The Faithful Hound

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Contentious Opinions

There are three topics on which I find myself constantly defending my views.
I believe that all three are cultural mythologies that have been accepted as common truths, causing anyone who challenges their validity to be held up as the worst form of villain.

1) Democracy is the best form of government: The biggest problem I have with democracy is that it is based on the false assumption that all people are equal. When it comes to choosing national leaders, a Nobel laureate has as much influence as an uneducated lout and a humanitarian has the same number of votes as a porno actor.
While I'm all for equal opportunity and equal protection under the law for all citizens, I firmly believe that indiscriminately handing out the power to select national leadership creates a class of leaders who cater to the lowest common denominator.
Just look at Hillary Clinton. Valedictorian at Wellesley and keen progressive thinker, she's forced to pander to the mob and pretend that she adores guns, foetuses and her philandering husband if she wants to compete for the Presidency of the United States.
Or, look at India; Most of our problems can be traced back to the lacklustre leadership that our democracy keeps shoving down our throats. Illiterate villagers, who sometimes peddle their votes for a sachet of hooch, vote in leaders that they can relate to, who in turn presume that good governance involves renaming our big cities (Bengaluru!!?), promoting communal strife and lining their own pockets. The right to vote should not be granted to a citizen who can not read up on the facts about his candidate and analyze them to make an informed decision.
My suggestion? Base governments on private enterprise. The mail clerk in a company does not help to decide who the next CEO will be. The cleaning lady doesn't get to judge how well the VP of accounting is performing. Countries should have a board of directors who earn their place based on their past merits and who in turn hold the CEO accountable for the progress of the country, based on a publicly available quarterly report. No political parties or elections. Just pure results-based decision making.
If a citizen does not like the way the country is being run then he can sell his stock and invest in another country that better suits him. Governments should be forced to work hard to attract citizens.

2) The Golden Age of Man is in our past: This is another one that always riles me up. Every generation believes that the next one is sinking a little closer to hell. There was a time, they claim, that man lived at peace with his environment. He filled his mind and body with pure thoughts and fresh air and his life was blissful and uncomplicated by the terrors and tribulations that plague us today.
What a load of bull crap! Life today has become much simpler and less dangerous than it was even a century ago. Our early ancestors did not enjoy their fresh clean environment because they were terrified of it. They huddled in their caves petrified that some terrible toothy thing would come out of the jungle and drag their children away. Yes it is sad that the big cats are endangered now, but better them than me. Do you think, if you were the last human alive, that a tiger might let you go if he cornered you when he was hungry? 'Go forth and procreate my poor endangered friend. I'll just eat some fruit instead'? Man may be a cancer upon this planet but, as cancer cells, chemotherapy is not in our self interest.
Modern society has made giant strides in health care, equal opportunity, engineering and world peace. Improvements in each of these areas have improved the quality of our lives, while possibly making them a little duller. But if excitement included spending my life eating rodents and dying at the ripe old age of 35 from beriberi, then count me in for all the boredom that modern life can pile on.
My ancestors suffered through ravaging diseases, vicious predators, hostile weather and uncivil neighbors. I thank them for their sacrifices but certainly do not feel guilty about enjoying the benefits of air-conditioning, wall to wall carpeting, refrigeration, plasma television and automobiles. In fact, I think they make me a better human being. The Noble Savage, when not contemplating his freedom from stifling social constraints, occasionally indulged in witch-burning, human sacrifices, slavery, cannibalism and the torture of his enemies. I, on the other hand, am content to simply spend my free time sitting on a couch and watching the Sopranos.

3) Anti-feminism equates to anti-female: This is a touchy one, so let me begin by saying that I think that violence and discrimination against women are serious crimes and should be dealt with in the same manner as would any other serious crimes.
Having said that, I have never been able to see eye to eye with ardent feminists (even the host of them within my family). There are and always will be stark differences between men and women. These differences cause friction, attraction, mistrust, affection, excitement, fear, passion, revulsion and a whole host of other emotions between the sexes. It's completely natural and it's never going to go away.
A guiding principle within the feminist movement is the goal to create a society that puts men and women on a completely equal footing and ignores any differences between the sexes. Aside from being unrealisable, I'm not even sure that this is a worthy ambition. A person's sex is a large factor of their being and it influences who they are, how they react to their surroundings and what they want from life. Your sex defines you as a person more than any other aspect of your self. It is certainly not something to be ashamed of and ignored.
Hardcore feminists, in my mind, are at the intersection of two obnoxious groups; the ideologues, who blindly tout the party line without reviewing every case on its merits, and the champions of political correctness who believe that frank discussion should be shunned and that uncomfortable truths should be repressed. The combination makes it very hard for an outsider to engage them in rational discussion.
A man who cannot respect women should be punished, but a man who cannot understand the feminist perspective should be constructively engaged with.


