Left-wing rants disguised as "science"

Last night I came across an alleged “skeptic” site. A few minutes of reading revealed that it’s actually a left-wing political site dedicated to trashing people who question the propaganda about global warming, secondhand smoke, diet (low-carbohydrate diets are the only ones that work), vaccinations, alternative medicine (which don’t allow the government enough ways to decide who may have medical care and how much), etc. A lot of the articles don’t even mention anything to do with science, even though that’s the alleged theme of the blog. They think that we shouldn’t even study race and IQ, because bad research has been done on this in the past – therefore we should never study it again. They ferociously attack religious people. They support government funding for embryonic stem cell research, even though it has never yielded anything of value. And what I find most amusing, they devote an inordinate amount of space to attacking libertarians.

Of course, I’m in sympathy with libertarians, though I’m a conservative myself. But attacking them, no matter how much you might disagree with them, strikes me as the most immense waste of time imaginable. There are 200,000 Americans registered as Libertarians. That’s less than 1% of Americans. They have no seats in Congress and no governorships. There is no way they could be a credible threat to anything. But for some reason these twerps are obsessed with them.

This article gave me a chance to do what I do best: be a misogynistic pig. Oh, btw, the people on this site think that the opposite of a misogynist is a “misanthropist”. I laughed out loud at that one. A misanthropist, or more usually a misanthrope, is someone who hates humans. Someone who hates men is a misandrist. These people can’t even use a dictionary, and they expect anyone to take their scientific arguments seriously?

Sexism or just idiocy from Cato?

The problems start with the title itself. It’s so utterly unsuitable for anything pretending to be a legitimate scientific website.

The Cato Institute discussed an article that pointed out that a lot of really horrible countries, like Rwanda and Cuba, have more women in government than we do. They pointed out that having more women hasn’t made these governments better.

Spitting with rage, these “skeptics” spewed:

It is pathetic we don’t have more women in congress because after all these years, almost 90 now since women’s suffrage, we still don’t have anything approaching equal representation in government.

Women now make up about 51% of the electorate. If women wanted female politicians, they could easily vote them in. They haven’t. So the folks at denialism will kindly force it on them!

We have never elected a female president. Why does it matter? Because as long as moralizing cranks are going to occupy office and make decisions impinging on women’s health, and not men’s we’ve got a problem.

Of course, it’s their big-government policies that make health, women’s or men’s, dependent on the government’s decision. But we mustn’t be like those crazy libertarians who want everybody to be allowed to make their own decisions.

When Viagra gets covered by government health programs but contraception is cut, we’ve got a huge problem.

I bet this isn’t true, but I don’t care enough to look it up. Neither is the government’s responsibility anyway.

When the best solution government can come up with for improving families is covenant marriage, and abstinence education in the face of higher teen pregancy rates, we’ve got a ridiculous problem.

That doesn’t even deserve a rebuttal. I doubt anyone who agrees with it will read this blog – they’d have a stroke after two sentences – and those who do read this blog already knows what’s wrong with that. If anyone who buys the above is reading this, invest some time in reading this blog and the links in my sidebars. I’m not setting forth the entire argument in this one post, but it has been most abundantly made.

Other than just fundamental fairness, recognition of the equality of females, and human decency

Let’s look at each of these in turn. “Fundamental fairness”. It’s not fair that women don’t have equal power in making laws as men. Of course, in a democracy, fairness isn’t supposed to be the point; the will of the people is supposed to be a point. Make up your mind which you want.

Besides which, it’s not the mean old voters who’ve been unfair here. It’s nature. Nature is extremely unfair. It’s not fair that men get to be bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and smarter. It’s not fair that men miss out on the joy of feeling their babies growing inside them, or the freedom from constant horniness women enjoy. It’s not fair that no woman is ever going to be the equal of Michael Jordan, but that doesn’t justify forcing the NBA to make half of its players women. It’s not fair that so few women are capable of being scientists or government officials or other demanding professions, but that doesn’t justify shoving a bunch of them into the fields anyway.

I could also let forth a screed on the fundamental unfairness of current custody and alimony laws, but you’re all abundantly familiar with that.

Their next reason: “recognition of the equality of females”.

Why should anyone recognize something which has been conclusively proven to be a myth?

Finally, “human decency”. What a ringing phrase. But an empty one. My idea of “human decency” would be men not allowing women to wreak havoc on society – and themselves – by wielding power they aren’t equipped to handle. The phrase is a subjective one and useless in argument.

there are specific instances in which women are having decisions made for them that affect their health and their bodies by a majority male government, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

It isn’t. It’s the choice of the electorate, which, you’ll recall, is about 51% female.

And let’s be honest: men are far more trustworthy with decisions about women’s health than women are. Feminists advocate legal abortion at whim, even though many ethnic groups abort female babies so they can have more boys. They support late-term abortions, which are nearly as dangerous for the mother as for the baby. They advocate premarital sex and readily available contraception, even though these leave young women at the mercy of male sexual predators. (I am in favor of contraception, I’m just pointing out the problems that go with it.) They are in favor of female teachers and co-education, even though girls in such schools are in constant danger of assault from uncivilized little boys. They are in favor of short prison sentences and therapy in place of prison and unrestrained immigration, leaving women at the constant risk of rape and murder. They support gun control, which leaves women with no possible defense against violent male criminals. Having men make their decisions for them is the best thing that could happen to women.

The article finishes, “Surely these are arguments for advocating women in government that even an libertarian could understand. I hope we don’t have to dumb it down even more.”

Oh, very mature. And by the way, it’s “a libertarian”, not “an libertarian”.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: