Leaving this here so I can find it later

Two months without an update, and this is my big comeback?

On John C. Wright's blog, a reader leaves the comment:

When you said “Those of you who are Christian men and soldiers in this culture war” 

Is there a particular reason for the choice of “Christian men” rather than “Christians”? 

(I had shown this post to a lefter-leaning friend, one who does not hold with what NK Jemisin has said, and that friend found that choice of words…off putting, and confusing. My attempts to explain have not proven completely satisfactory – and are likely less accurate than yours would be.)

 Mr. Wright responds:

In grammar, as in life, the male embraces the female. 

Your friend has been deceived. Have your friend look in any dictionary. Depending on the context, the word ‘man’ either means a male human or means any human. Likewise ‘dog’ either means male dog or any dog, or fox means any fox or male fox. (I believe only cats, oxen and horses have separate names for the male sex). 

That has always been its meaning. Unlike women, we males do not get a separate word for ourselves in English as we enjoy in Greek. 

Your friend was told that no one says ‘men’ unless he means to exclude and offend women. In this fashion, perfectly innocent men can be accused without a shred of proof or likelihood. It is a lie and a damned lie; an attempt to stir up enmity where none exists. 

I use the correct grammar because I am deeply, deeply offended that the politically correct liars successfully deceive poor unwary victims like your friend. So I go out of my way to use the correct use, first because I hate lies, and second because if no one uses the correct usage, people like your unwary friend would never encounter it. 

Every document written before 1984 uses the word in this way. Your unwary friend will read the Declaration of Independence, where it says all men are created equal, or read the Bible, where it says all men are created by God, and assume the authors in both cases mean that only males are equal, but that princesses outrank peasant girls; or think that God created males but not females. The liars, in effect make it so that you unwary friend cannot read any documents before 1984 correctly. It is the same as burning the library of Alexandria. 

Your friend is now the third person this week who has been put off by ordinary English used in an ordinary fashion. The offense is absurd and contrived as if a mutual enemy told your friend that saying ‘Gesundheit’ was a German swear word, and then your friend sneezed and heard me say ‘Gesundheit.’

Baroque

Over on John C. Wright's blog, he posts the rules for an alternate version of chess: http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/03/baroque/.

What do you think? Something to add to CPM2DoB? I like the incorporation of different ways to capture an enemy piece, either replacing, jumping, squeezing, withdrawing from, or all of the above. I could easily see incorporating some of these as moves.

John C. Wright Gets to Say Who Is and Who Is Not Brilliant

I copied and pasted my previous post verbatim to the comments of Marc Barnes' hilarious article about Vegans for Meat Catholics for Choice President Jon O'Brien's piece on the Huffington Post which my previous post was an all-too-easy parody of (50 internets if you can diagram that sentence including this parenthetical remark). I checked back today to find that, not only had it been voted the top comment, but a hero of this blog had also commented on it!

LinkDump

First, two recent John C. Wright posts:

The Argument of Antimonogamy.

Disloyalty to the Void.

Now, my response to his second piece.

And his response to my response.

What do you think? Is Mr. Wright right, and there's a place for fuming and thunder? Or am I right and we should chose words carefully so that others are more inclined to listen to us?

And what's the answer to his question: "In the case given above, where Bukkake and BDSM and prostitution are portrayed as normal — what is the correct tone to set? That of Socrates, honest, detached, ironic, polite? or that of John the Baptist, who warned of the wrath to come?"

Preach it, John, Preach it!

This:

Only a modern thinker, by which I mean ‘only a morally retarded one-dimensional thinker’ could regard both the Eve by whose proud disobedience all mankind was condemned, and the New Eve by whose humble obedience all mankind was saved as ‘weak.’ Heroines and villainesses on whose decisions turn the fates of worlds can be called a lot of things, but the Marxist and feminist interpretation of life only has two words for life in all its complexity: strong and weak. Whatever is strong is an oppressor, an exploiter, and guilty, and whatever is weak is oppressed, exploited, and innocent.

Being feminine does not mean being weak. That is a Marxist lie, produced by the morally retarded one-dimensional and therefore stupid idea that all human relationships are mutually hostile power struggles about power. Being feminine means being not masculine. 

Male pride is brittle. I am sorry, fellow guys, but we have weaknesses particular to our sex, and a woman can shatter us with word, if it is the right woman and the right word. Women, at least old fashioned & old school women, seem to have more endurance and more stick-to-itiveness and more Christian charity than men, by and large. 

They go through pregnancy, and THEN look forward to doing it again. Sheesh! Who says feminine girls are weak? 

It is the masculine girls who are weak, the Buffy Vampireslayers. They have the brittleness and pride of touchy male pride — feminists are as sensitive to any trifling slights against their honor as a Spanish Grandee — but they do not have the corresponding masculine virtues of chivalry, generosity, and honor for the fallen foe that Christianity introduced to ameliorate the savage pagan attitude that glorifies strength and despises the weak.