  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger ozymandiaz said…

    I must say I agree with you on all counts. I so try to be a staunch defender of freedom but realize most people seem to view freedom as a separation from responsibility and that the only hope for democracy is a properly educated citizenship. This will not happen anytime soon. I often volunteer during elections and have seen things that baffle me. Hell, I watched the citizens of my state vote in a high speed rail train into our constitution. WTF? We are graduating children who can not read and we want to spend BILLIONS of dollars on a fucking train that some private company will profit from...
    Your second point is dead on. People have always been oppressed, lived in horrid conditions and killed the shit out of one another. There are just more of us now and we have global communications to hear more of it.
    As for the third, feminism (well, beyond being an ism) is another movement that started with good intentions, actually accomplished something and subsequently became a political movement (because that's the only way to get something done) which pretty much automatically changes its nature.
    Let me add a couple for you...
    Separate but equal (kind of tide into number two)...bullshit. Separation does not beget equality. Moreover, as you stated, equality does not exist on an individual basis. This comes back to education. It’s this whole thing of heritage. I have a saying that pisses allot of people off "all heritage is hate". No matter where you come from, the history of your peoples is ripe with hate and oppression. Unless you come from some tribe in the middle of a jungle where you have never come in contact with other humans, there was some shit going down.
    My favorite though is save the Earth, the belief that mankind is the biggest evil to ever happen. WRONG. Every living thing on this planet or elsewhere is a detriment to its environment. Every thing that is alive must consume something to stay that way. Yes, there are things that seem to coexist symbiotically in its environment but no ecosystem is eternal. It is an illusion. The only reason there is a balance is because none of those living things can obtain the upper hand. I have heard it bemoaned of the loss of heards of buffalo the size of a state. Could you imagine the damage incurred by a populace of large grazing animals that big? You ever see the damage a heard of elephants do and they are relatively small heards. Look, long after we are gone, the Earth will still be here…

  • At 2:14 PM, Blogger km said…

    To those 3 excellent points, please consider adding another commonly accepted truth:

    Rock music was "perfected" in 1967 (or 1978 or 1959 or what have you) and since then, has been in a state of decline (also "true" of films, literature, television, fashion, theatre et al)

  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    Thanks for the support Ozy! I'm with you all the way. Universal adult franchise is an unnatural imposition on society. The right to vote must be earned.
    Also concur totally on the "All heritage is hate" point.
    Also, don't you think there's something inherently arrogant about 'Save the earth'? We are like piddly little ants that spend a couple of seconds on the surface of this planet. We have more to fear from the Earth than she has from us.

    @KM: Ok, you got me with that one. I, unfortunately, fall into the bucket of folks who believe that popular culture is losing its intellectual appeal.
    But of course I'm just comparing the best of the old days with the run of the mill from today.

  • At 7:46 PM, Blogger Tabula Rasa said…

    had a run-in with an equal-to sign, did we? :-D

    i agree with the basic thrust of your points, although some of your recommendations are classic mockturtle (the run-countries-as-corporation one was right out of the abolish-all-cash drawer!)

    and finally:

    Man may be a cancer upon this planet but, as cancer cells, chemotherapy is not in our self interest.

    well, *duh*! :-D

  • At 9:45 PM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    Classic MT indeed! What's wrong with my plan? Can't you just picture it? The ad in the back of the Economist;
    "CEO Wanted! Are you a motivated self-starter looking to grow with a dynamic young country? Bangladesh Inc. is seeking applications from qualified personnel. The incumbent shall provide leadership, guidance and overall direction on the development and execution of the nation's 'Help! We Are Sinking' initiative.
    For more information on and application details for this exciting position please visit:"

