I was already feeling unwell today and reading this didn't help. Megan McArdle says that criminals are sub-normal creatures easily identified by sight. Perhaps they have beady, furtive eyes, or are wearing striped pajamas with an iron ball and chair around their ankles. Who knows? The point is that they are not us, and since McArdle wouldn't kill anyone with a gun, neither would anyone else. This was the same reasoning she used with Iraq. She said that if she were Hussein she would have had WMD, therefore despite any and all evidence to the contrary, Hussein had nuclear weapons and was going to use them. McArdle promised to reexamine her thought processes and identify the cognitive bias that created this unhappy mistake, but she must have been too busy, or maybe just forgot.
I was going to quote some stupid at random, but the whole post is so monumentally stupid, so rancidly centered around the isolated bubble that is McArdle's life, that I really can't single out one thing. Nothing exists for McArdle outside of her own head, her own experiences. It's like going to a dog for advice. They might be able to give you a very good perspective on flea-scratching and butt-sniffing, but it isn't very useful for a human being.
She's just automatic typing, which communicates only her prejudices.
ReplyDeleteHow can anyone take this level of discourse seriously? The circularity is ridiculous: Abnormal people are criminals and criminals are abnormal?
Why is America so much more abnormal than other western democracies? Why does McArdle hate America?
It explains nothing except her prejudices. Stunning.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI think that a previous commentator sums it up best by noting that she was a very fast typist.
This enables her to write a fair number of entries. Of course it also explains why she is prone to typo's and grammatical errors. And a lack of facts in her entries. The most time consuming task is the one verifying that your argument has a logical consistency.
All in all, her blog gives the impression of doing work but in reality probably doesn't take too much effort. Oh well.
Regards,
SV
"...on sight". Ha! Shows how little she knows. You have to take cranial measurements. Actually, I'm sure she does know that, just forgot in her hurry to post.
ReplyDeleteYou've gotta give Megan credit...she writes for her audience. There are over two hundred commenters over there, and vast majority are of the "An armed society is a polite society", and "Ya know where most criminals get their guns? Stealing them from homeowners, that's where!" mindset. The blanket answer to every one of Megan's Libertoonian arguments is "It's already being tried in Somalia."
ReplyDeleteThis post was just amazing. I can't believe anyone over the age often making such an argument. Only bad people kill and you can tell them by looking at them, so anyone with a legal gun is fine and carrying a gun around in public has no meaning, no repercussions, no risk.
ReplyDeleteYes, the words go directly from her fingers to the page, without any detours through her brain or heart.
Best line: "How often, after a fight with someone, have you been seriously tempted to run them over with your car?" In all the arguments about gun control I've heard over the years, I've never once heard cars brought into the discussion. She's truly a trail blazer, a bright light in our dark and dreary discourse, and you are so correct and wise to bring her an even wider audience.
ReplyDelete