The Illogic of Vox Day

In his post Killer Game, Vox Day, internet “superintelligence,” writes:

I don’t believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.

Absolutely nothing to argue about? Is he for real?

Vox’s use of “established empirical fact” led me to believe he’d linked to, you know… something like credible scientific research supporting his claim. What did he actually link to? A single non-scientific article discussing a subset of Japanese women who seem to have taken a liking to Tatsuya Ichihashi, the Japanese student who allegedly murdered teacher Lindsay Ann Hawker. Does Vox’s claim that “raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman” follow from the fact that a subset of Japanese women have idolized this guy? Hardly. Perhaps some female commenters can offer their own opinions.

I’m skeptical of Vox’s claim. Are these Japanese women indicative of all women? Might it be more likely that these women represent the fringe? Have social scientists investigated Vox’s claim? Furthermore, that a subset of Japanese women idolize this guy says nothing about the degree to which they are or are not attracted by gentlemen. Maybe in some weird, twisted way, they actually see Ichihashi as a gentleman? Unless he’s alluding to some hitherto undisclosed sources, Vox is clearly pulling stuff out of his behind here. For all his dictionary fetish, he apparently operates under his own definition of “established empirical fact” and then makes the hasty generalization that the actions of a few Japanese women are indicative of women.

Hence, the illogic of Vox Day.

38 Comments

  1. Leahn Novash says:

    Dude, “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia”.

    It is very silly to argue against all the empirical data behind game. It works, even if we dislike this fact.

    It is also very silly to argue about the lack of scientific research for something that one claims that has been proven empirically.

  2. Dominic Saltarelli says:

    I knew there was gonna be trouble the day Vox told me you had received the most votes for christian judge. You’re downright allergic to anyone who makes broad statements or sweeping generalizations, while that’s pretty much all Vox does.

    Before the PZ Myers Memorial debate even started, I thought to myself “oh, this is going to be…. interesting.”

  3. Thrasymachus says:

    It’s pretty obvious that “Its a fact that women find raping/killing more attractive than being a gentlemen”, does not follow from “some japanese women fancy this rapist/murderer”.

  4. cl says:

    Leahn,

    I’ve never denied that a subset of women have some weird fetishes. Are you attracted to Ichihashi? In general, do you find rapists and killers equally or more attractive than, say, lawyers, doctors, or celebrities? What about the women you know?

    It is also very silly to argue about the lack of scientific research for something that one claims that has been proven empirically.

    So, if, in the absence of scientific research, somebody claims it has been proven empirically that atheism is true, it would be silly to criticize the lack of research? Is that what you’re saying? If not, can you clarify?

    Dominic,

    You’re downright allergic to anyone who makes broad statements or sweeping generalizations, while that’s pretty much all Vox does.

    It depends on the context. If it’s obvious sarcasm, I think broad statements or sweeping generalizations can be pretty funny, but they shouldn’t be offered as propositions.

    Although I tend to agree, if making broad statements and sweeping generalizations is pretty much all Vox does, why do you seem to grant him high status as an intellectual? Are you simply debating him in hopes of exposing his weaknesses?

  5. cl says:

    Thrasymachus,

    I agree, and I initially thought maybe Vox was being funny, but it seems to me he was being genuine. Weird.

  6. Hunt says:

    Just his usual brand of idiotic provocation. The entire idea of “game” is an error of over generalization. That some women are attracted to boorish men is no more of a surprise than that there is a select group of women who find Tatsuya Ichihashi alluring. Certain pathetic men take this as proof positive that all women will respond to the “bad boys” (as they self describe themselves). Basically, it’s a class of snubbed high schoolers who have moved into adulthood without the social skills necessary to approach women and have belatedly decided they should be acting like The Fonz. (To engage in a bit of over gen. myself, but frankly I think that’s an accurate description of at least 80% of them.)

    IOW it’s totally, face-palmingly depressing.

  7. Dominic Saltarelli says:

    @cl

    Vox usually lays out his evidence first, before drawing sweeping generalizations from them. His high status as an intellectual comes naturally from his ability to make economic predictions that end up being amazingly accurate, which is way out of my league and far more difficult than arguing religion.

    He’s a bull who tramples most everything that gets in his way. The debate was an opportunity to grab the bull by the horns and see if I could wrestle him down. I entered into the debate at a severe disadvantage as it was (proving a negative), and this just made me want to jump into the ring and scrap it out all the more. I like challenges.

    Plus, I did promise everyone that I was going to make it interesting, and from what I hear, is something I managed to pull off.

  8. joseph says:

    @CL,
    It’s entirely consistent with:

    “I have evidence of one atheist using hyperbole, therefore all atheists are lying snakes”.

    “Some women are attracted to sociopaths, therefore acting like a sociopath is more attractive to all women”.

  9. philip says:

    If I recall correctly, several months back Vox was inquiring as whether evidence existed for Game in other cultures or something to that effect and I gave it considerable thought as I’m quite familiar with Japan and Japanese culture (third culture kid, born in US, but lived in Japan 1956-1987 with only 6 of those years in the US).