  • At 10:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    1) With such a policy, the 'weak' government will cease to exist, and will get bought over. going 1, going 2, sold! You have just given a mini-draft the Bush and the GOP will happily endorse. With such a writ, the world will not be constitued of countries (which I am for, as i despise nationalism), but a country; in present context - USA. Now say a "good" country gets the monopoly, but the drawback is you just might have a president, say like bush, sitting at the helm, who makes legislative laws, and its interpretations, behind secret doors, wielding at will. Staying in power is easy; corrupt the board of directors. a man of principle can be corrupted with deceit while a man of no scruples can be corrupted by morality. ;)
    2) "Every generation believes that the next one is sinking a little closer to hell." I dont endorse this quote, neither do I disagree. It just needs to be looked at per the context. religious context - obvious. from a scientific perspective - our happiness at what cost?
    3) women won't be where they are w/o feminism. but as with any movement, it dissipates. 'radical' feminists and 'moderate' ones. The media portrays the radical ones, and fools follow.

  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    Anon: 1) That's the good thing about private enterprise, monopolies don't last if they stop providing quality service. If I find that the US Govt has become an incompetent lumbering giant, then I should have the option to pack up and move my human capital investment to a smaller, more enterprising start-up, possibly the Maldives. Look what Microsoft did to IBM, or what Google is doing to Microsoft.

    2) Not our happiness, but our safety as a species at any cost. Being alive involves consuming natural resources. While it would be nice to minimize our negative impact on our planet, I cannot think of a reason why we should go back to an age where we did not dominate our environment.

    3) As I specifically stated, I completely support (for what little that is worth) the causes of equal opportunities for all regardless of race, sex, culture etc. And I am (of course) against crimes committed against anyone - women or men. But I fail to understand why radical feminism is needed in modern democracies where everyone has recourse to the law. Also, I believe that some practices that are targeted as discriminatory are simply based on the fact that men and women are biologically different - women not being encouraged to serve in the front lines of the army and maternity leave given to women at work for example. Both are justifiable discrimination and nothing to be frowned upon.

  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Revealed said…

    *stands up and starts clapping*

    If only you were the Ruler of the World. Hehehe.

    But beg to disagree on the feminism thing. Feminism isn't bra-burning y'know. I dunno why it's misconceived and misrepresented as that. I do understand what you're saying, and I understand the spirit of sweeping generalisation in which you say it, but it still annoys me :D

  • At 1:30 PM, Blogger km said…

    Well, MT, we - and by "we" I mean all of us steeped in "classic" rock - are all guilty of looking back at a point in time and declaring it to be the zenith of evolution (the Golden Age of Man argument, really)

    There are rock lovers who love to point out that rebellion and protest are missing from modern pop music. To them, I just say this: how much attention have you been paying to hip-hop lately? (The response I always get is "hiphop is not really music")

  • At 2:02 PM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @ Revealed: I hear you and I know where you're coming from. I believe that feminism makes sense when fighting social discrimination against women. But in societies where the laws provide for complete equality between the sexes, then feminism is no longer required. At that point every case must be judged on its merits and it should not be women's groups that are pushing the female agenda.
    When it comes to ensuring that all citizens of a progressive country have equal access to its resources, then all of us must stand up for all those who are being persecuted. When women stand up only for other women and black people stand up only for other black people then we're just building those walls a little higher.

    @KM: Agree completely. I believe I even raised that same point about protest music on another blog.
    I guess what also happens is that we compare the best from the past with the everyday drudge today and find the latter lacking.
    We forget that for every Led Zeppelin, there were a bunch of REO Speedwagons that we carefully left by the wayside, and that amidst all the Justins and Beyonces a Blink 182 can still blossom.

  • At 11:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    1) I feel implementation of such a policy will lead to an Orwellian world, with a single ruler. Or if multiple rulers, then eternal war for one to go up over the other (country of Microsoft vs. country of IBM). And even if a group starts a revolution and takes up his own space to create his 'utopian' world, it all depends on the natural resources available to him on that land. How long can the humans stay on the power, oil, et al. natural resources that Maldives might provide w/o in the end falling on the knees for an 'exploited deal' with other countries? And ultimately when it becomes unmanageable, they plummet. I hope, u are getting the gist of what I am trying to say here.
    2) ok, got it. true about the safety business. on your comment above about the 'Save the earth' business: yes, we have more to fear from the earth, but it doesnt mean that we should not save that which helps us in our survival too. i don't think it has an arrogance in it. I would rather say it has empathy.
    3) radical feminism is a result of the radical chauvinist pigs present (the converse can be said too, but actually radical feminists were born out of chuavinists). I dont mind radical feminists. I hate pseudo-radical feminists (they are the ones making the movement go awry). recourse to the law? Come on, there are more male CEOs than female ones. I dont think it is because males are endowed with superior qualities to be CEOs. Nowadays, nobody says openly sexist comments but it comes out in subtle manners, and 21st century laws can do only so much. Yet, 21st century is better for women than previous ones, but it is so 'cos of the feminist movement that resulted in such changes to the law.

