All Women Are Whores Part III
In the building phase, I tentatively called this article, “Men Are Better Than Women At Being Nerds.” That’s true on its own, but what I’m going to talk about here is so much bigger and more bombastic I’ve decided to up the ante.
All women are whores. I know it and you know it, and now nerds do too.
What is a nerd first of all? I’m a man so naturally I have all the answers.
Nerds are a lot like obscenities. You know them when you see them and no amount of man-talking out your man-ass is going to make that any simpler (manpler). For the sake of this article, let’s just say a nerd is certainly anyone who goes to a Star Wars convention and participates in or enjoys dressing up like Star Wars characters. That’s a generous definition as it could easily be argued to be anyone reading about Star Wars conventions and sending me fucking links about Star Wars conventions, but let’s just leave it for the time being.
According to the article at the bottom of this very one you’re reading, the new trend sweeping the world of dressing up like Star Wars characters at Star Wars conventions is women dressing up in slutty versions of said characters. I don’t know what offends my man sensibilities more in this case: the flagrant display of sexuality where it is completely inappropriate, or the lame contrived way women choose to shit all over cherish childhood memories and the formation of new ones.
The last thing I want to see is Darth Vader with a nice rack and fucking slits cut out of that super suit of his so he can show off a little thigh. What in the fuck! Bravo, ladies. You put boobs on a Stormtrooper uniform.
Men are better than women at being nerds because men understand what it is to be a nerd. It means being interested and committed to an idea or a set of ideas in a way some might consider fanatical. Does that sound familiar? You’ve probably heard it before. That’s right, it’s called fucking democracy.
Democracy was founded by a bunch of nerds who were nerdy for your civil liberties — and boy were they fucking nerdy. They drafted little nerd memos to each other called Bills of Rights and wrote secret nerd journals about fantasies of voting and free trade and other things a woman with a PhD in economics still couldn’t wrap her fucking head around. That’s what a man nerd is capable of.
A woman nerd is capable of trouncing around in a cute outfit and getting attention she has no business getting. First of all, that’s dangerous to women. The last thing women need to experience is a life they can never have. Women don’t have the metaphysical grappling strength of men. They can’t haul themselves out of a shithole if that’s where they were born like you and I can. If a woman has a lazy-eye, she’s fucked. Sammy Davis Jr. didn’t even have a fucking eye and look at what he accomplished. That’s called being a man.
Women’s only skill — and I use that term loosely — is dressing sexy. Not subtly sexy either. Think of Yoda ears on a girl in a bikini or something dumb like that. I don’t know because I didn’t read the article I’m about to link to and I certainly didn’t try to find any additional pictures.
Women are whores.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 11 10 9 8 7 6 [5] 4 3 2 1 » Show All
I think there is some truth to this.
Generally people in the bigger cities have hurried up attitudes which are very rude at times. Women in big cities are the worst snobs you will ever find. It’s the small towns where people are a bit warmer.
Take away our guns and only crooks will carry them.
Robert W. Stewart:
And here I thought there were only weapons besides tools. If only just those that live by the sword would die by it.
That’s it. I’m peeling off. Not one peep more out of me on this.
Generally has meat for dinner.
:D
Depends what you believe.
I believe that we live in a world with a very free exchange of information. We also live in a world in which the science behind firearms is centuries-old and extremely easy to reproduce with easily-obtained chemicals.
I believe that we live in a world in which, short of a police state, it is impossible to remove the science behind firearms. Furthermore, even in a police state, criminals will still practice it.
I also believe that we live in a world where to regulate the use of science is to ultimately doom every man, woman, and child living on it to eventual serfdom. If you start regulating applied science behind firearms, you can’t just stop there. A computer, for example, can be configured as a weapon, so we better regulate computers. For that matter, with the right kind of tinkering, I can configure my computer into a firearm — and no, I’m not kidding. This fact combined with what I know of IT security (I have a couple of certifications in it) is what makes me hold “airport security checkpoints” in utter contempt.
Given that we are in a world in which firearms are here to stay simply because they are a natural outgrowth of science, it makes no rational sense to try to figure out how to remove them from that portion of the population that would only use them peacefully.
Rather, it makes far more sense to figure out how to deter those who would use them to initiate force against others.
History and statistics has proved that the best way to do this is to simply allow anyone with the money to do so to purchase and carry a personal firearm with as little interference as possible. You may not like this fact, but it’s a fact nonetheless. The older I get, the less I like gravity, but I don’t go around acting as though it can be removed.
Therefore, the discussion I’m having with Wolfe is eminently moral, since it proceeds from concrete reality rather than fantastic theory.
Sonyad, the fact is is that guns exist, therefore there should be discussion about their uses and punishments for use.
I somewhat thought you’d say that, hence the caveat “for the purposes of this discussion”.
I’d like to try and figure out if we disagree on semantics (as to what ‘gun laws’ mean), or fundamentals, hence these questions.