    At the time I was hesitant to apply Game theory to Japanese, primarily because I was not entirely sure I properly understood the characteristics of Alphas, Gammas, Sigmas, Deltas, etc. and then apply that to what I knew about Japanese males or females was quite a challenge, especially since Japanese attitudes regarding marriage, sex, relationships, love, men-women societal roles, etc., are so very, very different from the US.

    Nonetheless, I now think Japanese Alphas, Gammas and so forth do exist and they are identifiable as such within that culture, even though no Westerner would be able to identify a Japanese male Alpha or Delta as such because they simply don’t know how to read the cultural cues.

    And likewise, but in a uniquely Japanese manner, I think there is a good case to be made that Japanese women instinctively follow Game rules.

    All of this brings me to the current topic and a eureka moment that was inadvertently triggered by something cl had posted:

    “Vox’s use of “established empirical fact” led me to believe he’d linked to, you know… something like credible scientific research supporting his claim. What did he actually link to? A single non-scientific article discussing a subset of Japanese women who seem to have taken a liking to Tatsuya Ichihashi, the Japanese student who allegedly murdered teacher Lindsay Ann Hawker. Does Vox’s claim that “raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman” follow from the fact that a subset of Japanese women have idolized this guy? Hardly. Perhaps some female commenters can offer their own opinions.
    I’m skeptical of Vox’s claim. Are these Japanese women indicative of all women? Might it be more likely that these women represent the fringe? Have social scientists investigated Vox’s claim?”

    (Note that the murder is not “alleged”,but that Ichihashi did confess that he raped and murdered Hawker, and that he has been convicted and sentenced to life in prison.)

    In light of what I opined about the likely applicability of Game theory to Japanese culture the very fact that there is a thriving and vocal Ichihashi fan club actually affirms in my mind that Game is indeed universal, or at the very least applicable to Japanese society.

    Why?

    If someone had told me in the late 80’s when I lived in Japan, or even up until Ichihachi actually murdered the English teacher in 2007, that a Japanese man would rape and strangle a women and then subsequently during his escape, apprehension, confession, trial and conviction, that he would achieve the fan club status among Japanese women that he has achieved, replete with marriage proposals and some women still proclaiming him to be innocent, I would have laughed so hard at the utter ludicrousness of something so inconceivable.

    Crimes of rape and murder are rare in Japan to begin with, so it would be difficult to even get hard data on how many Japanese rapists and murderers have a female fan club, but as far as I know, this would be a first.

    So from my perspective at least, the very fact that Japanese bad boy Ichihachi, who confessed to raping his victim but not murdering her–she wouldn’t stop screaming so he strangled her for 3 minutes to shut her up and he didn’t really mean to kill her–actually has a vocal Japanese female fan club, provides more proof to me that Game theory is actually applicable to Japanese society.

  10. cl says:

    Hunt,

    Just his usual brand of idiotic provocation.

    That was my first impression, too… but then I started wondering if there weren’t deeper, darker forces at play.

    Certain pathetic men take this as proof positive that all women will respond to the “bad boys” (as they self describe themselves).

    I couldn’t help but wonder if Vox wasn’t projecting at least a little bit in that post. He actually seemed pleased to announce his “empirically established fact,” as if it was vindicating or something. Pretty weird.

    Dominic,

    I actually respect what Vox has to say on economics, and what he has to say regarding New Atheism and the “scientific materialist dogmatists” in general. Although, that’s not enough for me to hold someone in high regard as an intellectual. He has an uncanny ability to be both Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins, if you catch my drift. I tend to respect people who generally avoid hasty generalizations, not to mention the whole slanderous name-calling routine.

    joseph,

    It’s entirely consistent with:

    “I have evidence of one atheist using hyperbole, therefore all atheists are lying snakes”.

    “Some women are attracted to sociopaths, therefore acting like a sociopath is more attractive to all women”.

    I agree those are similar errors, but to be fair, that wasn’t the reasoning behind Vox’s “lying snakes” claim. Vox was actually arguing that something integral to atheists justified his claim; that their “dishonesty” flowed directly from their atheism. Of course, intelligent, reasonable, non-infatuated-with-Vox-Day people know this is nonsense, as the continued inability to make the case suggests. Vox’s “logic” goes something like, “Atheists reject ‘let your yes be yes and your no be no’ as a command from God, therefore they have nothing to prevent them from lying at any given time.” Of course, this fails to take into account the many instances of believers lying in the Bible among other things, so Vox’s “argument” clearly needs strengthening.

    philip,

    Out of time at the moment, I’ll try to get to your comment soon (didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you).

  11. joseph says:

    “, but to be fair, that wasn’t the reasoning behind Vox’s “lying snakes” claim”

    …I admit I cut down the argument into a form that made me giggle, and unfairly simplified it. Sorry Vox.

  12. Hunt says:

    That was my first impression, too… but then I started wondering if there weren’t deeper, darker forces at play.

    Oh, there are, but as likely as not they can be explained by the rumor that Vox Day is a short stumpy man. You’ve seen the picture with the flaming sword (i.e. the screenshot from “Willow”)? Imagine how that works on a person like Vox Day (Napoleon complex).

    Don’t get too worked up analyzing VD when as likely as not the reasons he hates women are a banal as a short rich kid with an entitlement complex catching shit from girls way the hell out of his league due to his singularly unfortunate physical “shortcoming.”