  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    1) In a private enterprise based government, nothing would belong to the state. The government's only business would be the provision of legal, logistical and social infrastructure to aid the population that hires it.
    For example, New York Inc would pay a fee to USA Inc to provide it with military support in case of an external attack and insurance in case of a natural calamity. If NY feels that the USA is not doing a good enough job, it could do business with Mexico instead. USA Inc would lose money and the CEO will probably be fired if the trend continues. Similarly the institutions and individuals who pay New York Inc for roads and policing can take their business elsewhere if they disapprove.
    Privatized Governments involves taking away power from the State, not granting it more.

    2)Do you really think the Earth needs our empathy? When we cut down on greenhouse gases, we're doing it for our sake, not for the Earth's. The planet does not give a crap about ozone, we do. We should empathize with each other instead.

    3)About there being more male CEOs than female, you'll hate me for saying this, but in the interest of honest discussion; I kind of buy in to a lot of Larry Summers' points on the topic.
    To quote "To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and in agriculture. These are all phenomena in which one observes underrepresentation, and I think it's important to try to think systematically and clinically about the reasons for underrepresentation. "
    He goes on to say that underrepresentation is not always because of active discrimination. Most women in high powered jobs are either unmarried or do not have children, most women who do have children often opt to take less strenuous jobs. This could be either social or genetic conditioning, but its hard to see how the feminist movement could 'fix' the situation by intimidating employers.

  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Revealed said…

    @mt: I think what you think of as feminism and what I think of as feminism are two very different things. For me it's an attitude, for you it's a movement :). If I wasn't actively a feminist, I think I might have been married with 3 kids by now. This is not to say that I won't be married with 3 kids sometime in the future, it just means that I have options now, and the reason I have them is cos I took the stand that I wanted the options. I don't believe in the 'you wouldn't be here right now if it wasn't for the feminists and hence, long live the feminist movement' school of thought. Cos that's like saying we should still be fighting for our independence from Britain cos otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today. But I do believe that it's important to be a feminist in your own right if you want to have the freedom to choose (however illusory that freedom might be).

  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @revealed: All good points and well taken. My only problem with assigning the term 'feminism' to a positive attitude like yours is all the baggage that the word carries.
    I mean I could have dropped out of school and decided to devote my life to smoking pot and searching for the truth, like some of my friends did. But I did not. I wouldn't call my attitude 'objectivism' or 'capitalism' because those words carry a lot of implied beliefs, not all of which I share. If my decision had been founded on one these 'isms' then that would mean that I had rejected one path because it did not fall under that philosophy's guidelines. What would that make me?
    I do not find either path to be 'bad' or unacceptable. I can understand both, but I simply weighed the pros and cons of each and decided that completing school and getting a job was in my better self interest.
    Similarly, the reason you are not married with many children at the age of 20 is not because you have a feminist attitude, but because you are an intelligent girl who made a rational decision by judging the facts of the case.

  • At 2:18 AM, Blogger Szerelem said…

    I agree with you that the driving force behind the entire lets cut down on global warming, green house gases etc. etc. is because we are trying to protect ourself. Of course the earth doesn't need our empathy. I do think we have gone completely overboard in our exploitation and disregard for the Earth...but the planet knows how to heal itself and will make us extinct if that is what is needed.

    About feminism - I disagree. The word carries baggage because you associate it with radical feminism. And I do agree with anon that laws can only do so much. You wrote that revealed made the choices she madebased on rational decision by judging the facts of the case. Fair enough. But the fact that she even has a choice in taking a decision is to a large part owed to feminism. Many women still don't have that freedom.
    About the whole Larry Summers thing, I was going to write a post on women and science, so I think I should get down to it :)

  • At 5:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    1) ok, since you were proposing your dislike for democracy, I was reading between the lines for a proposal that is an alternative to democracy. But, what you are proposing from the above comment is democracy with a socio-economic structure adapting to the general notion of capitalism. Democracy talks about power to the people and how the sovereign needs to be governed over and what powers/restrictions does the government have in the legislative, judicial, and executive towards the people based on the constitution, which should be drafted in the welfare of the people, which is what basically you too are asking of the govt; the only twist being the removal of state/country border laws. I think what you are basically asking for is a ban on the Acts and the Drafts that allow presence of governmental institutions and privatising it instead.

