When Is a "Disabled" Person Not A "Disabled" Person?

Q: When Is a "Disabled" Person Not A "Disabled" Person?
A: Most of the time; and especially if there is a blue "Handicapped-On-Board" danglie on the rear-view mirror.

Diagnoses of 'Disability' -- whether in the military or in civilian life -- are in large part a scam of well-off people against the rest of us.

Consider the seemingly less contentious issue of "handicapped parking" -- When have you *ever* seen someone who is clearly "handicapped" using a "handicapped parking" spot?

No, what you almost always see played out is something I witnessed a few days ago at a home supply store. I had parked, and as I was opening the truck's door, another fellow parked near me ... and *then* affixed one of those blue "Handicapped-On-Board" danglies to his rear-view mirror Apparently, he didn't want other drivers to think he was a gimp. So, I sat in the truck to watch. He was not handicapped; I later encountered him in the store a couple of times. He was not handicapped.

Look, my mother was "handicapped" ... and I *detest* the "handicapped" mentality, and indeed the very term. To use *honest* straight-forward language, my mother was crippled. She was crippled from birth ... and her condition was made worse when she was a small child by *American* doctors and government bureaucrats using her as a human guinea-pig, much as was being done at the same time in Weimar Germany.

I can assure you, from many years experience of taking a crippled person shopping, that "handicapped parking" spots, no matter how close they are to the store entrance, are not really much of a help (*) to people who actually are "handicapped". But, they are indeed very useful to a certain type of upper-middle-class person (of either race) who wants the extra benefit of "reserved parking".

(*) It is much more helpful to your "handicapped" person to pull up to the entrance, help him or her exit the vehicle, go park it, and then meet the person. Why in the Hell would I have made my mother do all that extra walking (on crutches) just so that I had a "reserved" spot nearer the entrance?

Chicks on the Right: This Is Not What Disability Is Meant For!

About "Folks"

It's political season (when isn't it, anymore?), which means that the political class and its wannabes are out there trying to convince the rest of us of how "folksy" they are.  One of their main tools -- and most inauthentic and least "folksy" means -- to try to convince us of their "folksiness" is to use the word "folks" where other people say "people".

When normal people use "folks", they are referring to a person's family, and specifically one's parents. Normal people with Southern roots may use "folk" (singular) to refer to one's wider family and/or to a wider "kith and kin".

But, normal people do not use "folks" as the collective of "persons".

My rule of thumb on "folks" is that people who use "folks" in this unnatural manner are trying to deceive me in some way, even if its only to fool me into thinking that they "relate" to me.

Sometimes, 'Language' is Wholly Appropriate

Warning: In this post, I am going to use some crude, vulgar, and indeed, foul, language.  And the reason I'm going to do so is that it's appropriate to the goal of this post -- to help you to viscerally reject using a certain word which most Americans, even Christians, have been indoctrinated over the past 30-40 years to view as just innocent fun: 'hot', in the sense taught us by that pathetic slut, Paris Hilton.

Recently, I chanced to listen to some podcasts by a YouTuber (whom I won't identify, other than to say that he's an East Coast politician).  He's a Christian, and he displays a genuine heart for the young men growing up adrift in this feminism-controlled and feminized (*) age, without real manly examples on which to model themselves.

BUT: he uses the Paris Hilton sense of 'hot', he refers to his wife as "smokin' hot!"

You, Gentle Reader, know exactly what 'hot' means in this sense, though some of you will deny that it means what it means and that you know exactly what it means.  'Hot' does not mean 'lovely/lovable' nor 'beautiful/handsome' nor anything along such innocent lines.  'Hot' doesn't even mean something as crude/crass as 'sexy'; it's worse than that: it means 'fuckable'.

If you imagine you can deny that 'hot'  means 'fuckable', consider this hypothetical: Suppose that you are a father; and suppose that you have a young daughter, 3-4 years old; and suppose that every day when you come home from work, she excitedly bursts out of the house to greet you as quickly as possible; and suppose, as doting fathers have done for thousands of yours, you pick her up and twirl her around, and say, "How's my hot little girl!"