  13. Leahn Novash says:

    “So, if, in the absence of scientific research, somebody claims it has been proven empirically that atheism is true, it would be silly to criticize the lack of research? Is that what you’re saying? If not, can you clarify?”

    Yes, it would be silly to criticize the lack of research. He is not claiming that it has been scientifically proven so why do you demand scientific evidence? You’re far too good in logic to fall back to the atheist pattern of scientism. Don’t do it. Science isn’t the only way to establish veracity that exists. Rather, if someone claims that it has been empirically demonstrated to be true, then request to see the empirical data supporting it.

    I linked you to the Wikipedia article that links to research on the subject. Claims of “absence of scientific research” are vapid. There is scientific research on the subject, you simply has decided to not to acknowledge it.

    I suggest this article as a good start:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/13/gender.uk

    Being from the third world, I can attest from experience that this is true. The problem is rampant here where young women from rich families and high standard of living flee from home and go live in the slums with the drug dealers.

    And as for why VD claims that “it is an empirical fact”, he claims so due to game theory. We both know VD enough to understand that he wouldn’t do a hasty generalization, but VD lately has demonstrated a certain unwillingness to rewrite his arguments every single time that something happens on the subject. He simply assumes that you’re familiar with the topic and can follow the reasoning.

    Game theory establishes that killing a person is a demonstration of power, and that any demonstration of power is a DHV, and that any DHV will sexually arouse a woman. Keep in mind that, while some women may find such actions abhorrent, that doesn’t preclude sexual arousal, although it may prevent them to act on it.

    Ferdinand has made the same claim in the past. It is nothing new in the game theory community.

  14. Markku Koponen says:

    Come on, now. I understand how Vox Popoli newbies fail to understand the post (indeed, that is an important part of the comedy), but some of you are VP regulars and you still don’t seem to get the joke.

    “And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact” is typical VP humor. Self-satire, but not self-parody.

    If you want to read the humorless and boring version, take a look at the corresponding post at Alpha Game. The link is right there.

  15. Markku Koponen says:

    As for the rest of you, please proceed. We quite enjoy these feuds over there, and since the previous one with Scott Bakker panned out, we could do with a new one.

  16. joseph says:

    It’s good that Vox has a judge that knows and loves him well.

    I hope Dominic has the benefit of a judge that is equally familiar with him.

  17. Markku Koponen says:

    Joseph: Based on Dominic’s earlier comments here, it would appear that he did, until he willingly resigned. Sucks to be Dominic, I guess.

    However, the reason cl got chosen was precisely so that such accusations could be avoided. Nearly everyone voted for me, until I said that I’d rather not do it because of my earlier history with Vox. But as cl left the game, it was obvious that I’d have to do it, since IIRC the only other votes were one vote to Mrs. Pilgrim and one to Zeno.

  18. Mr. Nightstick says:

    @ Markku

    How did the feud with Bakker pan out?

  19. Markku Koponen says:

    @Mr. Nightstick

    By providing no more posts for us to enjoy. I don’t know if Scott stopped writing them or it Vox started ignoring them. I only noticed the law of diminishing returns WRT lulz.

  20. Dominic Saltarelli says:

    Funny thing, I voted for Markku too, thinking that Markku would be willing to use phrases like “5 shades of retard” in his judgments. But when Vox told me cl got more votes, it didn’t make much difference to me anyways since I’m just doing this for fun, so I let it slide.

  21. joseph says:

    @Markku

    Joseph: Based on Dominic’s earlier comments here, it would appear that he did, until he willingly resigned. Sucks to be Dominic, I guess.

    LOL. Seriously, good luck anyway, sounds like it’ll be more workable this way.

  22. WATYF says:

    cl…. I must say, I rather enjoy your blog when you’re not whining about Vox and drawing incorrect conclusions about what he’s actually saying.

    Well… OK… I enjoy that part too (but for entirely different reasons).

    :^D

    WATYF

  23. Markku Koponen says:

    As for the alleged ban from Vox Popoli, unconditional bans are very rare over there. The usual situation is that you make a claim, are asked a question related to the evidence for the claim, and fail to answer the question. The moment you either answer it satisfactorily or withdraw the original claim, you get your commenting rights back. Now, Beelzebub aka. Hunt has lost them permanently, but it took several years for that to happen.

    I understand perfectly well that cl might not want to go back there, but the reason is NOT that he can’t. All it would take is to say “ok, I’m not interested in making a statistic of the comments deleted simply because they were critical of Vox, so I withdraw my claim that the percentage is significant”. Note that withdrawing a claim is not the same as admitting that you lied, and will not be taken as such.

  24. cl says:

    Don’t worry, Vox fawns… you won’t be able to cry “but you just don’t understand, cl” when it comes time for Part II.

    joseph,

    …I admit I cut down the argument into a form that made me giggle, and unfairly simplified it. Sorry Vox.

    Not really. It’s horribly simple, so simple it’s not even anywhere near valid. You just kinda mis-analogized it a bit, that’s all.

    Hunt,

    You’ve seen the picture with the flaming sword (i.e. the screenshot from “Willow”)? Imagine how that works on a person like Vox Day (Napoleon complex).

    YES, I have… I felt sorry for Vox when I saw it. They say I’m a narcissist, but that picture tells a different story.

    Leahn,

    You seem to be losing sight of Vox’s claim. Why won’t you answer my questions? Answer them, and I’ll gladly address your comments in full.

    WATYK,

    cl…. I must say, I rather enjoy your blog when you’re not whining about Vox and drawing incorrect conclusions about what he’s actually saying.

    Hey thanks. I must say, I rather enjoy reading my own comment threads when commenters aren’t whining about what I write. :-p

    Markku,

    Come on, now. I understand how Vox Popoli newbies fail to understand the post (indeed, that is an important part of the comedy), but some of you are VP regulars and you still don’t seem to get the joke.

    Like I said, my first reaction was that this post was a joke. If so, then my criticisms of illogic don’t stand, and we simply have an example of a guy who derives some weird, twisted satisfaction out of using exaggerated rhetoric to denigrate women. Either way it doesn’t look good.

    The usual situation is that you make a claim, are asked a question related to the evidence for the claim, and fail to answer the question.

    Oh, you mean like Vox in the Dishonest Atheist thread? Or the Queen of VoxWorld when I asked whether or not I was banned? I hate to break it to you, but I provided evidence for my claim that the Queen deletes a significant subset of comments that are critical of Vox and/or VoxWorld, or supportive of those who criticize Vox and/or VoxWorld. She apparently just can’t handle the truth and has to hide behind delusion. It’s really sad the way she impedes the search for truth (for example deleting comments that focus specifically on the arguments, like my rebuttal of TobyTemple’s silly poll around comment 740 in the Dishonest Atheist thread).

    I understand perfectly well that cl might not want to go back there, but the reason is NOT that he can’t.

    How do you know? Have you asked? She’s deleted every comment I made since I gave her what she asked for (evidence of selective trigger-happiness). I asked the Queen of VoxWorld for a straight answer as to whether I’m banned or not, and instead she deleted every comment I made after that. It seemed reasonable to assume that meant “yes” I am banned. You’re right. I couldn’t care less. I’ve known about VoxWorld for years. There’s a reason I never became a regular. In fact, lots of them. In short, I had enough of grade school in grade school.

    All it would take is to say “ok, I’m not interested in making a statistic of the comments deleted simply because they were critical of Vox, so I withdraw my claim that the percentage is significant”.

    Why? To appease Spacebunny’s clear delusion on the matter? Sorry, but I prefer the truth, and it is true that she deletes a significant subset of comments that are critical of Vox and/or VoxWorld, or supportive of those who criticize Vox and/or VoxWorld. It’s pathetic, but it’s her power trip, so more power to her.

  25. Markku Koponen says:

    “Like I said, my first reaction was that this post was a joke”

    The post itself was not a joke. As I said, you can read the humorless version at Alpha Game. The VP version merely contains extra humor that anyone who has been at VP for a reasonable time should be able to understand. I would not expect you to agree with the Alpha Game version either, but the part you quoted at VP was a joke.

    “How do you know?”

    Because I’ve been there for something like five years now, and if you check my CoComment profile, you’ll notice that I have by far the largest amount of comments of the entire forum. Much more than, say, Vox or Spacebunny. I am thoroughly familiar with the moderation principles, which are very consistent. If you want, I can ask Vox in Skype (although I already know the answer) but it seems clear that you don’t.

    “She’s deleted every comment I made since I gave her what she asked for”

    Yes, that is the way it works, and has worked for everyone before you. The comment needs to be the evidence or the withdrawal. Other comments are deleted. I’ve seen this dozens of times and it always works the same.

    So, yes, you’re banned, but it is conditional. As opposed to a small minority who are unconditionally banned. I can think of four names in my entire time. Dominic has been there for a long time too, and since you obviously trust HIM, then go ahead and ask him if what I’m telling you is true.

    “since I gave her what she asked for (evidence of selective trigger-happiness).”

    You have to give evidence for the specific claim that you make. It was about “significant amount”. One instance is not enough for that. Which is what “anecdotal evidence” (the words that SB used) means. You could always withdraw the original claim and make a revised claim of something that a single instance proves.

    “Why?”

    It doesn’t concern me, why. As I said, I’m perfectly fine with you not wanting to go back. I just don’t want you to misrepresent the terms of going back. You are no different than the dozens of people who have been treated exactly the same way. All have had their comments deleted until they give the evidence for the specific claim. or withdraw the claim.

  26. Markku Koponen says:

    Many of the rules are pure common sense, but there are two peculiarities over there as opposed to other forums, over which you are offered the Hobson’s choice.

    1) You start as a second class citizen. If one of the regulars treats you badly you may respond in kind, but you may not START it.

    2) Everyone, including the requlars, must answer questions related to the evidence for claims you make or withdraw the claims. Or get their comments deleted until the issue is resolved.

    The only right that you have is the right to not use the comment section if you don’t like the rules. Nothing wrong with that.

  27. cl says:

    Markku,

    The comment needs to be the evidence or the withdrawal.