    2) Whether earth needs our empathy depends on one's take. Measures and policies that involve relatively old issues involving saving the living organisms are viewed by some out of self-interest, but some also view it with empathy (read john muir books). Recent policies towards climate changes, ozone holes, etc. are surely developed from the human survival perspective, out of self-interest. Those already viewing with empathy look at this with the same frame, the rest with self-interest. If one is going to take the line that human at its very basic nature is inherently selfish, then one can probably empathize that such an individual is facing issues of his own that don't allow him the comfort. But, if a human has resources available for its survival and it still takes this line, it is a cop-out. These points might come out as too 'bohemian' maybe, but taking a hardline position takes away the true spirit of things that a few section of society are honestly trying.

    3) If it is social conditioning, then feminism is the way to reduce the impact of it inch by inch, because at the core of the feminist movement is the principle of equality and trust regardless of the sex. Nobody is sure if this is genetic conditioning, so sitting on this view is baseless. Also, I believe, the feminist movement is not about pointing fingers at the male community. Its primary purpose is to reason with them and bring them to their senses. And no, this is not a politically correct way of saying the former, but in effect says that it accepts that the past cannot be changed, but hopes the future does with actions in the present.

    My apologies, but I would like to take the liberty of replying to 'revealed'.

    @revealed: Relating "you wouldn't be here right now if it wasn't for the feminists and hence, long live the feminist movement" to "we should still be fighting for our independence from Britain cos otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today" is incorrect. A movement sprouts, exists, and survives because the very repression against which the movement started is still present. Once the repression dies, the movement is no longer necessary. Sexism exists till today and hence the 'long live' movement (the term 'long live *movement*' should not be inferred as one where the action items of the movement remain stagnant with time, but on the fundamental principles for which it started). On the other hand, the 'long live freedom movement' is not necessary as the purpose for which the movement started have been satisfied. If you are referring to the fringe section of society who are still hung up for the longevity of the freedom movement, then, well, they are too emotional to think logically.

  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @szerlem: Well put and I agree. Feminism has a place in societies where there exists an established trend of repression and discrimination against women. But even in these situations, feminism should be incorporated into a broader umbrella of humanitarianism that tries to overhaul primitive societies as a whole. That is the only way to change perspectives and to allow women's rights to develop intrinsically. Perhaps it's just me, but in my mind the word feminism conjures up images of a war between the sexes. And no one wins in a war.
    Awaiting your post on women in technology.

    @anon: Good points, and I think we're practically on the same page here.
    1) I agree. That is a good summary of my argument.
    In my view democracy involves allowing the majority of the citizens of a state to select leaders for all of it. I do not agree with that system because the majority is often ill-informed and easily swayed and needs direction from the intelligentsia, not power over it.
    Instead, the government should be privatized, and its services must compete with other privatized governmental institutions so that the individual can 'vote' with his dollar bill.

    2) We're on the same page. Man should not commit unnecessary harm to his surroundings, but he should also keep things in perspective. As Szerlem rightly pointed out - if we do overstretch as a species then we will wipe ourselves out, the planet will remain and will heal.
    Anyway my original point was that progressive civilization has given humankind much more than it has taken away.

    3) I am still not convinced that feminism is the best way to alter societies. Rational discussion and unemotional empirical research by society as a whole is a more appealing way - especially in progressive societies.
    When the suffragettes first marched to get women the right to vote in this country, they refused to allow black women to march with them, because they felt that black people had not yet earned the right to vote.
    That is my problem with feminism in its current context. When a group focuses on the betterment of only a portion of society while trying to bring the other half 'to its senses', then it turns into a battle where someone wins and someone else walks away upset. Instead it should expand its horizons to look for ways to better society as a whole.

