Ambivalent Skeptic

August 11, 2011

New term: ancillary ultimatums

Filed under: debate — Clint1911 @ 4:12 pm

pajamas media has a story about a “Slutwalk” in San Fran.

It’s a good read for the event that contrasts what people are doing and they are trying to accomplish. The author(with an alas of “Zombie”) also discuses many inherit contractions inherent in the protest. For example: “sex is fun but men are evil.”

However, the important lesson here is the concept of Ancillary Ultimatums.

Basically, activist protest something everyone hates and which no one will disagree with you about (like rape).

Then they demand everything their greedy hearts desire.

The trick is simple; if anyone calls them out for being unreasonable, the activist bypass the issue of demands and attacks the critics for “sympathizing” with the evil being protested.

From the article:

This tilting at imaginary windmills is intentional. The goal is to protest an evil that is universally hated. That way, if anybody dares to disagree with you or even raise a minor quibble, you can shoot back, “What? Are you FOR rape? Do you think we SHOULD blame victims? You’re part of the problem!” As a result of this stance, your cause becomes above reproach, immune from criticism.

THEN… (did you really think the strategy stopped there? Tsk tsk tsk) once you’ve assumed this mantle of moral perfection, you can start heaping all sorts of ancillary ultimatums and issues onto your list of demands, and no one is allowed to resist or complain, lest you once again neutralize them with “Blaming the victim again, are we? Pig!”

This video that one of we sluts took of a speaker at SlutWalk reveals exactly this point about ancillary ultimatums: She sprinkles in a few self-evidently true statements at the beginning to lure you in, then starts making increasingly bizarre claims that stray further and further from reality, and then arrives at her actual destination: To politicize rape and turn into a wedge issue for all sorts of progressive/feminist/leftist demands:

hat tip:

July 25, 2011

Hunting in PA:Sundays and consequences

Filed under: debate,hunting — Clint1911 @ 11:03 am

Pennsylvania currently bans hunting. Some want to change that. Yet many farmers, often the people who can benefit most from the ban ending want it to stay.

Snowflakes in Hell has more.

One problem is that many people do not understand consequences nor implications.

With a Sunday hunting ban, and because most people work Monday thru Friday, that compresses hunting to Saturday. So almost everyone who hunts, hunts on Saturday and the woods and fields are full and crowded.

What if you open up Sunday to hunting? Understand that the intuitive answer is different from the logical answer.

Intuitively, people see hunters making the most of non-work days to hunt, which is their passion. Intuitively, people assume that if Sunday was open to hunting it would be just like Saturday.
Just as full, just as crowded.

Logically, we get a different answer. The overall “hunting-days” will increase, but not double. That is because not everyone can spare two days a week to hunt. Only without a Sunday ban, said hunters can choose between one of two days.

However the hunting will increase. People who want to hunt but cannot do so on Saturday can now hunt on Sunday and, yes, some people will hunt on both weekend days

My beef is with the land-owners who say they will stop giving permission to hunt if Sunday hunting is allowed. This short-sightedness will only harm both parities. First the farmer as he will have more animals harming his crops; and second, the hunters who now need to crowd another area. Ironic considering that that Sunday hunting is primarily to relive crowded hunting conditions.

When you give permission you can give permission with limits. Giving permission is not always carte-blanche.

May 3, 2011

Comment: .22 LR vs. .223 Rem

Filed under: Ballistics,blogging,commenting comments,debate — Clint1911 @ 5:29 pm

Over at the Firearm’s Blog, they have a guest blogger who unfortunately proved to the world that you do not need to know what you are talking about to be a blogger.

The Guest Blogger (henceforth GB) writes an article about the difference between the 22LR and the 223 Rem.

His first mistake is opening with this:

So what exactly is the difference between the .22LR and .223 cartridges?

Seriously? It is his article. Why is he asking us? This is a cheap salesman trick to draw you in to a sales pitch. It is a very weak way to begin a speech or an article. My standard retort is: Are you asking me or telling me?

Then he includes this gem:

With rimfire, the firing pin impacts on the rim of the case. With centerfire, the firing pin impacts in the center of the case. Fairly self explanitory. But it doesn’t really explain the differences between the two cartridges very well.[emphasis added]

Then why bother telling us? If this info is not relevant to the topic, then don’t waste the reader’s time trying to make a minimum word count.

(BTW, it is “explanatory” not “explanitory”)

But GB really takes the cake with THIS:

Nearly a century separates the two cartridges, but what makes them different? Size-wise, the newer cartridge is slightly larger. The caliber of the cartridge measures the diameter (in inches). So the newer cartridge is 0.003″ larger in diameter — who cares? A human hair is from 0.003″ to 0.005″ in diameter. Is such a slight increase in diameter really going to make a difference?

Again; Are you asking me or telling me in some passive-aggressive way?

However, a commenter addressed the root issue best with:


So .22LR is actually .224 at the neck of the round. It’s all negligible, but, if your going to call out size difference, it works to do the research.[emphasis added]

Yes, the .223 Remington and the 22 long rifle both use .224 inch wide bullets.

Then there is ye olde bait ‘n switch:

The .223 cartridge contains significantly more powder than the .22LR cartridge (maximum pressure 24,000 PSI for .22LR; maximum pressure 50,000 PSI for .223). The .223 bullet is a much heavier bullet, travelling at a higher velocity. This means that the .223 bullet has much more energy to deliver on its target.

Wait, GB mentions powder but then changes to pressure.

This would be like saying Car A has a bigger gas tank than Car B, because Car A gets 30 miles to the gallon while Car B gets only 20. Non sequitur.

GB is discussing topic X but then gives an example of Y.

[Why do people do that? That always puzzles me.]

It should read: The .223 cartridge contains significantly more powder than the .22LR cartridge, 20-25 grains versus about 2 grains of smokeless propellant.

(BTW, it is “traveling” not “travelling “)
There also seems to be confusion that higher pressure results in higher energy of the bullet.

Higher pressure means that the ejected bullet has more energy to deliver on its target because its velocity is greater.

It totally boggles my mind how some people can actually believe that more pressure equals more energy of the bullet.

Then again GB obviously never took a college level physics class.

My comment:

Pressure does NOT directly relate to velocity.

The 308 win. has a pmax of 62,000 psi.
The 30-06 has a pmax of 60,000 psi.

The 30-06 STILL has higher velocities. It is the combination of pressure and case size that determines speed.

And “pressure” has nothing at all to do with down-range performance because the “pressure” is no longer acting on the bullet at that distance from the barrel.

Furthermore, penetration in one medium does NOT always translate to penetration in another medium.

A 22-250 penetrates steel better than a 30-06. But the 30 cal will go though the broad side of an elk.

The 223 Rem is better on steel than the 45-70. The 223 will barely go though the hide of a bison. The 45-70 will go completely though such an animal.

And the article has no conclusion.

After rattling off a hodgepodge of factoids the Guest Blogger just stops. No ending, no summation, he just stops writing and dumps several sets of photos of cardboard and metal hit with various bullets with no commentary whatsoever.

And the point was…….?

Here is the ultimate failure of the article: What was the point? What can I, the reader, take with me from this article?

Sadly, nothing.

Blog at