise moral expectations and obligations between persons depend upon and follow from the relationship between them -- for example: if there are persons living on a distant planet, we have no moral obligations to them, nor they to us, because there is no relationship whatsoever between them and us.

HOWEVER, the reality of moral expectatons and obligations cannot be grounded in the relationships between contingent persons. To attempt to do so is just another way of denying the transcendent reality of morality; it's just to deny that there really is any such thing as morality.

Consider: if one person is a ruler and another person is ruled by that ruler, then those two persons are in a relationship which imposes certain, though different, expectations and consequent obligations on each. Now, add a third person, one who is also ruled by that same ruler. IF the moral expectations and obligations between ruler and ruled followed from the relationships between these contingent persons, then any commonality between the moral expectations and obligations obtaining between the ruler and the first subject, on the one hand, and between the ruler and the second subject, on the other hand, would be accidental/coincidental -- to discover/understand some fact of the moral expectations and obligations obtaining between the ruler and the first subject would tell you nothing about the moral expectations and obligations obtaining between the ruler and the second subject.

THUS, morality is, and must be, grounded in the relationship(s) obtaining between non-contingent persons.

----------------
And, by the way, I have just demonstrated that God is a plurality of persons -- while this is not a demonstration that God is precisely Three Persons, it *is* a demonstration that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is not in conflict with what "unaided reason" can tell us about the nature of God ... or of ourselves.

At the same time (without getting into it here), reason also tells us that there is One God.

So, there is One God ... who is a plurality of Persons.

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

'Claim-staking'

The useful term 'virtue-signaling' has of late become ubiquitous -- "[James Bartholomew] coined the phrase in an article here in The Spectator (18 April) in which [he] described the way in which many people say or write things to indicate that they are virtuous. Sometimes it is quite subtle. By saying that they hate the Daily Mail or Ukip, they are really telling you that they are admirably non-racist, left-wing or open-minded. One of the crucial aspects of virtue signalling is that it does not require actually doing anything virtuous. It does not involve delivering lunches to elderly neighbours or staying together with a spouse for the sake of the children. It takes no effort or sacrifice at all."

Recently, I read someone asking whether there is a similar pithy term by which to denote the never-ending efforts of leftist cry-bullies to establish for themselves a place of social-and-moral dominance on the leftist hierarchy-of-victimhood totem-pole.

May I suggest 'claim-staking', or, in full, 'victimhood/victimocracy claim-staking'?

Continue reading ...

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Defective tranny

a comment/joke on Vox Popoli

Continue reading ...

Friday, June 24, 2016

From the bottom of my (small-r) republican heart ...

God save the Queen (*): A Two-fer - Brexit: David Cameron to quit after UK votes to leave EU



(*) at least until Charlie kicks the bucket

Continue reading ...

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Micah Tyler

Micah Tyler (YouTube video): You've Gotta Love Millennialss (h/t Vox Day)

Micah Tyler (YouTube video): Christianese

Micah Tyler (YouTube video): Missions

Continue reading ...

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Sad News

Doug Benscotter (of the Fides et Ratio blog) has died

Continue reading ...