Dalrocks Law

In the spirit of Godwin’s Law, I present Dalrock’s Law:

The more obvious the fact one is in denial of, the more ridiculous the counterexample (or counterargument) will be.

I can’t be the first to notice this, but it strikes me that we really need a name for this kind of thing.  We’ve seen this on this blog, but just yesterday I saw two great examples which are even more ridiculous that the examples/arguments I’ve seen in the comment section here.

Example 1: Catholic Answers Forum thread on the question of why so many Catholics are Living together before marriage.

The OP frames the question:

why do so many couples, catholic and non catholic,,,live together before marriage?

The bible is clear fornication is wrong.

So aren’t people reading their bibles or believing their bibles and what the chatechism teaches?

do they think they are not sinning?

It really annoys me!!!

BlueShadow123 offers the following reasonable enough response:

You know, I bet there is a small percent of people who live together before marriage, but are not having sex.

Now chances are, if you are living together, you are probably doing stuff, but there is no proof that all of them are.

but living together would seem to definitely give the opportunity, which is why it would be a bad idea to live together. Never put yourself in an easy position like that.

But this isn’t a case of Dalrock’s law.  Offering a counterexample in context without trying to create a smokescreen around the original issue is something entirely different.

Then Prayer Warrior Ashurie joins the holy fray:

We have to remember that not everyone is Catholic, and also taking away the division of Religion…why assume that they are having sex before marriage while living together? Like what Charlotte said before me, there could be many other reasons why they have moved in together – other from sex.

I pray for those who are falsely accused.

I present to you Dalrock’s Law!

Example 2: A discussion on whether women pay any SMV price by waiting until they are older to get serious about marriage (from the Advice Goddess post I mentioned yesterday).  Emphasis in bold is mine:

My mom was 69 when she I took her to a dating agency. Do you know what? I expected her to be in a big pool of other women with only a handful of men to choose from. So I was shocked when I was told that no, it’s actually the other way around.

And the woman at the agency wasn’t kidding. Within six weeks my mom was fixed up with 8 guys. (She chose the first one, but then decided to do a bit of shopping around.) He still calls her everyday at her nursing home, even though he lives a few hours away.

Things don’t conform to this so-called conventional wisdom nearly as often as people think. Really.

It is like they are actively competing for the award!

This entry was posted in Catholic Answers Forum. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Dalrocks Law

  1. Omnipitron says:

    “Things don’t conform to this so-called conventional wisdom nearly as often as people think. Really.”

    Interesting…I’ve read the Advice Goddess in the past, and as she is in her late 40’s, her boyfriend is in his 60’s. Er…so…uh…if a 60 year old man can date an attractive woman 14 years his junior……..

    Oh wait, maybe those dudes blowing up this 69 year old’s phone are in their 70’s and maybe their 80’s, I mean, I guess that could work😉

  2. dalrock says:

    Interesting point Omnipitron. Looking through the comments I see she the Goddess recently added this one:

    My boyfriend is a 59-year-old man’s man who once worked on an assembly line in Detroit, by the way — nobody’s pussy boy — and he’s not only glad to have a woman who’s smart, in great shape, always sweet to him, and 46. He spent a bit of yesterday taking pictures of my butt on the move (see my blog for one of the more tasteful ones), and is cool is hell.

    But I thought women were done with men after their 40s. This is so perplexing. If I didn’t know better I would say she felt a strong need to have a worthy man invested in her.

    Her prior comment was:

    I was “a little slut” in my 20s, after I figured out that I wasn’t ready for a relationship. Then, in my 30s, I started looking for a boyfriend, and found one.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, note that the Goddess in question almost certainly has not reproduced. So in evolutionary terms, she’s a loser, just like the saddest Omega, or the biggest Alpha playa who got the snip.

    She’d rather have gigabytes of images of her butt than a child.

  4. Omnipitron says:

    Well, if you consider it; she publicly states that she doesn’t believe in marriage, children or cohabitation, so her belief that the 20’s being screwing years and then settling after that has worked for her. However, for marriage, this approach is a gamble which can be disastrous in some cases. A boyfriend across town with no children to share or a suitable partner to share a good portion of your waking moments and choices with for life are two completely different things.

  5. jack says:

    No Rings for Sluts.

  6. dalrock says:

    No Rings for Sluts.

    Words of wisdom Jack.

  7. K Eggers says:

    NO RINGS FOR SLUTS

    Thank you, good sir.

    Four short words, a brief sentence, so much wisdom.

    Why?

    1. They don’t deserve it.

    2. You will hate yourself for settling down with a slut who has ridden so many other cocks before you.

    3. She will hate you too, deep down.
    2.

  8. Badger Nation says:

    I would add another aphorism:

    Don’t marry princesses.

    Got this advice from an older friend who knew what he was talking about. Actually dodged a bullet when a princess dumped me…she was the woman I wanted to marry, I didn’t really notice the princessitude until after it was all over.

  9. Pingback: No Rings For Sluts | Dalrock

  10. hambydammit says:

    A similar phenomenon happens when we’re asked to believe remarkably bizarre things. I wrote about it here: http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/severity-of-threat-degree-of-bullshit/

    The premise goes something like this. Ask me to believe that there’s this thing called karma, and when I do good things for others, others will do good things for me, I’ll believe it without too much trouble. It’s reasonable. Ask me to believe that a talking snake convinced a magic rib woman to eat an apple six thousand years ago, and that if I believe in a magic Jew who got himself killed two thousand years ago, I’ll get to live forever? It’s going to take a bit more convincing. Thus… hell.

    Stated simply: The degree of bullshit I am required to believe by a religion is directly proportional to the severity of the threat should I choose to reject it.

  11. Pingback: Corollary to Dalrock’s Law; The Law of Rationalization Hamster Strength. | Dalrock

  12. Pingback: A Detailed Description of Divorce Fantasy | Dalrock

  13. Pingback: Grannies gone wild! | Dalrock

  14. As the SCOTUS hears arguments on supposed “Gay Marriage” today, I can’t help but feel this law applies to it. Facebook is aflame with people saying “love is love.” The circular arguments attempting to revise love as having nothing to do with biological motivation to have sex, mate, and procreate apparently satiate the confirmation bias of the drooling masses, at least those below the age of 25 in the SWIPL area of the world. We’re rapidly undoing the seals of rationality here in the US.

    Oh well, I hear Malta is a nice place to live.

  15. Pingback: In light of facebook today | The Karamazov Idea

  16. Pingback: Vox explains Dalrock’s Law | Dalrock

  17. Pingback: A year of ugly feminists | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s