The Snowflake Barbarians Strike Again

_{Barry Arrington
January 21, 2017

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In Snowflake Barbarians, I speculated about what a post-Christian polity looks like. Here’s another clue from yesterday:

Comments

TWSYF, I used Mao because he accepted female soldiers. There is in China a song of the 'Four Heroines',I can't recall the names of these brave girls, and they were girls, the oldest bein 19,it is still sung with pride by my students. I won't go into detail concerning their exploits, suffice to say they all died holding up a Japanes advance long enough for Mao's Forth Route Army (New Fourth Army) to begin its 'Long March'! However you stand on Mao, and his attrocities (I know my own position, I hope you know yours) women soldiers are capable of all the bravery men are capable of. Apparently Kairos, the women on this march, regularly carried weights far in excess of 100lbs; Imagine that!?rvb8_{January 29, 2017
January
01
Jan
29
29
2017
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Kairos, I hear your 'rape' implication, and all I can say is that the women who join are equally aware of this added female dimension. I will note however that female retribution upon enemy combatants is equally if not more barbaric, Chinese and Russian women were positively grisly in their revenge against Germans; let's hear what Kipling has to say: "As you lie there wounded on the Afghani plains, and the Afghani women come to cut up your remains, just role to your rifle, and blow out your brains!" As to your 100lbs nonsense, all I can say is that having lived in a modern western culture for too long, you undersestimate the physical strength of women. My mother was a Dutch peasent in the 1930s, and the life she described, of very long days and loads above 40kg and 50kg, kind of makes your 'smowflaking' of women appear absurd. If they accept the dnagers, they can easily lift the loads; some studies suggest women handle dehydration, and other hardships better than men; who knew? The women!rvb8_{January 29, 2017
January
01
Jan
29
29
2017
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

That torched limo? looks like it was Lance Wallnau. This man has the right spiritual enemies: http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2017/01/matt-24-watch-301-that-torched-car-on.htmlkairosfocus_{January 29, 2017
January
01
Jan
29
29
2017
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

It's probably not a good idea to use Mao's China as an example for anything other than mass murder, of which Mao is the king of kings. I get your point, rvb8, but it gets lost in the long, dark shadow of Mao.Truth Will Set You Free_{January 23, 2017
January
01
Jan
23
23
2017
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

rvb8
Equally, the Chinese under Mao had women’s brigades that carried out daring feats of war fare. ...It is very often the women that prove bravest; let them fight, they will improve the general soldiery.
Sure. If they get pregnant, we make them keep fighting. Unless they physically can't handle it - then we just kill them (both the mother and the baby) as useless eaters. I think Mao would have supported that.Silver Asiatic_{January 23, 2017
January
01
Jan
23
23
2017
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

PS: Meanwhile, this is the underlying issue that that smashed limo points to: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/science-worldview-issues-and-society/a-tale-of-three-marches/kairosfocus_{January 23, 2017
January
01
Jan
23
23
2017
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

RVB8, As an aside, I suggest you ponder the implication of pushing women into the front lines of wars in which load-outs now routinely exceed 100 lbs. Go ask your relatives and neighbours about the trenches in "Flanders Fields . . ." and the Western desert. We wont bother to more than mention the fate of Yazidi women over the past few years, to note on other implications. KFkairosfocus_{January 23, 2017
January
01
Jan
23
23
2017
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

Atheistic moral superiority is a non-sequitur to me, especially since a/mat morality is "subjective and illusory" (per BA77 @ 4), as if THEIR subjective and illusory morals are somehow superior to other subjective and illusory views. Very strange.Truth Will Set You Free_{January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

rvb8, a constant theme of your posts has been you trying to extol the 'moral superiority' of your atheistic worldview over Christianity. Two questions, 1. "Since atheistic materialism holds that morality is subjective and illusory, why do you believe your particular 'moral illusion' to be superior over any other person's 'moral illusion'?' 2. Since atheistic materialism holds that free will is also an illusion, why do you pretend that you, or anybody else, has the ability to change their opinion about any particular 'moral illusion' that they may be under the influence of?bornagain77_{January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Axel, women kill too. In world war II the Russians used female fighter pilots and fighting soldiers against the Germans to great effect; they were just as effective and in many instances, because of a belief that they must constantly guard against their, 'weaker than men' traditional position, were more effective than thir male peers. Equally, the Chinese under Mao had women's brigades that carried out daring feats of war fare. Just because you don't like the idea of professional effective female combatants, does not mean that throughout humanity's violent history, women weren't used as effective soldiers. It is very often the women that prove bravest; let them fight, they will improve the general soldiery. This is not political correctness, it is two things, a way to improve the armed forces, but more tellingly, innevitable. Like everything at UD, from climate denial, to evolution obfuscation, you are on the wrong side of history.rvb8_{January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

Don't hurt their feelings, News. They need 'personal space', you know. But, seriously, well done spotting that connection, if I may say so. The more insensitive they are towards others, the more dopey lengths they go to, to affect social sensitivity. It also reminds me a little of the wry reflection of the late economist, J K Galbraith: 'The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.' Only, in this context, at least in terms of the social sciences, they are more likely by far to be liberal atheists. Of course, the 'cover' religion they are busily engaged in evoking is beyond parody, and is perhaps most pungently epitomised by the response to a general order, of an SAS soldier who had been summoned with his colleagues to a meeting, at which they were addressed by their commanding officer. He told them that the Minister of Defence had ordered that they would have to welcome young women in their ranks. The soldier in question put up his hand, and said - perhaps in uncharacteristically plaintive, querulous tones : "But, Sir, we're not PC. We kill people." Unsurprisingly, the minister subsequently denied it all. A modern phenomenon in the UK is that the privately-educated monied folk seem to be one of the last bastions of Christianity and, inevitably, reason and common sense.Axel_{January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

All barbarians want the same thing. They want their feelings validated over against facts. Whether they feel aggrieved or triumphant or both at once. A big problem today is that the attitude is beginning to infiltrate the sciences. That's what post-fact science is about, and many are the takers.News_{January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply