Friday, February 7, 2014

Victory through truncation: Scott Adams Style

Notice the trick in today's Dilbert.

The Indian supreme court invalidated the throwing out by a lesser court of a law against 'crimes against nature'. Aka, same-sex sexual acts, bestiality, etc. The court said that the legislature would have to be the ones to throw out the law - the court couldn't simply invalidate it.

I'm not a fan of the law, for the record. I think those things are unenforceable and counter-productive in way after way, not to mention the punishments are often out of proportion to the crime. The problem is, I'm also not a fan of Scott Adams' trick, where "Law against anal sex" is magically turned into "Law against being born gay!" To Adams' credit, he at least slapped on "essentially" there - but it's goddamn dishonest.

Of course, the Fox News article isn't much better, since it also plays up the law as 'anti-gay sex' - which is a bit better, but from my understanding this covers a whole lot more than 'gay sex'. But at least it's better than what Adams pulled off.


Mr. Green said...

To Adams' credit, he at least slapped on "essentially" there

Is that really to his credit, though? It means he's saying,* "I know I'm lying, but I'm going to go ahead with it anyway."

[* Essentially.]

malcolmthecynic said...

Yeah, Adams is a piece of shit and I have a lot less respect for him and those idiotic propaganda tactics than the law itself. This is all very rich coming from the man who would torture and slowly kill all people who voted against assisted suicide, if so allowed.

Crude said...

I used to enjoy Adams because he seemed like an actual maverick who would come up with ideas that were truly out of left field, and run with them. Now he seems to be on a kick to try and deeply ingratiate himself to the left - maybe this is due to the blowback he received when he kept offending feminists, and eventually got outed as pulling a BDK and puppeting a sympathetic commenter on critical sites.

HyperEntity111 said...

A law is passed criminalising all instances of heterosexual sex. This 'essentially' criminalises you being born hetrosexual. Perhaps this is unclear to those who have strange background assumptions about what it's like to be human.

Crude said...


It's unclear, because it's nonsense. The law is against sexual acts - and, even if the law is wrong (and I think it is) acts are separable from being.

Just once, I want to hear someone endorse a rapist's defense when he says that he raped only because he hadn't had sex in so long and he needed it. After all, he's only human.

Crude said...

By the way, Hyper...

who have strange background assumptions about what it's like to be human.

What it's like to be human? Are you saying humans have natures?

Because if you're not, it's really hard to make sense of that statement.

malcolmthecynic said...


Wow, I better tell my Priest that joining an organization with rules against sex makes it illegal for him to be straight!