Exploring that, does that mean you think laws against using firearms to commit felonies should be swept away?
Yes. A gun is a tool, like a hammer. It can be used for good or ill, depending on its use.
The law shouldn’t give a rat’s ass about what was used to commit a crime, but rather be concerned with the crime itself. If you hold up a convenience store at the point of a knife or at the barrel of a gun, you should still go to jail for what you’ve stolen.
If you kill someone with a baseball bat or a gun, you should go to jail for having killed someone, not for how you did it.
The problem that “gun crime” laws seek to address is that the aptly-named criminal justice system in the US was long-ago co-opted by socialists for the purpose of molding behavior. By filling jails with individuals whose “crimes” involve trafficing in unpopular substances, it became impossible to incarcerate those who had actually caused harm to others. Consequently, judges must make a decision about who to put in jail based on whether it was their first time, if they used a certain kind of weapon, and so on.
Repeal the drug laws and dump those who’ve committed no crime but trafficking and drug use onto the streets where they belong, and you can begin to uniformly apply the law to actual criminals.
If someone has served their time, I don’t see why they should be prohibited from behaving as free individuals, the same as the rest of us. Again, the assumes that one gets rid of laws that invent crimes where there is no intiation of force — such as smuggling and drug usage. Free up the prison space for those who actually do harm to others, toss first-time offenders in jail the same as ten-time offenders, and it won’t matter a whole lot if ex-cons are treated as full citizens.
This also assumes, by the way, that the Second Amendment is enforced and anyone who want to protect themselves with a firearm is allowed to. It acts as a wonderful deterrant to sociopath ex-cons who might be tempted to repeat-offend.
No, because these are self-correcting problems. You leave your guns out where irresponsible children are around, and you will ultimately fail to pass your stupidity on to the gene pool. This may sound harsh, but it’s a better solution than prohibiting people from owning weapons.
As to careless discharge, again, this is ultimately a self-correcting problem if you don’t fill your prisons with “criminals” whose crimes harm no one but themselves.
I’m opposed to anything that makes it even remotely difficult for any man, woman, or responsible child to defend themselves. It’s as simple as that.
He who lives by the sword…
“As soon as the Sword ceased to be worn in France, a Frenchman said of his compatriots that the ‘politest people in Europe had suddenly become the rudest.’ That gallant and courteous bearing, which in England during the early nineteenth century so charmed the ‘fiery and fastidious Alfieri,’ lingers only amongst a few. True, the swash-buckler, the professional duellist, has disappeared. But courtesy and punctiliousness, the politeness of man to man, and respect and deference of man to woman - that Frauencultus, the very conception of the knightly character - have to a great extent been ‘improved off.’ The latter condition of society, indeed, seems to survive only in the most cultivated class of Europe; and, popularly, amongst the citizens of the United States, a curious oasis of chivalry in a waste of bald utilitarianism - preserved not by the Sword but by the revolver. Our England has abolished the duello without substituting aught better for it: she has stopped the effect and left the cause.”
-”The Book of the Sword”, Richard F Burton (1883)
-Big Al
National Sword Association Sympathizer
Alas, such is to be had with NRA sympathisers. An poignant exercise in futility as well.
What a morally reprehensible discussion.
I somewhat thought you’d say that, hence the caveat “for the purposes of this discussion”.
@Dakota, I’d like to try and figure out if we disagree on semantics (as to what ‘gun laws’ mean), or fundamentals, hence these questions.
Exploring that, does that mean you think laws against using firearms to commit felonies should be swept away?
Do you think convicted violent felons should generally be legally prohibited from possessing firearms? (even, say, if background checks weren’t mandated at point of sale?)
Do you think there should be laws against careless use or careless discharge of a firearm?
To me, all of the above are ‘gun laws’. To you, they may or may not be, and you may or may not be opposed to them.
-wolfe
Of course it would. McVeigh and Nichols murdered hundreds of people who had precisely nothing to do with the Waco Massacre. I wish very much that someone had plugged McVeigh as he was parking his Ryder truck. Unfortunately, there was no way to know that he was up to something nefarious — such is the price of living in a free society, sadly.
But I’ll take it over the police state that America is becoming.
“No human being has the right — under any circumstances — to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation.”
So if the bad guy goes around threatening to kill people, of course it’s justifiable to plug him.
It’s not incongruent. Adopt whatever morality you like, provided that it doesn’t require initiation of force. Otherwise, you’re liable to get plugged when you initiate it.
Nobody said it was. But again, whatever your behavior algorithm is, you should be aware that you run the high risk of getting plugged if it involves initiating force.
Depends what you believe, I suppose. I find the Bible interesting, but no more so than any score of other religious documents.
Probably not, but it’s the code of conduct one needs to follow in order to get along in the world. Otherwise, you’re likely to get plugged.