You would *never* do such a thing, because you know *exactly* what 'hot' means.  If some other man were to remark that your little daughter is lovely or beautiful, you'd beam with pride. If that same man were to remark on how 'hot' she is, you'd consider murder -- because you know *exactly* what 'hot' means.

So, back to the podcaster referring to his wife as "smokin' hot!" -- while he may not want to acknowledge it, he is inviting other men to consider his wife as little more than a walking 'pussy', to be fucked and discarded at whim.  No respectable man, and certainly no Christian, would ever invite other men to think of any woman he loves and respects in such a manner.

To publicly refer to your wife as 'hot' is to treat her as disrespectfully and dishonorably as King Ahasuerus treated Queen Vashti, when he commanded her to display herself to his drunken friends (see the Book of Esther).

(*) Most American men, especially the ones a generation or more younger than I, have the mindsets of junior-high girls: that's why they decorate their bodies with tattoos -- "Look at me! Pay attention to me!  See how I've decorated myself!" In contrast, a man seeks attention or status by his deed, by what he has built, by what he has accomplished.

Comes the Word, Comes the Day

Comment by nihilist2christian:"Some day we are going to look back on this time and these practices the same way we view lobotomy, and those practising it in the same way we see people like Josef Mengele."

The arrival of that day requires, at a minimum, that sane people *refuse* to cooperate with their false language. Non-exhaustively, and in no particular order:

1. NEVER use ‘gender’ to refer to ‘sex’; people do not come in ‘genders’, we come in sexes, and there are precisely two sexes;
2. Refuse to use their made-up pseudo-pronouns;
3. Refuse to use “she/her” to refer to a male, or “he/him” to refer to a female;
4. Refuse to use the made-up words “transman” and “transwoman” and “transkids” and the demeaning and dehumanizing prefix “cis-“. The "cis-" prefix is especially grotesque, as its purpose is to trick you into mentally (and metaphysically) re-defining the true and normal in terms of the false and abnormal;
5. Train yourself to stop saying “they/them” when you are referring to one person;
6. Train yourself to stop saying “biological male” and “biological female” — there are no other kinds. So, using that qualifier is already to bow to the leftists' false language.  In a situation in which you want to make it undeniable that you are distinguishing *real* men and women from the fake, use words like "real", "actual" and "fake", "pretend".

Shadow to Light: Are “Gender Affirming” Procedures Doing Harm?

The Nexus of Language and Politics -- "Native American"

Other than his use of the leftist delegitimizing term, "Native American",  Matt Walsh is spot on in the linked video.

The leftists invented the term "Native American" as a step toward denying that you and I are Americans at all.  This is merely a similar delegitimizing tactic to the leftist assertion that we Americans cannot call ourselves "Americans" because the USA is not the totality of the American continents.

Historically, the American Aborigines (i.e. the Indians (*) ) were not native Americans, because they were not members of the American society in the first place.  Even today, after the Federal government has made them US citizens, whether they wanted to be or not, many Indians don't want to be called "Americans"; they tend to reserve that term for *us*, not for themselves.

I am a "native American", not because I have a bit of Indian ancestry, though I do, but because I am a born member of the American civilization.  Likely, you too are a born member of the American civilization and thus are a "native American", even if you don't have a single American Indian ancestor.

(*) We all need to get over the ignorant myth that we call the American Aborigines "Indians" because Columbus was either ignorant or stupid.  The reason we call them "Indians" is because from ancient times until just a couple of centuries ago, Europeans used the terms 'India' and/or 'the Indias' to refer to all the lands of "the East"; 'India' and "the East" were pretty much synonyms.  When Columbus discovered the islands we now call the West Indies, he thought he had found some outlying islands of Chipango, the easternmost land of 'the Indies' of which the Europeans had knowledge; or, as we now call that land, Japan.  Thus, since from the European frame of reference, these newly-discovered peoples were inhabitants of "India", he (and other Europeans) referred to the inhabitants of those islands, and later of the mainland, as "Indians", as we have continued to do for the past 500 years.  And indeed as the US Constitution refers to them.

