Warhorn responds.

Note:  For context regarding the Warhorn interview see this post.  You can also see the whole series.

Nathan sent me a note this morning letting me know the podcast response is up.  The podcast is titled Into The Manosphere:

Our heroes ventured into the manosphere and maybe went a little too far down the rabbit hole.

Here is the link Nathan provided, but from the link I posted above you can see his posting of the whole exchange*.  I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but from Nathan’s mail and the description of the podcast it appears Warhorn has decided to avoid trying to respond to my arguments and instead point and shriek about me, my readers, and the men’s sphere in general.  This is unfortunate, but not entirely unforeseen.  Since their arguments are indefensible their two options were to concede or change the subject.

Logic isn’t a strong point at Warhorn, and as you may recall when blogger David Gudeman at Brain Legions saw Pastor Bayly’s arguments on marital sex and romantic love he originally thought I had created a straw man.  This was an understandable first take, as Bayly’s argument is so bad it it hard to imagine that he would make it.  After I wrote a post proving that I had correctly stated Bayly’s argument, Gudeman replied:

Thank you for the reply, Dalrock. I will have to read it more carefully to see if I can improve my logic on the issue.

That was on February 10th.  I originally thought Gudeman might respond further, but since over two weeks have passed without further response I now read it as a concession.  Morover, Bayly’s response to the whole thing has been the blogging equivalent to lawyering up and taking the 5th.  Despite having his own media organization, Bayly’s only response has been to thank Gudeman for serving as his defense.

I may write a followup post after listening to the podcast.

Update:  Commenter EL quoted a comment Nathan made on the discussion of the podcast.  Nathan closed his comment with:

To be perfectly clear, however: Dalrock is bad news and we recommend you stay away from him. We seriously considered canning this episode because it might inspire a greater interest in Dalrockian writing and philosophy. If it does, frankly I’ll be sorry we did it.

I can think of no more thorough concession that they have no logical response to my arguments.  On the flip side, I strongly encourage my readers to listen to not only the podcast linked above, but to their regular podcasts and the discussions of each one.

*I asked Nathan to make a correction regarding which reader had shared the Lone Ranger, and he has since made the correction.