21 thoughts on “Blow The Whistle On Organized Gang Rape?”
I’d like to blow the whistle on your book, and I don’t care about your ethnicity or religion — when it comes to children and urging them to engage in risky behavior, something needs to be said. Your “Safety Is Not An Option” book is listed on Amazon.com like this:
” Age Level: 8 – 18″
Bob, I know you enjoy parody and satire, but equating Rand’s book to what is happening in England is a sophomoric parallel. Your moral relativism is disgusting.
Mann would have sued Bob-1 for that.
Wodun, your comment made me laugh.
I would treat any discussion of child abuse extremely seriously. I don’t take Rand’s swipe at “the Left” seriously at all. I would never post a silly comment in a serious thread, but once the post is attacking the entire “Left”, well, lets just say that the post didn’t seem very serious anymore.
That said, I’m actually pointing out a real problem with Amazon’s listing of Rand’s book. I don’t know if the problem will indirectly impact on sales (perhaps by influencing Amazon’s algorithms), but the problem does look like something that should be corrected.
Political Correctness is a “left” issue. Why do you think slurs are always thrown at the right for being racist and bigoted? Been to a university recently? See any conservatives there being politically correct?
I went back to my (not very) Alma Mater. In the student union was a foot wash room for Muslims. Did I see a chapel anywhere? Any place for Jews to pray? Hint: No.
You accuse Rand of grand, sweeping biases, but you can’t even see the biases in your party.
Do you honestly believe adherence to political correctness (a left issue if ever there was one) had nothing to do with what happened, or are you just playing a game of “look squirrel”?
It seems to be a problem with the display (just on the Kindle version). If you select an age group, it has an upper limit of “18+,” which I selected, but it doesn’t display the plus sign. I just sent them an email, thanks. I didn’t want to make it just “18+” because I didn’t want to discourage younger people from reading it.
Bob, were you ever an eight y.o.? Oh still? My apologies.
Although I would have gone with age level 8 to 80.
I’d be surprised if there are many 8 year olds that would appreciate Rand’s book, but I’m sure there plenty of kids 13 years old and up who could get a lot out of it.
Whoops, 8 year olds *who* would appreciate it. I’m really curious: Ken, do you know an 8 year old who could enjoy Rand’s book? If so, sounds like someone who is ripe for model airplanes and rockets!
I know one kid who was reading college texts in the third grade. The librarian thought it inappropriate so with my teacher they asked me to read a random page for them. Then I explained what it meant. After that they said I could read whatever I liked. Let’s see… third grade, that would be about eight, right?
I’m sure I’m not the only one. Many of my coworkers in later years were smarter than me. So I would think lot’s of eight y.o.’s would enjoy Rand’s book. I was ten when Neil and Buzz were bunny hoppin’ on the moon. We read much more when I was a kid than kid’s do today. Perhaps Rand’s book would make a good gift for such young ones?
If there’s only one, I don’t want them put off by the book description. And there’s nothing to harm a kid at that age.
I’m reminded of the old sci fi plot of where the protagonist gets the big, evil computer to blow magic purple smoke while bleating “DOES NOT COMPUTE” by out-logicking it (say by getting it to compute pi to an infinite number of digits, finding a winning strategy to global nuclear war, acting irrational, the power of love, whatever).
A similar thing is happening here. Bob-1 doesn’t have anything to say, but his circuits are blowing magic purple smoke. He just has to say something because he’s been programmed that this is wrong and talking/writing is the response to wrong things. Babbling is the result. It goes by euphemisms like “satire” or “sarcasm”, but end result is that he has nothing to say about this subject because he can’t think about it and he says it quite well.
Yeah. If I hadn’t noticed the 8-18 problem, I wouldn’t have commented at all. I’m sorry I tried to make it funny.
Taking you at your word Bob, I’d have to say…
when it comes to children and urging them to engage in risky behavior, something needs to be said.
…humor doesn’t come any drier. I’m more likely to believe you were backtracking.
I’m with you on this one Bob-1. I am sure Rand appreciates you spotting the error as you can tell from his comments here and how serious he has taken the book from the beginning.
Plenty of things to disagree over but this isn’t one of them.
For all the other things we disagree on, I’m very enthusiastic about Rand’s book. I can’t decide if I agree with all of it, but I’m certain that it is excellent contribution to the national discussion and I’d like it be read widely by policymakers and anyone else who has any influence.
It was also an attempt to ridicule the premiss of the thread without having to actually defend your position. As I suspected, a “look squirrel!”