The narrowing of the term "India" to refer to a specific geographic region in the late 18th and 19th centuries, and to a specific, and recently created, nation-state in the 20th and 21st centuries, is a modern innovation.  

And, by the way, the current Hinduist government of India is trying to dictate that we English speakers may no longer refer to that country as "India".

Matt Walsh: "These Museum Exhibits Were Just Closed For The Dumbest Reason"

The Race of Fishmongers

 There are two pious myths about 'race' which I detest for their falseness:

1) "One's race is the most important fact about one's self".
2) "There are no such things as races";

Leftists promulgate both myths, sometimes even simultaneously, depending on what seems advantageous at the moment.  Rightists, and especially Christian rightists, tend toward promulgating the second myth.

There two myths are pernicious not because they are mutually exclusive (for, after all, one might be correct), and only not because both are false, but also because both may have terrible real-world consequences:

1) IF it is true that "One's race is the most important fact about one's self", THEN racism is not only morally justified, but inevitable and inescapable; and perhaps not merely morally justified, but morally requisite.  This is where the leftists, in general, and the Democratic Party, in particular, have settled.  Though, in their defense, the Democrats have *always* been racists.

2) IF it is true that "There are no such things as races", THEN one is compelled to ignore what one's own lying eyes clearly see.  For instance, in medical care it is not infrequently the case that persons of some races are more susceptible to some specific diseases than to others. And thus, when one pretends that the patient's race does not exist, one may well waste time and effort -- and the patient's health, or even life -- by studiously overlooking conditions known to be more prevalent to persons of the patient's particular race. 

======= 

To quote myself from a recent post --

Firstly, the English word 'race' isn't *about* skin-color or ancestry or even about biology; it is about different ways of categorizing things or animals or people. That for about the past 150 years (i.e. since Darwinism took over the minds of the "progressives") we most commonly use the word to denote the broad continental origins of various ethnic groups doesn't change the fact that the word is not so narrow in its designations. [See below for an historical example of 'race' used in this broader, "non-racist", meaning]

Secondly, if you're distinguishing an Englishman from a Welshman, or an Igbo (called 'Ibo' in my youth) man from a Yoruba man, you are distinguishing these men based on their ethnicities -- for which distinctions the word 'race' has historically been used [despite that in presently common usage, an Englishman and a Welshman are of a common 'race', while an Igbo man and a Yoruba man are of a common 'race' different to the former].

But, what does ethnicity mean in a country like America? In the South Bend Indiana of my mother's youth (i.e. nearly a century ago), it mattered immensely whether one was "Polish" or "Hungarian". Or, it mattered not at all, if like her people, one was simply what is now disdained as "WASP". In my own youth in South Bend Indiana, some people just had difficult-to-pronounce family names.

The ethnicity of a black American and the ethnicity of a white America are singularly 'American'. Yet, sometimes, we do need to recognize the broadly continental origins of a person's ancestry.

While 'English' or 'Yoruba' are ethnicities, 'white' is not an ethnicity and 'black' is not an ethnicity. 'European' is not an ethnicity; 'African' is not an ethnicity; 'East Asian' is not an ethnicity; 'American Indian' is not an ethnicity. And so on [Nonetheless, the 'white/European' race is a real thing; and the 'black/(Sub-Saharan) African' race is a real thing; and the 'yellow/East Asian' race is a real thing; and the 'red/American Indian' race is a real thing; and the 'Australian Aborigine' race is a real thing. And so on.].

And yet, there are recognizable differences -- generally unimportant, but sometimes critical -- between a person of primarily European ancestry and a person of primarily (sub-Saharan) African ancestry. To blind ourselves with the one leftist lie that "There is no such thing as race" is as foolish and potentially harmful as to blind ourselves with the other leftist lie that "All there is is race".

