Free Republic

"Just one piece of advise : Stay off the crack!"

It's "advice," moron.

"Now that, coming from someone that calls themselves "libstripper", has got to be about the most moronic post on this thread (and there have been plenty of those)."

Why moronic? Seems a perfectly astute observation on how the average man would view Coulter in real life.

"If you were married to her and got on her s**t list, life would be pure hell."

Ain't that the truth. You know she's slightly nuts but that makes her hot. Hot in the bangable sense rather than the marriageable sense.

"Tell me why American people are so hated in this world when the the treatment of women is better here than anywhere in the world?
That's actually one of the main reasons why. By and large, it isn't the women of the Third World who hate us."


Why are white men so hated even within their own country and even by their own women? We treat women better here than any other place or time in history. For this we receive nothing but contempt it seems.

True. I've long argued against allowing victims to dictate public policy. Apart from the fact that they are immune from criticism, their perspective is by definition emotional and one-sided. We need more rationality and principle and less emotion and victimology in our public discourse.

Caught her on Tucker Carlson. She is scary but strangely attractive. Would prefer not to be on her s**t list.

COULTER'S BIGGER POINT IS CORRECT

I don't agree with the mean spirited way Coulter put things but I have long disagreed with the current common wisdom that victims are the best makers of public policy. Victims certainly have a perspective to share but, because a victim's perspective is by its nature one-sided and emotional, we should not base public policy solely or even primarily on that perspective.

We should value rationality and principle more than raw emotion when it comes to making laws that affect all of our futures. Recently, both political parties have been guilty of putting forward victims as unimpeachable/unassailable oracles on how laws should be made or how we should conduct our public affairs.

Cindy Sheehan comes to mind. Another example: Megan's law. How could any legislator oppose this law without the risk of being portrayed as against poor Megan? Or how Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Anyone who dares to oppose their increasingly draconian nanny state agenda must hate mothers, right?

Why do we now allow victims and/or their families to testify on how a crime has affected them before sentencing? This is a complete deviation from any sense of principle or evenhanded application of the law.

For example, if the victim is the mother of a sympathetic middle class family, the sentence will more likely be severe than if the victim is a homeless male drug addict with no family to testify on his behalf. So we are in effect encouraging the courts to value the life of one victim over the life of another and to apply the law unevenly based on emotion rather than principle!

In short, let's stop valorizing emotion and honoring victim hood for its own sake. We have created an incentive system that seems to inspire many to seek victim status in order to have their voices heard, to attain a higher status in society or to promote a certain political agenda.

What happened to the days when society honored stoicism, self-sacrifice, stiff upper lip and all the other qualities that got the Greatest Generation through WWII? And what happened to principle, objectivity and rationality in public discourse and law making? Unless we reverse course, we risk returning to the emotional irrationality of the Dark Ages.

2.09 per woman is probably about right for the overall population: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

But the birth rate for non hispanic white women is the lowest and nowhere near replacement. That's why we need to either (a) increase our birth rate or (b) accept that the ethnic composition of the U.S. and Europe will change dramatically over the longer term.