...is the point I was trying to make in clunky fashion here.

Also, this:

Of course, I also agree with St. Paul that men should love their wives as Christ loves his bride the Church, which is to say, men should regard marriage as crucifixion. It is not fun and games, loverboy. You think joining the army demands total commitment from you? Marriage, you do not get R&R, do not get leave, and you are never off duty. You are husband and father forever and aye, till death do you part, amen. 

You might come to marriage for the sake of Eros, romantic love, or for the sake of Philos, because you seek the companionship and friendship of the beloved, because you like her as well as love her. But marriage is Agape, self-emptying, self-denying, self-sacrificing love. So do not rejoice if St. Paul crowns you with the crown of marriage, husbands, and asks your wives to submit to your leadership and rule, because the crown is a crown of thorns, and the rulership is like that Christ refused of the devil when offered the kingdoms of this world. Your task, husbands, is to take second place in your wife’s affections once children arrive. You live for them, not they for you.

...is probably the best exegeses of Saint Paul's letter to the Ephesians that I've read.

Quote of the Day/Week/Month.
Posted here because it's too long for twitter.

The second fight scene is so stupid and so lacking in motive and logic that not only was my suspension of disbelief unsuspended, it fell to the ground along with the aching jawbone of my incredulity, nay, it was driven below the bedrock as if by a piledriver, and ended up somewhere south of a coal mine shaft. The stupidometer — that most useful device which measures the suckitude of things that suck in sucky movies — not only hit the pin at ten, it pushed past the pin, wrote in the number eleven, pointed at that, quivered, uttered the rite of extreme unction, and burst into flame.

QFT, John C. Wright.

QFT.

"Here is the paradox: The modern attitude toward guns is that they are scary and dangerous and no one should use them. The modern attitude toward the fairer sex is that it is a bigotry akin to racism to suggest that women tend to be smaller and weaker than men physically, and that, psychologically, men are far more likely to be violent toward women than women toward men .To suggest that men should protect their womenfolk from other men is "sexist" (whatever that newspeak nonword is supposed to mean). And at the same time, it is modern dogma that all difference of power between men and women in society is due to rape or the threat of rape, and that all members of the phallusocracy are rapists, or whatnot. And at the same time, the modern attitude is against hanging rapists, or sending them to the electric chair. (By modern here, I mean 'Leftist')

"Now, if I am not mistaken, each one of these dogmas is a direct or indirect contradiction of the next. 

"A woman who claimed equality with men, and armed herself, and served a term in the military, would be acting in a self-consistent fashion. A woman who claimed to be old-fashioned, and wanted her brothers or her husband to protect her in time of combat, who was afraid of guns and relied on the men around her to avenge insults against her, again, would be acting in a self-consistent fashion. But a women who, in the name of equality, thought it was condescending for men to protect her, but who also thought protecting herself with a firearm was too violent, scary or immoral to countenance, she is merely setting herself up to be an easy victim."

From, of course, the ever-brilliant John C. Wright. He also, in the same article, states in his usual eloquent fashion what I have been trying to put into words for a while.

"The whole sexual revolution promised the fairer sex that as a matter of equality, of equal stature with men, they should act like harlots, have sex out of marriage, approve of pornography, and kill any of their own children in the womb whose life might prove inconvenient to them. This strips away the normal protections society evolved to shield women from male sexual predation, or even unwanted attentions, it put women in situations where it was easier to rape them -- getting a college girl into your dorm room, where there is no witness to say whether she actually said 'no' or not is much easier these days. You would be scorned as a prude, or as something more sinister, for even suggesting that nubile young women should be chaperoned, or dormitories have curfews, or colleges not be co-ed. 

"In the name of freedom and free speech, we are drenched with pornography, hammered with it, and no message of chastity is ever uttered anywhere a young man's ear might lightly brush against it. At the same time, young ladies are told that true freedom, true liberation, not to mention being cool, consist of dressing like a streetwalker and having several lovers at once. I can point to a number of music videos carrying that message. So men are much more willing and able to exploit, abuse, and abandon women than ever before in history, and women, paradoxically, are meant to regard their newfound defenselessness as a type of freedom. Ushering back in old standards of reserve and chastity under the color of laws against sexual "harassment" in the workplace make, for obvious reasons, a poor substitute.

"Female equality has somehow been redefined from giving women the vote and the right to own property, to urging women to be as licentious and sexually-aggressive as men, without pointing out that the cost-benefit ratio should something go wrong (such as a pregnancy) simply cannot be made the same between men and women. Don Juan as a deadbeat dad can walk away from the mothers of his bastard children with relatively little emotional scarring. A single mother cannot walk away from the child in her womb. She can commit the crime of Medea, and murder the babe, perhaps, but that carries scars of its own which Don Juan need not bear."

And let the claim that there is no emotional scar that accompanies abortion, or that the guilt of it is something artificial, created by men who scare and guilt-trip women into regretting abortion be forever exposed for the bald-faced lie that it is.