=======

At the following link are English translations -- made in the 19th Century, when English-speakers more generally were not so simple-minded as in the present day -- of two ancient Greek references to "the race of fishmongers" --

"I used to think the race of fishmongers Was only insolent in Attica; But now I see that like wild beasts they are Savage by nature, everywhere the same. ..."

"But as to fishmongers, They're an inventive race, and yield to none In shameless conduct. ..."

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2013.01.0003%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D6

The Nexus of Language and Politics -- 'Gender'

I'm posting this mostly as an example of most people's proud ignorance and dedication to sticking with a lie by which they were hoodwinked even in the face of proof that it is a lie.  As the saying attributed to Mark Twain has it: "It is easier to fool a man than it is to convince him that he has been fooled."

If you were to Google "first use of gender to mean sex", at the very top of the page, it says --
=====
In 1955, the controversial and innovative sexologist John Money first used the term “gender” in a way that we all now take for granted: to describe a human characteristic. ...
=====

And, despite that, almost everyone will assert that the word 'gender' means 'sex' and has always meant 'sex' and some of them even assert that 'gender' has a centuries-old history of meaning 'sex'.

Now, if you want to know *why* people think that 'gender' means 'sex', even though before 1955 'gender' was strictly a term of linguistics (and the word had almost no relevance to the English language), it goes like this --

By the 1950s at the latest, people had started to mis-use the word 'sex' as a euphemism for a certain foul four-letter word. Thus, it became embarrassing to say 'sex' in polite company.

By the way, the "prudish" Victorians were not at all embarrassed to say 'sex' in polite company ... because they were not mis-using it as a euphemism for that certain word, of which they were as well aware as you and I.

I doubt that the Victorians would easily have understood the joke --
Nurse: Sex?
Patient: Yes, please!

After 1955, the MSM -- which has been leftist, and full of sexual perverts, for a very long time -- began to popularize the newly coined 'gender' as a replacement for 'sex'. Before 1963 (I know that because I have a dictionary printed in that year), 'gender' was commonly being used in place of 'sex'.

But, 'gender' does not mean 'sex', and 'sex' does not mean '****'.

'Gender' is a word invented by a sexually perverted leftist as a means to create confusion in society about sex and human sexuality. That it has taken nearly 65 years for the plan to unfold to the current stage does not change the truth of the matter.

If you wish to be free of leftism, then free your mind of leftist language and of leftist lies.

EDIT (2024/02/05):

Oddly enough, once people started using 'gender' in place of 'sex', because they were using 'sex' in place of '****', they started using '****' as an intensifier in every ****ing sentence.

Don Surber on Our Would-be Rulers

 "Keeping us confused"

https://donsurber.substack.com/p/keeping-us-confused

The made-up pronoun game

All the recent made-up pronouns, just like all the recent made-up "genders" -- and the on-going efforts to criminalize the refusal of sane persons to go along with it -- are leftist passive-aggressive assertions, heavy on the aggression, of power over the language, thoughts, and minds of others.

In a recent post, Who needs truth?, Vox Day quotes from a Washington Post article, including this snippet

To Haidt’s point, a scandal erupted in the fall in Canada when Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate teaching assistant for an introductory communications course at Wilfrid Laurier University, played a video clip in which Jordan Peterson, a controversial professor, declared his refusal to address trans students by their preferred gender-neutral pronouns.

The thing to which I wish to draw Gentle Reader's attention is the fact that even if one insanely agrees to go along with the leftist power-play scam, one does not *address* another person by any of these made-up pronouns. In English, the pronouns by which one *addresses* other persons are either the second person singular ('you') or the second person plural ('you') ... both or which are, as one can clearly see, already and intrinsically "gender-neutral pronouns".

Even centuries ago, when English did still have multiple second person pronouns, those pronouns were already "gender-neutral"; the distinctions they drew were not between sex, but between number on the one hand, and social status -- formality vs familiarity -- on the other.

"I always think I am right, but I don’t think I am always right"

Exactly.

