Where a Redneck Jew, a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.
You have to understand: Women Who Refuse To Be A Victim scare Pajama Boys. And when the photo one woman carrying an AR displays more testicular fortitude than the whole male contingent in Mother Jones actually posses, they have to whine about the injustice.
Let’s face it, a tough woman will make them shake in their footies.
Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.
Comments are closed.
“Let’s face it, a tough woman will make them shake in their footies.”
That sounds like a good thing to me. My GF and her daughter will soon be taking their carry permit class and will soon be able to contribute to their unreasonable fear. I happen to think that competent women are a good thing,
/thread
The should meet Laura. Feminine and girly, then watch her shoot =).
Rob, Pics of Laura or it didn’t happen.
Just kidding (mostly).
The gulf between what the Left thinks Conservatives think and what Conservatives actually think illustrates the problem with running on a dead-reckoning system for too long.
You need to get absolute positional data periodically. Every computer engineer who’s ever worked with motion tracking, image compression, video encoding, or video game netcode knows it.
But then, most of those computer engineers are themselves Conservative.
“The gulf between what the Left thinks Conservatives think and what Conservatives actually think illustrates the problem with running on a dead-reckoning system for too long.”
There was an academic study on this at some point (searching for a link). Unsurprisingly, it found that the “gulf” you describe can be demonstrated in real life, but the opposite – the difference between what the Left thinks and what the Right thinks the Left thinks – doesn’t exist.
IOW, the Left is delusional about what the Right thinks (and uses straw-men and projection to fill in the gaps), but the Right can pretty accurately predict what the Left thinks.
I know: this is my shocked face. 😉
Found it. Via the Volokh Conspiracy, researcher Jonathan Haidt: “[M]oderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview….”
Also, see Haidt’s article in Time Magazine here and take a short quiz here. The quiz is interesting; it predicts your political affiliation across the liberal-conservative spectrum by asking 12 completely non-political questions (among other things, what Internet browser do you prefer?).
Oh, this is awesome! I need to save all of these for later.
Wonder if there’s any way to do so that doesn’t involve losing them in a mess of other links.
So basically what you’re saying is that Liberals are playing with half their brain behind our backs.
Nah, that would assume Liberals have half a brain. 😉
What I’m saying is simply that those who function on emotion and hysteria have a hard time predicting what their opponents will think and do, but those who function on logic, reason, and facts have no such trouble.
This is why the Left uses so many straw-man arguments and projects their own shortcomings onto conservatives: they do not understand and cannot predict conservatives’ thoughts and reasoning. So, they fill in the gaps using “other methods” (pretty much every logical fallacy in the book) without understanding how ridiculous they sound to both sides.
Remember in “Jurassic Park”, when they filled in the DNA gaps with frog DNA? Without understanding the traits and properties of the materials they were using, they couldn’t accurately predict the consequences.
Extrapolate that onto a political argument, and you have the liberal mind.
(Also, for the links, just save the one Volokh Conspiracy link. The other two are included there.)
That quiz sucks. The correct answer isn’t really an option and a bunch of those questions are clearly political. I have NO preference between cats and dogs. I have no interest in ANY new trendy restaurants. That is not a dislike of fusion cuisine or any indication of how I feel about any kind of food. That was fairly annoying.
You were supposed to vote over the food, not the restaurant. It’s true, though, not all of the questions are completely nonpolitical.
For what it’s worth, it graded me pretty accurately.
Interesting. According to the article, the reason, more or less, for the gulf in Liberal viewpoint and the lack thereof in Conservative viewpoint is effectively one of vision.
Liberals are, quite literally, blind to 60% of the factors Conservatives use for moral factorization.
Conservatives, on the other hand, can see all of the factors Liberals use, but have tempered them with additional factors.
So if the “moral value” of something is treated as a function of its sum of all moral factors, then Liberals will invariably view Conservatives as being at least 60% less moral than themselves, because Conservatives are putting moral weight on values that Liberals don’t even realize exist.
It’s like trying to describe the color “green” to an individual with monochromatic vision. By comparison, someone who has “normal” color vision is perfectly able to imagine a world where red, blue, or green did not exist. We’ve seen it quite clearly on older televisions.