No, I let my membership lapse years ago. The NRA is America’s premiere victim disarmament organization. I heartily approve of their safety and responsibility courses, but when it comes to lobbying, you only lose when you give them your money. They’ll settle for whatever victim disarmament laws the right guys want this year … and then a little more the next year … and a little more the year after …
A massacre and cover-up by those in government, nothing more and nothing less. As near as I can tell, the only “crime” being perpetrated was tax resistence, and I don’t think 74 men, women, and innocent children deserved to die because of it.
Certainly I wouldn’t want to belong to the Branch Davidians, nor would I particularly want them as neighbors. Their beliefs were, at best, esoteric. However, last I knew, it didn’t harm anyone to have esoteric beliefs.
Quite probably more familiar with it than most Christians, as I’ve studied the context under which it was made. A neat side-step by Jesus to avoid being arrested for treason that had nothing to do with what he actually thought about Roman taxation.
Don’t know and don’t care. I just know that nobody deserves to die for failure to pay taxes.
Near as I can tell, Koresh was a nutbar. But again, I don’t see that it harms anyone to be a nutbar, provided you do it of your own volition and you don’t harm anyone else in the process. Koresh didn’t harm anyone — his government did that.
Do you concur with the views of Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols? I expect you do not condone their actions as that would be incompatible with the 0AP.
So, you plugging him (for the sake of argument, let’s assume the potential perpetrator’s a man) prior any malevolent action on his part is justifiable under the 0AP. I didn’t ask wether it was moral or not. That depends on a lot of details about the given situation and I could very well determine that myself, given any situation. If not on site then perhaps in hindsight, or foresight in the realm of the hypothetical.
Also the 0AP does is not congruent with morality. Nor is it the be all, end all of behavioural algorithms. We’ve got the Bible for that. The 0AP isn’t the first behavioural philosophy or societal code of conduct nor is it the last.
Are you a member of the NRA by any chance? Do you hold some position with their hierarchy?
What are your views regarding the Waco incident?
Are you familiar with the quote: “Give that that is Caesar’s to Caesar, and that that is God’s to God.”?
Do you suppose the Davidians (members thereof) were?
Do you suppose David Koresh was?
The Zero Aggression Principle is simply applied to this situation. I am morally justified in halting another human being’s initiation of force. Period.
Straightforward enough, is it not?
If I misunderstand a situation and end up initiating force against someone or initiating force against an innocent bystander while halting the initiation of force, then of course I would owe the harmed party restitution. In particularly bad cases, they would be within their moral right to stop me with force, if necessary.
Again, very simple. Initiation of force is immoral, not force itself. You can’t start a fight, but you can end it.
There’s no such thing as a “sensible gun law,” quasi- or otherwise. All gun laws seek to disarm victims and that’s all. This is obviously a nonsensible idea.
However …
Other than Federal victim disarmament laws, the only gun law in SD is that if you’re going to conceal-carry, you must have a wholly irrelevant permit rubber-stamped by the county sherriff. It’s a pointless exercise on the face of it that only serves to inform the State who is carrying — which is reason enough to eliminate it.
Of course it moves. As I’ve said, criminals prefer South Dakota’s neighbors with victim disarmament laws. I would far prefer a world in which there were no victim disarmament laws. The sooner we have one, the sooner criminals will be weeded from the gene pool by some intended victim.
However, since that’s not possible, the best I can do is get the criminals away from me. And I do that by carrying a gun and letting everyone around me carry a gun. Criminals seek easier prey.
In other matters. Dakota Smith, would you plug somebody with that gun for anything else than evident, unprovoked, imminent, physical threat to either you or a third party by means of a firearm, white weapon or blunt instrument. Perhaps even bear hands?
Or, according to the 0 aggression principle, will you wait until the assailant’s attack has been consumed or is in the process or shoot preemtively while the individual’s aggression is still only pending?
If your shot was not justifiable, would you see incarceration as due and appropriate punishment? How long would you assess the sentence should be, assuming the alleged assailant, proved otherwise, lives?
Isn’t mot a mot translation wonderful?
How perspicacious of you to have noticed, Wolfe. I’m touched.
I am, in fact, right. And being right only reinforces my conviction that I’m actually right.
Catch 22 moment over. Back to work everyone.
Dakota and I clearly both got pwned. Can’t argue with a man who’s arguments are “inexpugnable”. (Of course, this simply proves my suspicion that Sony is in Manichean mode on this, but he’s right, his arguments are therefore invincible and unassailable.)
@Dakota, responding to your last statement “avoid places where they could get hurt”. The one thought that does trouble me is what happens when every place has quasi-sensible gun laws? (for the sake of this discussion, let’s say whatever gun laws are in place in South Dakota). There was some evidence back in the 80’s with that little town (in Georgia?) that there was no overall reduction in crime rate; it simply got moved.
-wolfe