Douglas Wilson: "interviewing" himself --

Me: A critic might say that you always think you’re right. You leave no room for discussion, no room for the possibility that you might be wrong.

Me: It is true that I always think I’m right. But I don’t think I am always right.

Me: Come again?

Me: Thinking you are right is the same thing as thinking. Everyone does it. Stepping back and looking at the sum total of your thoughts, of course it would be folly not to see that you have been guilty of mistakes and errors. But while you are thinking at all, you are thinking you are right. So that is why I say I always think I am right, but I don’t think I am always right.

Me: But isn’t that arrogant?

Me: The curious thing is that out of all the people I have met who think so (and I have met a number of them), they think so. And they think they’re right. No one ever came to me in a spirit of rebuke, but with the prefatory proviso that they might be the arrogant one and I might be the innocent baaa lamb. Furthermore, I don’t ask them to. But I do find it curious that they ask me to. And so it is that I conclude, 9 times out of 10, that the goal is not to admonish and edify me, but rather to steer me.

The "arrogance" charge is almost always cynical intellectual dishonesty meant to play on the emotions of the easily-steered. It is an attempt to convince others (i.e. the easily-steered) that the view or conclusion the accuser detests is false, by the mere allegation that it is false, without making any *effort* to demonstrate *any* error.

Rights or Commodities?

Steven Crowder: On Rights vs Commodities (from the 17:36 mark) -- This is a good demonstration and explanation of how leftists intentionally hijack and make meaningless the term 'rights' ... and seek thereby to secure your willful cooperation in the theft and destruction of your own rights.

Mohammedan, not “Muslim”

JMSmith at The Orthosphere: Mohammedan, not “Muslim”

My response (which will never see the light of day over there, because most of the "orthosphereans" are cowards who cannot stand up to *any* criticism ) --

I refuse to call them 'Muslims' because that's what the Kool Kids insist we must say (*). I grew up calling them 'Moslems', while being aware of and understanding 'Mohammedan'.

Moreover, it is *claimed* that 'Moslem', when prononced as we English-speakers pronounce the word, is an insult to the precious-and-delicate sensibilities of the Muzzies (albeit the truth).

For instance, according to this page on History News Network:

According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,"Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means"one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means"one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

So, I'm all for calling them either 'Moslems' or 'Mohammedans' (or, for that matter, 'Muzzies').


But, getting back to the argument of the OP; it sounds persuasive, but does it hold up in other situations? Does it even hold up internally?

Other situations --
Suppose there is some tribe which call themselves, as many peoples do, a term that in their language means "The Human Beings", implying that they *alone* are real human beings. And suppose that there is another tribe, historical mortal enemies to the former, who call the former a term that in *latter's* language means "Shit-Eating Snakes". And now suppose that we English-speakers make contact first with the second tribe and from them learn of the first tribe ... and learn-and-adapt the second tribe's name for the first. Now, further suppose that fifty years later, our leftist Special Juicebox Wankers are having continual snits because we always refer to the first tribe as "Shit-Eating Snakes" rather than as "The Human Beings". What is a sane and moral man to do? Nothing! We are speaking English, and in English the second tribe's name for the first tribe is just a noise with no inherent meaning; that is, we are *not* calling them "Shit-Eating Snakes". Moreover, *refusing* to bow to the demands of leftist Special Juicebox Wankers is a moral good in itself.

The point bring that in English 'Islam' does not mean "Submission to God", and 'Moslem/Muslim' does not mean "One who submits to God". In English, those sounds merely signify a particular social-political-religious ideology and its adherents.

So, the reason for us English speakers to refuse to call them 'Muslims', rather tham 'Moslems' or 'Mohammedans', is not because doing so implies that their religion is The One True Religion, but rather because they, and our internal enemies (i.e. the leftists), insist that me must.


Internally --
The OP's argument depends upon the premise that 'Allah' *is* God, and thus that 'Mohammedans' *are* "monotheists" (**). I reject the premise and its implication.


(*) In similar wise to how when they refer to a Mexican by name, they pretend suddenly to have morphed into a Castillian.

(**) For that matter, I object to being called a "monotheist", as though Christianity (and Judaism) were on the same continuum as classical Greco-Roman paganism or present-day Hindu paganism.

==========
Edit:
Here is another point in favor of calling them 'Mohammedans' -- Mohammad looms larger in the daily life of not-even-particularly-devout Moslems than Christ does in the daily life of even the most saintly-and-devout Christian.

Consider --

If a saintly-and-devout Christian announced that she (*) were going to make it her life's work to determine how Christ took his bowel movements, so that all saintly-and-devout Christians may do likewise, what would the rest of us say to her (*)? We'd say, "You aren't saintly-and-devout, you're insane!"

But, to the 'Mohammedans', it is a very important matter -- sometimes even a life-and-death question -- to know how Mohammad took his bowel movements, and to do likewise.

(*) I am, of course, mocking those fools who, vainly imagining it is even possible to appease the Kool Kids, deliberately use 'she' when English demands 'he'.

Posterity!

The breathtakingly intellectually dishonest 'Vox Day' -- who, by his own (ahem) reasoning, is not actually an American; and who thus, again by his own (ahem) reasoning, has no right to express any opinions about what American is or is not; ... and who, moreover, has abandoned America many years ago -- has recently been on a kick trying to assert that the "Posterity" to whom the Preamble (*) of the US Constitution refers can *only* be persons who are the direct, genetic, biological descendants of those persons who were US citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution. (See here for a recent example.)

Oddly enough, that very document -- which, seemingly, no one ever reads -- makes explicit provision for foreigners to be incorporated into the body of "We the People of the United States". Apparently, the Framers of the Constitution, and the citizens who ratified it, were too ignorant, or too stupid, to understand that "our Posterity" cannot ever include anyone who is not a direct, genetic, biological descendant of themselves.


Being myself a direct, genetic, biological descendant of persons who were US citizens in 1787, and moreover whose white ancestors have been on this continent almost from the beginning of English settlement, I would like to propose that 'Vox Day' dry up and blow away.

(*) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Stupid Leftist Tricks, I

I have posted two "Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks" posts. I had started to compose others but never completed them; considering how many hits the two I did complete and post still get, I probably ought to have posted more.

This is a similar post, but it's the inaugural "Stupid Leftist Tricks" post.

Recently, Victor Reppert posted this -- Islamophobia

This is a description of Islamophobia. As I see it, terms like this have a proper use, but people who like to use such terms this develop them into a blanket criticism (and even marginalization) of any critics of Islam or Muslims.

That's bad enough -- for it is utterly not true that "Islamophobia" or the other such terms that leftists like to toss at people who disagree with their plans for destroying the West and America "have a proper use" (*) -- but that's not yet the "Stupid Leftist Trick" this post is about.

'Legion of Logic' responded --

It's no different than any other label the progressive - sorry, regressive - left throws at people who disagree with them. Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, "transphobic"...all have definitions and criteria, but the vast majority of accusations of such are baseless and therefore the terms are all but useless.

And, right on queue, here comes the "Stupid Leftist Trick". You can always count on the functionally illiterate, proudly ignorant, leftist anti-Christian Joe Hinman to shill today's leftist party line --

Do you know Muslims? Do you believe any given Muslim is secretly supporting the terrorists?tell me this if it is fair to call the kind of Terrorists we are afraid of frm middle east"Islamic radicals then why is not fair to call KKK "Christian radicals" Or speak of "radical Christian terrorism"?

Do you know how many lynchings of blacks for being black there were in the U.S.? Most of those people doing the lynching called themselves Christians and went to church.

will you make exceptions by saying"but they have doctrinal problems and aren't really christian." That what Muslims say about the Terrorists,.

Notice first that this shrill shilling has nothing whatsoever to do with what 'Legion of Logic' said ... well, other than precisely to illustrate his point. For, how does the lying leftist fool start out? He starts out by labeling 'Legion of Logic' an "Islamophobe"!

