bleeding heart

You're saying that he and people like him are afforded too much comfort and too many priveleges...fine, that's a matter worth debating. I only disputed your factual error: that we are "safeguarding all his rights," when in fact some of the most important rights are being taken away. (Again: as they should be.)

No, I didn't delete them...when I quote you, only your own words are left in the quote box. This is not my fault, I assure you. And have you never noticed this function before? And no, you did not cite anyone who said that the reason they supported a woman's right to choose was to oppose abortion. They are opposed to those of the religious right who oppose abortion...because they oppose abortion. Not because they're religious. Nothing you posted disputes that pretty obvious and uncontroversial truth. You are wallowing in a conspiracy theory undergirded by that victim complex that Kimmy has so astutely written about.

Interestingly, after Wente's screed is almost finished, she quotes a student: .....and then goes on as before, as if the words she herself quoted didn't exist. It's one thing to disagree, of course; but Wente has no argument, and presumably only included her thesis-busting non sequiter in some last-minute, ill-conceived attrempt to show "balance." Address the arguments...or continue with your outraged polemics. Wente doesn't like arguments.

We aren't safeguarding all his rights. Some profoundly important ones are being taken from him, which is at it should be.

No. Conspiracy theorists and unrepetant fear-mongers = Alex Jones. The radical Islamists are worse than silly Jones...but I don't take their nonsense seriously either. And I certainly don't cower under some fanciful threat to Western civilization. That's Jones' territory.

More than fair, your question. Even if we were to determine some left vs right paradigm in artistic achievement, based on differing politics in disparate ages, it doesn't make any sense. The whole thing falls instantly apart for a hundred reasons.

So if I'm not throwing quaint little tantrums about the evils of Islam and its imminent takeover of Western civilization, I'm a complacent sheep? This is Alex Jones-level stuff, on par with the ruling caste of Bilderberg globalists, and abortion as a commie plot. No thanks.

It's not being "complacent sheep" simply because some of us don't shiver in an ecstasy of terror about the looming crescent shadow of the impending Caliphate.

We could get into a subjective yet interesting discussion of what does and does not constitute brilliant art--movies, for example, have been mostly garbage since the inception of the form (most certainly during the so-called "golden age of Hollywood" and "the French New Wave," for two cherished examples), and yet today, as before, wonderful films are produced. The same is true of music, literature, and on and on. But this discussion would be at least somewhat beside the point. You made an August1991-like "observation" that "lefties" can do nothing good or original in art; and I countered that most art today is produced by liberals and lefties. The lion's share of it. The main point, as per your original assessment, and one to which you didn't respond.

But you haven't offered a rebuttal. The reason people support a woman's right to choose is not because they are opposed to religion. Some religious folks need to drop their massive and conspiratorial victim complex.

I'm not sure I disagree and respond to anyone any more than you do. Then instead of playing the Cryptic Remarks game, perhaps you could try to spell things out a little more plainly.

Ah, the wonders of the imperial mentality! It goes in and out of style, but never quite dies.

According to one of the critics here, tuition is free, and will become more free later.

It's flawed. But is suggests that what we "know" can be beset with slight contradictions. Continually, and continually. No. On the contrary; and you're being arrogant. There is no inner turmoil. I can't speak for Dawkins, who is not at all important to me in any way. Yes. Exactly the same, I agree. Belief in the Christian God, or Zeus, or the Spaghetti monster, or Allah....is precisely the same logic. And I can't prove that any of them do not exist. That does not make it "equally likely" that they do. Yes, I am. you are agnostic, and/or an atheist, about every single religious faith ever conceived. Give or take one. My argument is suited to reason and rationality. You're mistaken. No it isn't; it is never their defense. Cite some, Betsy. If it's "[t]heir loudest defense" for abortion, you can find plenty of explicit examples. I ask only for two.

And yet the world of art and entertainment is disproportionately--vastly disproportionately--brimming with liberals/lefties, of course. And while there's plenty of dreck, the dreck is a direct result of market forces, of capitalism, not of lack of "originality" which you bizarrely believe to be inherent to lefties. You're simply wrong. Because all these liberal and lefty artists are producing massive reams of brilliant stuff, in music, visual arts, movies and literature. And I think you know this. On the other hand, go watch the new version of Atlas Shrugged, if you want to see the state of pop conservatism today. I hear it's quite impossible to love.

Ok...well, I agree with you that they're not. There tends to be a mishmash of biological and social/institutional factors for most societal distinctions between men and women; I imagine they're connected, in fact, and in fairly complex (or at least deeply-felt) ways.

I disagree. It's extremely important. For example, let's say for the sake of argument that you overall prefer the Conservatives to the NDP. That doesn't mean you consider both to be equally good for Canada. (You might, but you probably don't...and few interested people consider these two possibilities to be mathematically equal.) That is, you might recognize the possibility that the NDP is as good as the Conservatives...but you feel confident that voting Conservative is a wiser choice. That's being agnostic to the possibility of an awesome NDP Party...not some bland, meaningless exercise in "balance," in which "all things are equally possible." And mine is a flawed analogy, because we're talking objectively existing agents, not total faith in something that isn't proven to exist at all. That is, my analogy is too generous. I am an atheist. I am also an agnostic. Because to me, the possibility that God as you know Him exists is no different, at all, from the possibility of Zeus and Hera bickering on Mount Olympus. I can't prove they don't exist...so I'm an agnostic. So are you, actually. But for all intents and purposes, it amounts to atheism, in my book. No. It is all about women's rights, 100%; they're not "hiding behind the banner" of anything.

Listen, I get it, I really do. Rue's post was indeed shrill and misdirected. But just for clarity, Rue is no radical lefty. They've been his primary target all along.

I'm not sure you're wrong. But you've moved into almost agreeing with the people with whom you were previously arguing (except for the "cultural/institutional factors are everything" folks, an idea discredited by, among other notables, Noam Chomsky). But it's not sheerly and only biology, as was your original claim.

Earlier: You're evolving! Well done.

Most of this is good, and Rue well-deserved it for the reasons you say.,..but what's this cult of masculinity you're worshipping, and you're derision of the feminine...coupled with your (ridiculous) notion of "emasculated males"....of the "left"? That's silly.

Please, Rue...your entire point, on almost every issue, is to berate everyone for being morally inferior to yourself. And what have you got against female genitalia, anyway?

To whom exactly are you referring? This post seems to veer close to a total non sequiter.

I didn't insult you. This is as untrue as your wild claim about free tuition to which I responded. I understand you don't enjoy being exposed as a dishonest debater...but there's an easy remedy to that, and it's all on your own shoulders.