Quote of the Day
I was invited to do a panel at La Verne University on Bruen.
State Senator Portantino, who pushed a ton of CA gun control bills, was also set to appear. I told them I was happy to do it, but didn’t want my presence to cause their higher profile invitees to drop out and ruin their event. They were confident they wouldn’t, so I agreed.
Portantino dropped out last minute, appearing only for a few minutes on Zoom and taking no questions. Another gun control professor also dropped out. So it was just me, a pro gun prof, and a middle of the road guy.
I torched Portantino as a coward and rebutted every point he asserted.
Antigunners are, generally, cowards.
Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, March 6, 2026
I’m not certain I call it cowardice if you know you will get slaughtered and cause damage to your cause in the process.
There is a lot of evidence to support the claim this behavior is common. They know they cannot win on legal, principle, or practical grounds. They can only win on lies, deception, and emotional manipulation. They are evil.
Exiting a scenario in which you have reason to believe you will lose can be classified as a “tactical retreat.” There’s nothing wrong with it in itself.
However, a consistent pattern of retreating in the face of ANY challenge could also be interpreted as a sign of cowardice. In the intellectual sphere, knowing you can only prevail in an echo chamber — with zero opposition — should lead a rational person to conclude there is something fundamentally flawed with their position, and cause them to re-evaluate it.
That they never do this, keep pressing the same arguments — but only in the absence of counter-arguments — and run away when opposition shows up, shows they know they’re full of crap. In this case, the honest and courageous thing would be to re-evaluate their position based on the facts and merits and admit they were wrong, but the easier thing is to double-down and avoid confrontation.
Choosing the easy option over the honest one IS cowardice.
I suspect most of them are not choosing the “easy” option, they are choosing the “paid” option (or at least the “rewarded” one, by the people they want rewards from).
It is said that one of the strongest signs of intelligence is the ability to change one’s mind when confronted with contrary evidence
Since they seem to be unable to change their minds when confronted with contrary evidence, are they, and we, sure they have minds in the first place?
I was thinking that this consistent impulse of the anti-liberty crowd seems to indicate that they consider the pro-liberty people to have super powers in the form of facts and logic instead of mere feelings.
I know people who claim feelings are just as valid as facts and logic. There was even a book written about this and supporting that claim.
And remember there were, and still are, people who think of reason as “the dammed whore.” Or these examples:
In general, reason is not held in all that great of regard. It is but a thin veneer in some people. For the majority of people, if you question them, you will find they have reasons for those beliefs. But no reasoning for them. They know our culture values reasoning, and they have learned to imitate it to the point they believe they actually are reasoning. But they actually have just become practiced in finding reasons.
You should like Vox’s series on Veriphysics. A philosophical approach to how do you verify if something is science or pseudo-science, etc. Addresses a trilemma that goes back to ancient Greece and finds that it has an amphiboly that causes a problem, and there is a way around it.
https://veriphysics.substack.com/ .
You can also read the series on his blog, starting with VERIPHYSICS: THE TREATISE 01 at
https://voxday.net/2026/02/02/veriphysics-the-treatise-001/
Very interesting stuff. “How do you know what is true?” He’s working on addressing that systematically.