And while it *is* a "Stupid Leftist' Trick", and a very popular one with leftists at that (**), to "prove" that a person who speaks a truth which you (being a leftist) want to keep under wraps is "wrong" by personally illustrating that he is right, this is not yet the "Stupid Leftist Trick" to which I wish to direct Gentle Reader's attention.

Consider what 'radical' means --

adjective
1) (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
2) advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.
3) relating to the root of something, in particular.
4) very good; excellent.

Definition #3 is *actually* the basic/root -- the 'radical' -- meaning of the word.

So, Billy Graham and Mother Teresa are/were contemporary 'radical' Christians. Martin Luther and even John Knox, wrong though he was on some key issues, were 'radical' Christians.

And, in the very same way, "radical Islamic extremists/terrorists" are 'radical' Moslems. They *are* the "Islamic Reformation" that willfully ignorant people hope will magically arise and tame Islam so as to enable Moslems to live in peace with the rest of humanity.

However, the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party, aside from being now defunct, were not Christian in any sense. You know, just like the bloody-minded leftist shill, Joe Hinman, is not.


(*) Hmmmm ... well, other than to identify people who *use* those terms as being "the enemy".

(**) Similarly popular with leftists, as with 'atheists', is the Stupid Trick I initially mentioned in passing: "refuting" the heretic by spewing a word-salad which has nothing to do with what he said.

It!

Have you ever notice that the leftist "social justice warriors" (*) with their made-up "non-gender-binary" pronouns (**) -- which they insist that *you* must use (***) upon pain of condemnation -- never opt to simply apply the perfectly standard English neuter third person singlar pronoun to themselves? Why is that, I wonder?


(*) aka, "special juicebox wankers"


(**) People don't come in "genders", they come in sexes; and there are precisely two sexes.

On the other hand, depending on the language in question words may have gender, for 'gender' is a linguistic term, not a biological term. In many major world languages, *every* noun (and/or pronoun) has a gender.

On the other hand, and unlike many, or even most, languages in the world, English is essentially non-gendered -- in English, *only* the third person singlar pronouns, of which there are three, are gendered. With case declensions, these three pronouns are: masculine (he, him, his), feminine (she, her, hers), and neuter (it, it, its).

There may be a language in the world in which one uses a different first person pronoun, referring to oneself, depending upon one's sex. Not in English.

There may be a language in the world in which one uses a different second person pronoun, referring to the person to whom one is speaking, depending upon his (****) sex. Not in English.

There may be a language in the world in which one uses the same third person pronoun, referring to some person of whom one is speaking, irrespective of his (****) sex. Not in English.

The point here is that one uses the third person singlar pronouns to refer to a third person, not to address that person. To address an individual person, one uses the second person singlar pronoun: 'you', which is not gendered.


(***) Reportedly, some leftist jurisdictions, such as NYC, are working on legislation to make it illegal to use the correct English pronouns when referring to a third person.

(****) *GASP* I used the correct English pronoun 'his' to refer to a person of undetermined or irrelevant sex. How "sexist" of me!

Courting vs Dating

What is the difference between courting a woman and 'dating' a woman (or, rather, a girl who may be chronologically adult)?

Courting is *explicitly* aimed at marriage. When a man is courting a woman, he is *explicitly* announcing that he thinks she is a suitable marriage partner; the fact of the courtship is to get to know one another well enough to decide whether to make the mutual commitment.

On the other hand, 'dating' isn't aimed at anything. Well, at its (limited) best it isn't aimed at anything (*); usually it is aimed at getting her (**) in the sack for no-committment sex.


(*) "Let's see where this goes" is not a plan, and it rarely leads to success. Men and women being men and women, "where this goes" generally turns out to be the back seat of a car, or some similarly ridiculous place to "make love". And that generally leads to getting married to an unsuitable person, which then generally leads to divorce.