    It WAS the evidence, in part. That’s the point. She should have said, “Okay cl, that in fact IS an example of me deleting two comments that were supportive of those who criticize Vox and VoxWorld. How many more do you have?” or something like that. She should have said, “I need this many” or something. But it’s clear she’s not interested in what’s true anyways. If she was, she would delete the truth. The whole thing is just a joke. I have zero respect for people who resort to censorship in order to portray some imagined decorum.

    You start as a second class citizen. If one of the regulars treats you badly you may respond in kind, but you may not START it.

    Git yer little behind over to the Dishonest Atheist thread, and tell me: did I start it? No. Did I respond in kind? Hardly. The worst comment I made was telling Taylor she needs to get laid. As opposed to, “pussy,” “fag,” “tard,” “asshole,” and who knows how many other third grade-isms. If that’s the type of forum you like to represent, hey, so be it. I think it’s juvenile and reflects poorly on the whole “we’re Christians” thing.

    Everyone, including the requlars, must answer questions related to the evidence for claims you make or withdraw the claims. Or get their comments deleted until the issue is resolved.

    Yeah, except that doesn’t apply to Vox or Spacebunny.

    The only right that you have is the right to not use the comment section if you don’t like the rules. Nothing wrong with that.

    Oh, I like the rules, and like I said, I abided by them. I answered people’s questions. For the most part, I spoke respectfully even when people were going on their tirades. Or even better, I ignored them entirely. What I DON’T like is the selective enforcement of the rules. Vox and Spacebunny are hypocrites, period. It’s not Dawkins-esque name-calling; it’s true. Make excuses for your pals all you want, but this is stinky, hypocritical BS and you know it.

    But who cares? I’m content to let them have there little fantasy world. Let’s see if you and I can’t turn over a new leaf. Like I said over there, I like most of what I’ve seen from you.

  28. Markku Koponen says:

    “She should have said, “Okay cl, that in fact IS an example of me deleting two comments that were supportive of those who criticize Vox and VoxWorld. How many more do you have?” or something like that. She should have said, “I need this many” or something”

    It is my experience that new users are usually explained how the thing works better than you were, before the ban is enforced. You were clearly particularly disliked. It is not that the actual enforcement was at all inconsistent, but it is quite likely that there was at that point a desire was that you’d stop commenting and some corners got cut.

    “Git yer little behind over to the Dishonest Atheist thread, and tell me: did I start it? No.”

    I didn’t mean to imply that you had broken THAT rule. Only the other one. I only mentioned it because it is the other peculiarity that a person might reasonably dislike and therefore choose to not comment. As for Taylor, she is an Argentine woman. They are easily angered. We don’t judge her style, but it is not that of most of us. We’re all individuals over there, not The Borg. No assumptions should be made about the others based merely on what one says.

    “Yeah, except that doesn’t apply to Vox or Spacebunny.”

    I’ve occasionally but rarely seen them not answer a direct question related to a previous claim. Do you have a specific question that you can point to?

    “Let’s see if you and I can’t turn over a new leaf.”

    It’s all the same to me, really. My sole interest right now is to set the record straight. It doesn’t matter if anyone will believe me, only that I have said what I know to be true. I have no idea whether or not I will continue to read your blog after the current brouhaha ends.

  29. cl says:

    Markku,

    You’ve really got a way with words.

    You were clearly particularly disliked. It is not that the actual enforcement was at all inconsistent, but it is quite likely that there was at that point a desire was that you’d stop commenting and some corners got cut.

    IOW, it *WAS* inconsistent. As I’ve amply demonstrated. Vox even admitted it is “unfair.” If you think enforcement of “The Rules” is consistent at VoxWorld, you’re trippin’. You’ve drank the Kool-Aid.

    I didn’t mean to imply that you had broken THAT rule. Only the other one.

    You mean the one Vox clearly broke in the Dishonest Atheist thread? The one where we’re supposed to “answer direct questions?” Yeah, we’re talking about the same rule. I didn’t break it. I abided by it. The Queen of VoxWorld asked for evidence, and I gave it to her. I would have given her more, I wanted to start small and proceed on common ground each step of the way. So I gave her two data points. She should have said, “Okay, you’re right in this case, do you have more than these two instances?” and at that point I would have continued to press my case. Instead, she deleted them, because she’s either really dense, really delusional, or she felt straight-up made-a-fool-of. Like I said, a person with integrity would have conceded that I provided exactly what they asked for. The Queen did not. She chose the commie-censorship route, all the while claiming to be a libertarian. Pure chutzpah.

    As for Taylor, she is an Argentine woman. They are easily angered.

    That’s no excuse and honestly, I condemn each of you for not condemning her. You are all like the parent who fails to discipline that one bratty kid run amok. Then again, there are many more bratty kids there, too. So it’s actually worse than I say.

    No assumptions should be made about the others based merely on what one says.

    I judge you each individually. If I judged you on what Taylor said, we wouldn’t be talking now.

    My sole interest right now is to set the record straight.

    Oh, then we share a common interest. What exactly do you wish to set straight? I’m more than willing to make some concessions provided you’re willing to do the same.

  30. joseph says:

    Well, it seems a bit pedantic but ok:

    …I admit I cut down the argument into a form that made me giggle, horribly simplfied it and mis-analogized it.

    Anymore?

  31. joseph says:

    Brief aside:
    “As for Taylor, she is an Argentine woman. They are easily angered.”