Also, the story that the esteemed Mr. Wright, Esq. links is a good read. Makes me wonder why I haven't gone out and bought a gun, if that poor girl was able to buck up the courage!

A Moral Quandry.

Perhaps I've been reading John C. Wright's blog too much (why aren't you?), but a question of morality popped into my head yesterday and has been bugging me since. It concerns science fiction/fantasy.

If voluptuous space alien babes were to land on the planet Earth tomorrow, could I (assuming I'm single), morally wed one? The answer I devised for this question was based on the intercompatibility of the species. Since marriage is an institution designed to promote the family, and since we know through faith and reason that the sex act must be ordered towards procreation, I think the morality of that marriage would depend on if the voluptuous space alien babes (VSAB from here on in) are biologically similar enough to humans to be able to procreate.

(Note that the chances of some random ET landing on Earth and being able to produce offspring with humans are probably something in the order of one in the XKCD number, where the XKCD number is the Ackermann function, with Graham's number as both arguments. This is one problem with Star Trek, where people are always mating with other aliens. There is no way Spock, being half-human, half-vulcan, is even remotely biologically likely.)

So with the easy question out of the way, we come to the hard one. What if you don't know if you're biologically capable of producing offspring with VSABs?

Of course, with modern technology, we could probably answer this question just by examining the genetics of the two species. But suppose that technology is not available.

Perhaps I should go back to what inspired the question in the first place.

In World of Warcraft (those of you who didn't see that coming obviously don't know me very well), one of my main characters is a Draenei, while The Resident Murloc's is a Night Elf. We typically play these two characters together, and I began to wonder whether they could marry. (Note that I am presupposing, even though Christianity doesn't exist in the Warcraft universe, that sex is intended for procreation and any use if it that contradicts that purpose is illicit and contrary to the natural law, which is independent of religion.)

Within the lore, I don't know if it has been established if Night Elves and Draenei are biologically compatible enough to produce offspring with one another. (I know other races are compatible; Garona is a half-human, half-orc.) So, the question poses serious ramifications for Golyath, being an upstanding and noble Shaman who wishes to do what is right by Nevlonniel. How can he, morally, determine if he is biologically compatible with a night elf, and until that is known, how does that affect his prospects for marriage to this lovely night-elf?

(For all zero of you who are interested, I used to play another Night Elf, Legolamb, along with Nevlonniel. I imagine that Outland changed Lego, and he became cold and distant from his former love, until he finally left her (his change is manifested in his new haircut). In reality, I got tired of playing the most useless class in the game, and wanted to actually feel like I was contributing something in a raid.)

This question has plenty of other contexts aside from WoW, too. For instance, what if some humans were taken by Ra through the Stargate, where they lived separated from their Earth-living relatives for tens of thousands of years, before being reunited, only to discover that they have evolved along different paths and are not biologically compatible with each other? In this case, they might even still be considered the same species.

It does have interesting ramifications, too. We know that homosexuality is disordered because it involves the desire to use the sexual facilities in an unnatural way, that is, in a manner that is contrary to the nature of the sexual act (that nature being the unity of the spouses and procreation). But what about my heterosexual desire for the non-biologically-compatible VSABs? Even though that union is innately contradictory to the nature of sex, is my desire for the well-endowded female aliens also perverse? Suppose we take it one step further and say that they look like Earth-women, only hotter, how is my... how am I supposed to know the difference?

It would also make for an interesting science fiction story. Space Babe lands on earth. Earth man falls in love with, and weds, Space Babe. 193 pages of hot alien-tentacled love later, they determine their species are biologically incompatible. Action sequences ensue, perhaps involving Space Pirates. And of course the Space Babe is also a Space Princess, so it can be considered part of the New Space Princess movement of speculative fiction.

Someone call Mr. Wright. I would write it myself, but with 4 and 2/3 books left to go in my own series, it will be a while before I can get to it.

Why yes, it has been slow at work recently.

If I were 16 years younger....

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

(For those of you who hadn't seen that yet.)

It somehow gives me comfort knowing the future of the country is in the hands of people like that girl. To paraphrase Mark Steyn, if I raise my 1.2 Perfect Children™ to have a fear of guns, and others raise their 5 or 6 to be able to field strip an AR-15 in under a minute, into whose hands am I commending the future?

QFT: "Surely it is written: it is more difficult for Ahmed to put a damsel in a burka when she is armed with an AR 15. Semper Fi!"

For my Virginian readers.

I thought you might appreciate this quote from John C. Wright.

"However, I would be hard pressed to come up with a sound Constitutional argument as to why the State governments cannot possess nukes. If the great Commonwealth of Virginia were a nuclear power, we could settle our dispute with the District of Columbia over extending the Metro line to Dulles Airport with considerably more alacrity."

The whole post is quite good.

(P.S. Anyone getting tired of me linking to him yet?)