Not only that, but liberals can have what conservatives would call inconsistent values, because they only weigh two of the five (or six, depending) factors. Murder is bad, but abortion is OK: murder shows no compassion for and violates the rights of the victim, but they can justify abortion as “compassion for the woman” and “women’s rights”.
Conservatives tend to dislike both because both violate the majority (if not all) of the five factors.
It also explains why conservatives seem confused on some issues (like gay marriage and entitlement programs, for example) and are more entrenched in others. Where the factors significantly conflict, we’re confused, but where they align, we have a “thicker” moral justification and we’re more likely to hang on to those.
Liberals realize these values exist, but they just don’t see them as important, or as sources of morality. Decades of “stick it to the Man”, “me first”, and “church/God is for losers” mentalities have trained them to not place value in authority, loyalty, or sanctity. I think it also warps their sense of fairness, but that’s just my opinion.
Heh…..
You’re proud of your country’s history.
Its on the conservative side.
Knew it.
Part of their problem is that most Conservatives KNOW what the LEFT thinks. The Left trumpets it every day. And so, we know what they are thinking and planning. We have evidence.
The Left can only project their own mistaken identity and suspect motivations onto a caricature of a Conservative. They have no actual clue.
And based on that article, they never will.
Their feeble minds simply can not fathom how an individual who opposes Liberal ideology could possibly NOT hate women, gays, and minorities.
“You have to understand: Women Who Refuse To Be A Victim scare Pajama Boys.”
Or, confident men (read: real men) love strong women.
The smell of lavender and desperation is strong with the beta’s. It even overpowers the aroma of my Old Spice at times.
I love how they complain that pro-gun / NRA is all older white men, i.e. no diversity, therefore we are all racist / sexist. We know this is untrue, but we could up our numbers. Then when we reach out to “recruit” younger / female / non-white people into shooting sports, self-defense, and preserving 2A (and all other) rights, we must be degrading or using them.
Look, we know sex sells, in all areas. Almost all advertising is going to have young, good-looking people, unless specifically targeting other ages and even then they will have those who look good in that category. That’s part of advertising.
But show a strong independent woman who is willing to train to defend herself and her family and all they focus on is the black tank-top? What, only ladies in Little House on the Prairie dresses are acceptable? I thought you support independent women who can do and dress how they want, I guess not. “… mothers are allowed to be multi-dimensional,” a working mom who blogs under the handle Mary Tyler Mom wrote in response to Kopel’s piece.” as long as that multidimensional is their dimension.
And again with the 3 to 1 men vs women, i.e. 25% women. What they don’t talk about how that has increased about 10% in the last 9 years.
And while there are a lot of photo shoots of bikini models on a Google image search (many who are not shooters, just using guns as props), guess what, you can find just as many pics of stay at home moms in bikinis or other skimpy outfits. Heck, there’s even topless / nude housecleaning services available in some areas. Again sex sells.
But who is degrading and objectifying women when they say that ladies can be and should be considered and treated equal to men, then turn around and say… well, except for guns… you’re not capable of deciding how to defend yourself and not physically able to do so (that nasty criminal / domestic abuser will just take it away from you).
… oh, and don’t you dare be sexy while doing it.
Libs and feminists, the real starters of the war on women. Two groups of people I would personally enjoy beating the crap out of, and I have the training to do so barehanded. I love the look on a guys face (the newbies in my Kajukenbo class) when he realizes that even as a girl, I have a bigger pair of cajoles than he does.
In my eyes, a firearm is not necessarily ‘the great equalizer’, it’s a real nifty bonus!
The correct answer to this nonsense would be for Victoria’s Secret to stock a line of concealed-carry lingerie and put on special runway shows in New York, Las Vegas, L.A. and Paris with the models demonstrating how to clandestinely pack heat.
Yeah. That’s it.
Nice! Then I’d have an excuse to spend money there, purdy and practical 😉
Actually, that’s a really good, “avant garde” idea.
If it is then “women in ‘Little House on the Prairie’ dresses”, they would still complain because then those women would be oppressed because of what they are “made to wear”, and the old-fashioned dresses would be another piece of evidence to show they were oppressed and somehow forced to espouse opinions not their own.