    Know, and have been taught by Argentines (they know a horse).
    Taylor is a bit….special.

  32. physphilmusic says:

    “I condemn each of you for not condemning her. You are all like the parent who fails to discipline that one bratty kid run amok.”

    Hey cl, I wonder why you are so hung up about this “Christian charity” and “being nice to your enemies” thing? It’s clear that a large bulk of internet atheists are not, and probably will never be, willing to extend the same kind of manners to Christians. In fact, they started it – with all the New Atheist books. Now, it’s true that a way to respond is to never retaliate and keep being kind until they realize it and start repenting. On the other hand, it doesn’t always work, especially in this time where in many blogs even the very integrity of Christians is questioned at the onset. It is clear that this theism/Christianity-atheism debate is not primarily an intellectual debate. It’s a major cultural war, and in my opinion VP and TIA play a significant and important role in it. Very few other apologetics and Christian blogs can play this role – humiliating and exposing crass, ignorant, and arrogant New Atheists. Rhetoric must be answered by rhetoric, and most blogs simply don’t have the firepower for it. Hence I think people like Taylor aren’t being told to soften up their language partially because they provide stocks of “good ammunition”. On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that intellectual content isn’t important. It is, only that the presentation matters.

    Of course your own more purely intellectual, detached style of engagement has its own important role as well. But there are already numerous similar apologists all over the blogosphere and the intellectual world – I would consider people like John Lennox, Alistar McGrath, William Craig, as that kind of style. Yet it’s apparent that in some ways a purely intellectual approach fails to make impact on the general atheist public.There needs to be confrontational approach – one that defends Christianity on the militant front to respond to people like Christopher Hitchens. The reason why Hitchens (and sometimes Harris) can still be thoroughly defeated in a debate with Craig and yet have some atheist websites still thinking he did a good job is because the defeat was intellectual. It wasn’t rhetorical.

    The only possible alternative I can think of to being confrontational and still make an impact is to adopt an very erudite tone which uses ample amounts of ingenious dry humor and wit, clearly establishing your intellectual superiority from the onsite – something which G.K. Chersterton did well, I think, and David Bentley Hart also, as a recent example. But to be frank, most people aren’t capable of sustaining that level of writing, nor due they have the intellectual capacity to do that. And so we are left with the directly confrontational approach.

    I believe that you should stop stimulating further in-fighting between you and VD. You should stop posting more on VD’s “illogic”. It doesn’t matter what the reason is – you are denigrating VD for being hypocritical and unChristian, but at the same time you are seriously damaging the bigger picture of Christian apologetics by trying to defend your own wounded pride. Simply because what you’re doing is a public spectacle. In the eyes of militant atheists watching the ruckus, your reputation as a clear thinker is being greatly injured as well. VD did not denounce your blog, your posts, or even your judging – he just didn’t like your character and behavior. Both of you can keep playing your roles in this continuing battle. Don’t think of yourself, think about Christianity and God’s Word in the bigger picture.

  33. cl says:

    Since you said so much I’m going to have to practically fisk!

    …I wonder why you are so hung up about this “Christian charity” and “being nice to your enemies” thing?

    Eh, Matthew 5:43-48? Apparently not a Scripture taken to heart at VoxWorld! It’s called trying to do as the Scripture commands and treating other people with respect, regardless of whether you agree with them or not (note I’m in the specific context of discussions).

    It’s clear that a large bulk of internet atheists are not, and probably will never be, willing to extend the same kind of manners to Christians. In fact, they started it – with all the New Atheist books.

    So? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Now, it’s true that a way to respond is to never retaliate and keep being kind until they realize it and start repenting. On the other hand, it doesn’t always work, especially in this time where in many blogs even the very integrity of Christians is questioned at the onset.

    Of course it doesn’t always work. In those cases when it doesn’t, I’ll usually just shake the dust (though I’m stubborn and it often takes a while). There’s no need to go vitriolic attacks laden with profanity and personal insult. If I extend patience and charity to somebody in the interest of discussing the gospel and they wipe their ass then hit me with the tissue, that’s on them.

    It is clear that this theism/Christianity-atheism debate is not primarily an intellectual debate. It’s a major cultural war, and in my opinion VP and TIA play a significant and important role in it.

    Unfortunately it’s both. IMHO, the “culture war” part is all Satan, and it’s always been something I’ve wished to avoid.

    Very few other apologetics and Christian blogs can play this role – humiliating and exposing crass, ignorant, and arrogant New Atheists.

    I endeavor to do so, only without all the cussing and name-calling. Is that so bad?

    Hence I think people like Taylor aren’t being told to soften up their language partially because they provide stocks of “good ammunition”.

    Well, that would explain why they don’t tell her to chill on atheists, but she also gets that way on Christians. If calling other Christians “asshole,” “pussy,” “tard,” and “fag” counts as “good ammunition” on your view, I think you’re unfortunately another casualty of the culture war.

    There needs to be confrontational approach

    You apparently haven’t dug too deep around here. I’ve got plenty confrontational posts.

    The only possible alternative I can think of to being confrontational and still make an impact is to adopt an very erudite tone which uses ample amounts of ingenious dry humor and wit, clearly establishing your intellectual superiority from the onsite

    When I’m in “expose the Cult of Gnu” mode, that’s exactly what I go for. Like I said, you can do it without dragging your cross through the mud.

    I believe that you should stop stimulating further in-fighting between you and VD.

    I see it as duty to stand apart from Vox Day’s breed of Christianity, so I will continue to call things as I see them. Though, don’t get me wrong. He’s a gnat to me. I’ve got plenty other things to write about, as you’ll see in upcoming weeks if you stick around. By no means do I intend to devote substantial effort to exposing Vox’s schtick. Many before me have done so. I will certainly be dealing with that “lying snakes” claim, then, after that, who knows…

    …you are denigrating VD for being hypocritical and unChristian, but at the same time you are seriously damaging the bigger picture of Christian apologetics by trying to defend your own wounded pride.

    Oh please. I realized I was a fool a long time ago. This isn’t about pride. This is about making people realize, “Oh, wow… not all Christians are like Vox Day. Maybe some of them are worth listening to?”

    In the eyes of militant atheists watching the ruckus, your reputation as a clear thinker is being greatly injured as well.

    Is it? I’ve had quite a few atheists give me a nod of approval for my endeavors regarding VoxWorld, so I’m not sure where you’re getting your info. Care to fill me in?

    Don’t think of yourself, think about Christianity and God’s Word in the bigger picture.

    That’s what I’m thinking of. I seriously believe that Vox is doing more damage than good, and so I feel compelled to speak up. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve heard who imply something like, “Christianity is a joke, just look at that crazy fool Vox Day!” OTOH, some of those people say that I made a positive impact. I’m sure you can find people who think I give the Bible a bad name or whatever, too, but it’s not because I’m out there calling names, indulging in delusions of grandeur or making bigoted, borderline racist and sexist comments.

  34. Markku Koponen says:

    “IOW, it *WAS* inconsistent.”

    No, the enforcement wasn’t. The words “anecdotal evidence” that were edited into your message by SB are clearly defined in terms of debate, and contained the necessary information. But the explanation might have been a bit longer and friendlier, were you not almost universally disliked there. If you are going to make a claim about “significant”, then the evidence must prove “significant”. Or, if you realize that you have claimed more than you can prove, you can always withdraw the claim and revise it to something you CAN prove.

    “You mean the one Vox clearly broke in the Dishonest Atheist thread?”

    I already asked you, “Do you have a specific question that you can point to?” Just so that I can check if it was indeed related to a claim that Vox had made, which is a requirement for the answering responsibility. Like I said, I’ve occasionally seen Vox break that rule, but it is not very common and I want to check myself. Not that I care either way, just out of general interest.

    “That’s no excuse and honestly, I condemn each of you for not condemning her. You are all like the parent who fails to discipline that one bratty kid run amok.”

    You may have misunderstood. I agree with most that she says. It is simply the way that she says it that is not the same as mine. I come from a culture where significant loathing of a person often takes place for years until it is put to words.

    What I’m saying is, I’m just worried that you might “condemn” me of too little, and would condemn me more if you had all the facts.

    “Oh, then we share a common interest. What exactly do you wish to set straight?”

    That what you are under now, is not a ban in the traditional sense. Everything else that you say in that message is a question of opinion and I’m not interested in discussing it, but this one is a factual matter.

    I’m ESPECIALLY not trying to get you to come back. If you did, and it was because of me, there would be many who would be quite angry at me. Vox in particular. But one of the big selling points of the forum is the consistency of its moderation and he wouldn’t compromize that just because of you. Your messages would be left undeleted, but some of the Ilk would probably try to trip you up again with the rules.

  35. cl says:

    Markku,

    No, the enforcement wasn’t.

    I’m sorry your allegiance to VoxWorld has blinded you.

    The words “anecdotal evidence” that were edited into your message by SB are clearly defined in terms of debate, and contained the necessary information.

    Don’t be obtuse. We’re talking about blog comments. It’s all anecdotal evidence. Anything I could possibly produce would be an anecdote from somebody who had their comments deleted.

    If you are going to make a claim about “significant”, then the evidence must prove “significant”.

    As I told you, that’s what I was on my way to proving. If the Queen can’t even admit that the first two samples I gave were legitimate, why type a longer comment only to have her delete it? Yeah, exactly.

    I already asked you,

    And I already told you: my last questions to Vox in the Dishonest Atheist thread. You want me to hold your hand and walk you over there too?

    You may have misunderstood. I agree with most that she says. It is simply the way that she says it that is not the same as mine.

    No, I didn’t misunderstand anything. Reread the comment. The way that she says things is in direct defiance of the Bible y’all claim to be representing over there. If you can’t admit this, then you are just as delusional as the rest of that bunch.

    That what you are under now, is not a ban in the traditional sense.

    This is just semantic hair-splitting. I am under a ban unless I retract the true claims I made. Since that’s not going to happen, I’m under a ban indefinitely. Do the math, Markku, do the math.

    Everything else that you say in that message is a question of opinion and I’m not interested in discussing it, but this one is a factual matter.