(**) Edit: I don't mean to imply that women don't also try to use men for less than noble ends, including using them as walking dildos.

Generic Statements

Willaim Vallicella: Generic Statements

Everyone of normal intelligence intuitively understands the distinctions Vallicella draws here. But, oft times people play stupid so as to create a distraction.

Natural Born Citizen Definition

Doo Doo Economics Blog: Natural Born Citizen Definition

Here is a comment I posted in response --

As you correctly, though indirectly, point out, being a natural born citizen is not about *where* a person is born.

At the same time, while this is true -- “This is the simple and indisputable definition: Two citizens who have a child, naturally create a new citizen. This is a Natural Born Citizen” – it’s actually the case that it is true because natural born citizenship is inherited from the father; this is what the Founders understood and meant by the term.

These days, as people want to pretend that sexual egalitarianism is the truth about nature and about society – if one can even get them merely to admit that the above is what the Founders understood and meant by the term – people will tend to assert that natural born citizenship can be inherited from either parent … never mind that no law (*) has ever been enacted to so change the meaning of the term. BUT – and what such people will then *refuse* to acknowledge – if that were the case, then a person so born of citizens of two different countries would be a “natural born citizen” of two different sovereignties, which is a logical impossibility: or, as you put it, a “mule”.


(*) I question whether Congress even has the power to make such a change to the meaning of the term, absent a Constitutional amendment.

A Theology of Slut Walks

Douglas Wilson: A Theology of Slut Walks

... Every absurd conclusion is, at some level, a valid derivation from absurd premises, but enough about any given screen shot of the Drudge Report.

Slut walks provide a great example of this. Once we trace the absurdity back upstream, we might learn something about the premises ...

The point of slut walks is ostensibly a simple one. It is that dressing in any particular way in no way justifies rape. Put in a less sympathetic way, it is that dressing provocatively must never be considered a provocation. ...

Slutwalks are also -- like *everything* to do with feminism (*) -- about power. Specifically, they are about demonstrating the power of certain females (to wit: feminists) (*) to compel men, all men, to acquiesce to blatant falsehoods.


(*) for feminism is a sub-set of leftism; and leftism has only the one nail, so to leftists, everything looks like a hammer.

(**) ironically, or not, whatever power feminists seem to have is *only* because certain powerful men find it convenient to give it to them.

Misreading the Constitution

We Americans have a tradition of long-standing, going back at least to 1803, of misreading the Constitution ... even as we pretend to revere it. The particular misreading I wish at this time to bring to Gentle Reader's attention is the stubborn and persistent misreading of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment: for many of our current "immigration" problems -- which is to say, the fact that we are being invaded and that our rulers are aiding and abetting this invasion -- are rooted in this misreading.

Here is the text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment -- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Of late, in explaining how the "anchor baby" phenomenon came about and attempting to explain to Americans that the Constitution does not require us to attribute citizenship to the offspring of foreigners just because they happen to be born on American soil, several commentators have focused on the subordinate clause of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment ... all the while overlooking the verb.

I call to Gentle Reader's attention the precise wording of the first sentence as compared to the second (and subsequent, here unquoted) sentences.

The first sentence declares that a certain class of person -- previously denied to be citizens -- are citizens of the US, and of the state in which they reside. That is, the effect of this sentence was a one-time deal -- it applied only to certain persons then living, and it does not apply to anyone now living.

In contrast, the second sentence (and subsequent, unquoted sentences) is ongoing -- "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ..."

The purpose of the first sentence of the 14th Amendemtn was to explicitly overturn and repudiate the Dread Scott decision and to incorporate this repudiation into the Constiturion itself (*); it was not to redefine what 'citizen' means.

The first sentence does not say, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall be citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The first sentence is not on-going, as the second is.

(*) Congress actually has the authority to overturn most recisions of the federal courts by mere legislation -- for instance, Congress could invalidate both the Roe v Wade and the Obergefell rulings tomorrow, were the congresscritter so minded, and there is nothing the supreme Court could do except to say, "Yes, sir!"