The NRA Suppressing research into Gun Violence

[Avatar]

Good posts Hashi.

--A

[Zarathustra]

The article has one other basic logical problem I forgot to address. The author starts out by responding to the “misguided” rebuttal that “all men are not like that.” He admits that of course this is true, but claims this misses the point, namely, that significant portions of our society are precisely like that, so Rodger is not alone. But then the author claims that the fringe groups to which Rodger belonged aren’t merely the product of mainstream attitudes taken to the extreme (and thereby turning the benign into something harmful), but rather that the mainstream attitudes are themselves sexist, so they start out as harmful from the beginning.

In other words, we’re all guilty. Even though he admits not all men are like this, he wants to simultaneously lay the blame at the feet of all men. While admitting that one can't make a generalization from this freak occurrence, he then goes on to generalize.

Another minor logical inconsistency is his criticism that Rodger’s actions arose out of a society that “ condones ... the belief that if you are a "nice guy" ... you are somehow entitled to sex with women.” However, this is then confused by comparing Rodger to his fans, the PUA groups like “"Manosphere" sites like Return of Kings admire "alpha males," disparage "beta males," and promote hypermasculinity."

So again, no matter which position men take—nice guy or alpha male—they will be criticized as if they’re the same thing, as if sexism naturally evolves out of either position, becuase either position is sexist from the start, in its assumptions.

When did our culture condone or endorse the idea that the nice guy is entitled to sex? I didn’t get the memo. (And neither did most of the girls in my high school. ) It’s almost as if he concocted out of thin air by generalizing this freak’s beliefs upon the rest of our culture. Those are precisely the kinds of moves the “not all men are like that” rebuttal refutes ... which is why he must call the obvious fact that we’re not all like this “misguided.”

It doesn't matter if you're not like the killer, you're still like him.

[Avatar]

Of course all men aren't like that. I, and you I'm sure, are proof of it. Sweeping generalisations don't change it, however much they annoy us when they don't apply.

When did our culture condone or endorse the idea that the nice guy is entitled to sex? I didn’t get the memo.

It's being taught by TV and movies. In popularly consumed entertainment, the nice guy always ends up with whatever his dreams are. Real life must come as a shock to a lot of children. That's why it's important to prepare them for the fact that you don't automatically get what you think you deserve.

--A

[sgt.null]

but we train children to believe that everything is fair. we don't keep scores of their games. we give trophies to everyone. we whine if a team "runs up the score." we reward participation as being just as important as winning. we have parents whine until their grades get changed. we create a new math to encourage nonthinking.

it is unhealthy and the little bastards are entirely unprepared for the real world.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Some people want these children who will someday be adults to default to running to Nanny so that Nanny can make it all fair for everyone rather than taking responsibility for themselves. They want people to be dependent upon government.

In the meantime, I suspect the parents who are training their children that everything in life should be fair are in for a rude awakening when they are older and less able to care for themselves--their children won't want that kind of responsibility. I would feel sorry for them--elderly, unwanted, and alone--but they will have done it to themselves and so I won't.

[SoulBiter]

These children you speak of that were taught this, end up living with their parents until they are 40.. some never leave. They dont know how to be independant. They dont know how to deal with unfairness. So they go home and let their parents coddle them.

[Avatar]

Like I said, the real world must come as a hell of a shock. There aren't simple explanations, and there isn't always somebody else to blame.

--A

[SoulBiter]

www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/26/emi ... itutional/

DC ban on guns ruled Unconstitutional... about time

A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.

Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are “unconstitutional.”

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Let us hope that one of his fellow Federal judges with an anti-gun leaning doesn't issue some ruling designed solely to counteract this decision.

[Cail]

As of an hour ago the ruling had not been stayed. This has huge implications for the rest of the country.

[Rawedge Rim]

I read the Court's Decision; and it was awesome. This one was worded in a language that nearly all (except rabit anti-gun people) could easily understand.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Agreed. Perhaps this will be the lever with which force may be applied to strike down similar bans in other cities like Chicago (the town where my former friend, the lawyer whose wife worked in the DA's office, owned a couple of guns in spite of the bans--he wasn't stupid).

This ruling notwithstanding, the fight will continue because the other side is pouring over this decision word by word, looking for weak points or ways to counteract it.

[Cail]

With the way this decision is worded, it'll force SCOTUS to finally end the debate about the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, it's likely to be a 5/4 split due to the 4 justices who ignore the law and vote their political beliefs.