I’d like to blow the whistle on your book, and I don’t care about your ethnicity or religion — when it comes to children and urging them to engage in risky behavior, something needs to be said. Your “Safety Is Not An Option” book is listed on Amazon.com like this:
” Age Level: 8 – 18″
Bob, I know you enjoy parody and satire, but equating Rand’s book to what is happening in England is a sophomoric parallel. Your moral relativism is disgusting.
Mann would have sued Bob-1 for that.
Wodun, your comment made me laugh.
I would treat any discussion of child abuse extremely seriously. I don’t take Rand’s swipe at “the Left” seriously at all. I would never post a silly comment in a serious thread, but once the post is attacking the entire “Left”, well, lets just say that the post didn’t seem very serious anymore.
That said, I’m actually pointing out a real problem with Amazon’s listing of Rand’s book. I don’t know if the problem will indirectly impact on sales (perhaps by influencing Amazon’s algorithms), but the problem does look like something that should be corrected.
Political Correctness is a “left” issue. Why do you think slurs are always thrown at the right for being racist and bigoted? Been to a university recently? See any conservatives there being politically correct?
I went back to my (not very) Alma Mater. In the student union was a foot wash room for Muslims. Did I see a chapel anywhere? Any place for Jews to pray? Hint: No.
You accuse Rand of grand, sweeping biases, but you can’t even see the biases in your party.
Do you honestly believe adherence to political correctness (a left issue if ever there was one) had nothing to do with what happened, or are you just playing a game of “look squirrel”?
It seems to be a problem with the display (just on the Kindle version). If you select an age group, it has an upper limit of “18+,” which I selected, but it doesn’t display the plus sign. I just sent them an email, thanks. I didn’t want to make it just “18+” because I didn’t want to discourage younger people from reading it.
Bob, were you ever an eight y.o.? Oh still? My apologies.
Although I would have gone with age level 8 to 80.
I’d be surprised if there are many 8 year olds that would appreciate Rand’s book, but I’m sure there plenty of kids 13 years old and up who could get a lot out of it.
Whoops, 8 year olds *who* would appreciate it. I’m really curious: Ken, do you know an 8 year old who could enjoy Rand’s book? If so, sounds like someone who is ripe for model airplanes and rockets!
I know one kid who was reading college texts in the third grade. The librarian thought it inappropriate so with my teacher they asked me to read a random page for them. Then I explained what it meant. After that they said I could read whatever I liked. Let’s see… third grade, that would be about eight, right?
I’m sure I’m not the only one. Many of my coworkers in later years were smarter than me. So I would think lot’s of eight y.o.’s would enjoy Rand’s book. I was ten when Neil and Buzz were bunny hoppin’ on the moon. We read much more when I was a kid than kid’s do today. Perhaps Rand’s book would make a good gift for such young ones?
If there’s only one, I don’t want them put off by the book description. And there’s nothing to harm a kid at that age.
I’m reminded of the old sci fi plot of where the protagonist gets the big, evil computer to blow magic purple smoke while bleating “DOES NOT COMPUTE” by out-logicking it (say by getting it to compute pi to an infinite number of digits, finding a winning strategy to global nuclear war, acting irrational, the power of love, whatever).
A similar thing is happening here. Bob-1 doesn’t have anything to say, but his circuits are blowing magic purple smoke. He just has to say something because he’s been programmed that this is wrong and talking/writing is the response to wrong things. Babbling is the result. It goes by euphemisms like “satire” or “sarcasm”, but end result is that he has nothing to say about this subject because he can’t think about it and he says it quite well.
Yeah. If I hadn’t noticed the 8-18 problem, I wouldn’t have commented at all. I’m sorry I tried to make it funny.
Taking you at your word Bob, I’d have to say…
when it comes to children and urging them to engage in risky behavior, something needs to be said.
…humor doesn’t come any drier. I’m more likely to believe you were backtracking.
I’m with you on this one Bob-1. I am sure Rand appreciates you spotting the error as you can tell from his comments here and how serious he has taken the book from the beginning.
Plenty of things to disagree over but this isn’t one of them.
For all the other things we disagree on, I’m very enthusiastic about Rand’s book. I can’t decide if I agree with all of it, but I’m certain that it is excellent contribution to the national discussion and I’d like it be read widely by policymakers and anyone else who has any influence.
It was also an attempt to ridicule the premiss of the thread without having to actually defend your position. As I suspected, a “look squirrel!”
Grey Lady on Rotherham: Your Bias is Showing