    Yes, it is a factual matter, and the fact of the matter is as I say: I provided the “libertarian” Queen what she asked for, and I was prepared to keep providing examples until she would face the truth and admit that she deletes a significant subset of comments that criticize Vox and/or VoxWorld, or show support for those who criticize Vox and/or VoxWorld. If you want to continue denying this, enjoy your delusion, but leave me out of it.

    I’m ESPECIALLY not trying to get you to come back. If you did, and it was because of me, there would be many who would be quite angry at me. Vox in particular.

    Aw, poor little babies. I’m content to let you all wallow in your little insular circle, believe me. Like I said, I’ve known of Vox’s blog for years, and there are reasons I never made a presence over there. I do not support Voxianity.

    But one of the big selling points of the forum is the consistency of its moderation and he wouldn’t compromize that just because of you.

    He already has. He blatantly violated his own rule about answering direct questions when asked. Furthermore, his delusional wife has been incredibly inconsistent in her enforcement of the rules. Face the truth and quit making excuses for your friends already.

  36. Markku Koponen says:

    “This is just semantic hair-splitting. I am under a ban unless I retract the true claims I made.”

    Well, this is close enough for me. Not, of course, the way I see it, but probably the best that I can do.

    That would be all.

  37. physphilmusic says:

    “So? Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

    This is similar to the argument on pacifism, I think. Or personal self-defense. You may like aikido, since you’ve quoted it. I tend to prefer Krav Maga (if you get what I mean).

    “Well, that would explain why they don’t tell her to chill on atheists, but she also gets that way on Christians. If calling other Christians “asshole,” “pussy,” “tard,” and “fag” counts as “good ammunition” on your view, I think you’re unfortunately another casualty of the culture war.”

    I think that she gets like that primarily just on you. I’ve rarely seen Taylor’s comments attacking a Christian. In fact in my observations she seems can be really nice as well. You are an enormous exception. One of the things is that she seems to think that you’re a liberal (a.k.a. fake) Christian (that’s from what I got after reading some of the comments), which is something not looked favorably upon in VP. And one of the reason why the insults keep going on is you make such a big deal of it. You should take it less seriously. Regard it is as elementary school teasing. Not everyone on VP acts towards you with the same level of vitriol, right? If you just ignored her every time, instead of whining, I don’t think it would’ve been a serious issue.

    “Of course it doesn’t always work. In those cases when it doesn’t, I’ll usually just shake the dust (though I’m stubborn and it often takes a while). There’s no need to go vitriolic attacks laden with profanity and personal insult. If I extend patience and charity to somebody in the interest of discussing the gospel and they wipe their ass then hit me with the tissue, that’s on them.”

    “Unfortunately it’s both. IMHO, the “culture war” part is all Satan, and it’s always been something I’ve wished to avoid.”

    Exactly. You can avoid it. Nothing wrong there. But what really matters is the impression it leaves to bystanders – it might seem that a particular person really isn’t worth arguing with, but it might also seem to others that you “lost”, although what really happened is just that the debate became rhetoric-laden. That’s when VD comes in. The thing has already turned into a cultural war.

    I don’t know about your personal experiences, but after lurking in VP for almost a year my experience was that VD rarely insults people without calling them on some perceived intellectual error. He’s not just a rhetorician.

    “I can’t tell you how many people I’ve heard who imply something like, “Christianity is a joke, just look at that crazy fool Vox Day!” ”

    You have a good point, but that kind of thing also happens with more intellectual apologists like William Craig. I’ve seen boards filled with posts implying that’s he’s a fraud. Hell, that kind of thing happens even concerning Alvin Plantinga on sites like Pharyngula. I don’t think if VD suddenly becomes accepting of feminists and open immigration and every other liberal issue, atheists will start being nice to VP and VD.
    And people who actually go to VP will get their asses handed to them. It’s clear that the insults and vitriol are not purely just that – there’s a substantial intellectual component behind it. The former just amplifies the force of the latter.

    “Is it? I’ve had quite a few atheists give me a nod of approval for my endeavors regarding VoxWorld, so I’m not sure where you’re getting your info. Care to fill me in?”

    I might be wrong about this. Maybe I did underestimate your reputation among atheists. But VD is hardly on the fringes of Christian apologetics – he might be more extreme, but he’s not in the class of people who believe the Rapture is happening in the next few years. So quarreling with him will still be seen as infighting among apologists. You might want to hammer on “atheists are always lying snakes” claim, but what’s the use? It’s no surprise if the atheists on VP are mostly like that. It may not be true in many other blogs and forums, but hasty generalizations are all part of the rhetorical war.

  38. WATYF says:

    [Hey thanks. I must say, I rather enjoy reading my own comment threads when commenters aren’t whining about what I write. :-p]

    Mockery and whining are two distinct things, and easily distinguishable as well. (My expression that I enjoyed it kinda negates the possibility of my comment being “whining”… one doesn’t whine about what one enjoys). Not that everything you’re saying is whining. I think some of your concerns are legitimate.

    I was referring to your current practice of simply trying to find something to bitch about in everything Vox says now that you have a grudge against him… such as this post which mistakes humor for some kind of logical fallacy on his part.

    You can call a spade a spade… fine by me. But that involves both recognizing when Vox is wrong, and recognizing when you’re pitching a fit because of what was done to you over there.

    WATYF

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>