  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Revealed said…

    @mt: As szerelem said it's because you associate it with radical feminism :). But I see what you mean. And I think that the bit about not alienating half the spp by being militant is extremely sensible. Maybe it's time the movement had a face lift. The problem, I think, with the dividing of a population into selfish sub groups is that, a lot of the times the sub groups would be hopelessly stampeded if no1 stoof up for them. A necessary evil, one feels.

    @Anon: Taking the liberty to reply, the analogy might have been flawed but I think it has some basis. A movement, like you said, exists only so long as it has a reason to exist.
    Yet, 21st century is better for women than previous ones, but it is so 'cos of the feminist movement that resulted in such changes to the law.
    I'm not suggesting that feminism does not have a reason to exist as a movement today. But I'm simply stating that citing it's usefulness in the past is not a sufficient reason for it to exist today. There are many other perfectly valid reasons, the majority of which I empathize with.

  • At 5:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    1) :) So basically you are opposed to one school of thought of democracy.

    2) The difference being that you view the 'save the earth' agenda as arrogant, justifying it to the purported sham in the movement put forth by a section involved in it. I don't view it as arrogant, justifying it to the selfless section that actually care. Other than that, we are on the same page. ;)

    3) In the same spirit as #2, you justify again your disapproval of the feminist movement to the pseudo-feminists (w/o looking at the true ones who wanted suffrage for all), resulting in the voting rights discrimination. I know that all men do not treat women as unequal. If you must know, recent findings date the roots of the feminist movement back to the ancient greek era and it was a male, not a female, who initially demanded equality for the sexes (book by tom cahill). So, when I say "other half", I implied the specific males in the "other half" that still have the supremacist notion.

    Instead it should expand its horizons to look for ways to better society as a whole.
    Indeed, that is the principle of feminism - betterment of the whole society through equality of the sexes, which in fact is for the betterment of the female species but this does not imply any loss to the male counterparts, unless losing their 'supremacist' notion counts as loss. And this is not a naive, simplistic statement. I understand that there are hypocrite feminists, but, again, one should not disregard the movement based on them.

    Feminism involves various schools of thought, several of which fall under what you desire too - rational discussion, dispassionate empirical research, humanitarianism, intellectual movements, etc. The baggage involved is it also brings out radical ones (and one cannot stop such dissipation within any movement - one example in other movements is Malcolm X and Martin Luther King for the black liberation).

    Radical means that involve usage of arms against others is something I do not support too. Nonviolent radical means that involve the stream of thoughts - men are no longer needed for survival of women, etc. - also I do not support, but I understand their frustration (which men must try to also) and hence I dont mind.

    @revealed: But I'm simply stating that citing it's usefulness in the past is not a sufficient reason for it to exist today.
    I completely agree in the general spirit of what you are saying. But, the above statement is unnecessary here, basically because, one, you agree that sexism exists today, and two, any movement that proposes equality of the sexes invariably falls under the broad taxonomy of feminism
    ("it is so 'cos of the feminist movement that resulted in such changes to the law.").

    And I think that the bit about not alienating half the spp by being militant is extremely sensible.
    I never purported to supporting too. Only empathizing to the frustrations of the radical movements - that are non-violent.

    *WHEW!* :D

  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @revealed: Agreed. And sometimes a smile and a sunny demeanour can improve the appearance more than a face-lift can.

    @anon: 2) Yup, as long as the selfless section values the safety and comfort of the human species more than they do the environment.
    3) We are on the same page. And my opposition is not simply towards radical feminists who target men as the enemy, but towards any ideology that views a person's sex, race or religion to be a factor to be defensive or offensive about.

    Let's all take a breath now!

  • At 2:01 PM, Blogger Revealed said…

    *takes a deep breath (cos mt said to)* I agree with everything everyone said basically :D.

    (n i loved the smile n sunny demeanour bit- it should go into an infomercial or something!)

  • At 9:04 PM, Blogger Tabula Rasa said…

    revealed: "smile, it increases your face value" -- wasn't that an archies / hallmark / early internet spam staple?

  • At 10:43 PM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    Right - Archies cards. Damn, that means I can't patent it.

  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Revealed said…

    Heh. I was imagining it more in an infomercial re: the dangers of getting a face lift. Or taking random pills to make yourself thinner. But now that it's been lumped in the Hallmark category I suppose there's no salvaging it :P

  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger Tabula Rasa said…

    yup. "nothin' left to do but smile, smile, smile."


Post a Comment

<< Home