Slyme Pit Orgy, Sponsored by Vicky's Bewbs

[AnonymousCowherd]

http://www.twitter.com/Nikephorius
that should work Cowherd.

Cheers,jim.

[cunt]

And BTW, I don't understand why people are so shocked about the lack of child care at WISC. I would have expected that, given that it's a conference built around massive amounts of entitlement seeking by middle/upper class individuals who have the resources to make such a trip, and as such probably don't need any sort of support for child-care. They're not really trying to attract local women, I don't think, to come down and join them.

It's the level of hypocrisy that still has the power to shock.

[BarnOwl]

Food lulz at A+ forums, hilarious!!!

Kassiane needs 2500 - 3000 calories per day? Really? And throwing up is "potentially fatally catastrophic?"

Sequencing difficulties, my arse. Cowgirl up and try acting like something other than a spoiled toddler.

[AnonymousCowherd]

Oh but you got to have some sympathy? Isn't this a problem most forums face? Doesn't the slymepit attract vegans coming here preaching?

No? I wonder what it is about that place that attracts raving nutters?

Seeing Mr Kneecapping on twitter and his Scottish Nationalism reminded me of what a friend of mine in the police once told me, where ever there are protests which have the possibility to turn violent, especially when confronting the police, be it anti-capitalist, anti-nazi, anti-hunting... there are always are a hardcore that are the same old faces. But what is really interesting is that some of them just don't give a toss about the cause. Once year they can be marching with the BNP, the next with the anti-nazi league, and after that, smashing up a cafe in Spain with a load of West Ham supporters.

Some people just love agro.

There's some truth in that. But it also includes those coppers who pushed to the front at every demo, whipped off their numbers and slapped people to get a response so they could charge in (on horseback until the heavy left started slashing the horses legs - disgraceful, but the poor bloody horses should never have been there). I knew a couple of police who would swap shifts or even work free overtime if it meant the chance of some aggro at a demo. It all changed here when a new (more moderate) government dropped the policy of blocking demos, and instead gave them maximum priority. So they finished sooner and less people saw them. I think there is still some nostalgia for the good old days in certain circles.

[Oneiros666]

Food lulz at A+ forums, hilarious!!!

Kassiane needs 2500 - 3000 calories per day? Really? And throwing up is "potentially fatally catastrophic?"

Sequencing difficulties, my arse. Cowgirl up and try acting like something other than a spoiled toddler.

I am currently a 244 lbg man. My daily kcal intake should not exceed 2450kcal if I am to lose 0,5kg every week. In other words, to stay fat, but not gain fat, I need about 2800-2900 kcal every day. So when a girl nags about absolutely needing 2500-3000kcal every day, and if not she is in dire danger of dying; I laugh my arse off. She's just another lazy slacktivist moaning about how hard white middle-class American life is in order to feel good about not eating less and working out.

[Metalogic42]

Food lulz at A+ forums, hilarious!!!

Kassiane needs 2500 - 3000 calories per day? Really? And throwing up is "potentially fatally catastrophic?"

Sequencing difficulties, my arse. Cowgirl up and try acting like something other than a spoiled toddler.

I am currently a 244 lbg man. My daily kcal intake should not exceed 2450kcal if I am to lose 0,5kg every week. In other words, to stay fat, but not gain fat, I need about 2800-2900 kcal every day. So when a girl nags about absolutely needing 2500-3000kcal every day, and if not she is in dire danger of dying; I laugh my arse off. She's just another lazy slacktivist moaning about how hard white middle-class American life is in order to feel good about not eating less and working out.

Kassiane is an extremely large hummingbird. You're being speciesist, check your privilege!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

So you guys can think all you want about Louis' character in light of his excursion here, but I will stand by what I previously said about him. I don't know, maybe you should have known him for as long as I have (since 2008 AE's AtBC) to get where he's coming from. What some of you might consider pompousness and smug patronizing, I've seen from being on his side of the argument, and it never bothered me at the time. It was efficient against IDists and creationists, and most of all it was entertaining and funny. I still read him like that, even on those issues where we strongly disagree. And I guess maybe that's what's going on with him WRT Myers.

Phil, we don't need you or Louis to explain the use of snark against creationists. Many of us here have a history of posting on similar sites and don't have a problem with it in principle (but the person has to be able to back up their arguments and not simply use smugness as a smokescreen: the jury is still out on Louis's stint here). The problem is, when that snark and mockery -that many of us learned from the same source as Louis!- is directed at the FtB/Skepchick crowd, then it's suddenly considered OMG CYBERSTALKING AND VIBRATING HATRED OF WOMEN!! That's what sticks in the craw of many people about this, I'd warrant.

I'm not trying to explain anything to anyone, except for my own position WRT Louis. I am more than aware that a lot of the Pitters (most, even?) have a long experience of dealing with creationists and religionists of all stripes.

I am, more often than not, the one in need of explanations, and when it's the case I don't hesitate to ask.

[Karmakin]

So you guys can think all you want about Louis' character in light of his excursion here, but I will stand by what I previously said about him. I don't know, maybe you should have known him for as long as I have (since 2008 AE's AtBC) to get where he's coming from. What some of you might consider pompousness and smug patronizing, I've seen from being on his side of the argument, and it never bothered me at the time. It was efficient against IDists and creationists, and most of all it was entertaining and funny. I still read him like that, even on those issues where we strongly disagree. And I guess maybe that's what's going on with him WRT Myers.

Phil, we don't need you or Louis to explain the use of snark against creationists. Many of us here have a history of posting on similar sites and don't have a problem with it in principle (but the person has to be able to back up their arguments and not simply use smugness as a smokescreen: the jury is still out on Louis's stint here). The problem is, when that snark and mockery -that many of us learned from the same source as Louis!- is directed at the FtB/Skepchick crowd, then it's suddenly considered OMG CYBERSTALKING AND VIBRATING HATRED OF WOMEN!! That's what sticks in the craw of many people about this, I'd warrant.

I'm not trying to explain anything to anyone, except for my own position WRT Louis. I am more than aware that a lot of the Pitters (most, even?) have a long experience of dealing with creationists and religionists of all stripes.

I am, more often than not, the one in need of explanations, and when it's the case I don't hesitate to ask.

For what it's worth, I agree with you when it comes to Louis. Personally, I think it's probably just a matter of time and the breaking of some social bonds for him to move away from the SJW movement. He does seem like a well-meaning good guy who just is in a bad movement for again, mainly social/emotional reasons.

Mob mentality is a hell of a thing.

[cunt]

Apparently not all threats are equal.



Surprise, surprise, no rebuke from Ophelia.

Well duh, of course it's okay if the threat is from the "proper" people.

That link is coming up as "Sorry, that page doesn't exist" from Twitter. Problem?

I retweeted it and that is gone. I guess they caught on.

That's why its always good to screencap this stuff. The same idiot will no doubt be on FTB somewhere decrying the haters who threaten violence. Ophelia and PZ told him about them and they never lie, Brownian and Josh said they were subhuman and they're really good people. That's good enough. He's now very worried that somebody will turn violent. He might still need to smash some kneecaps to stop that from happening.

[Lsuoma]

If Oolon were a moderately better writer, he'd be louis.

LOL. Spot on.

Possibly thanks to Oolon, I always hear Louis' posts in an English accent.

His writing style makes me almost certain that Louis is English too.

[cunt]

He's now very worried that somebody will turn violent. He might still need to smash some kneecaps to stop that from happening.

Or he's a twat with a keyboard who feels tough typing that stuff out.


Louis is British.

[Apples]

I'd ask if kassiepane could whine more, but I already know the answer. I actually am allergic to about four foods. Not a peanut kind of allergy, where I'm instantly reactive to minuscule amount, but eating them is a very bad idea. So when I see them on my plate, I just nudge them off to one side and go on with my eating. I see no need to yell at whomever put them there.

A window into Kassianus's approach, from her blog. She is basically the reason posting video links without a transcript or at least a detailed summary at A+ is a big no-no. And I think she's the one who needs to be protected from smilies. Hugs, on the other hand, must never be diverted ...

http://timetolisten.blogspot.com/2010/1 ... pissy.html

I reserve the right to be pissy.
Always.

I don't have to be 'nice' in explaining my needs. It's my right to have a number of them met. It doesn't matter if I coat in in candy or dip it in acid-it's still a need. I don't HAVE to be nice to you when your vest or your helmet or your phone charm is strobing in my face. Telling me you didn't know or you didn't think you'd come across someone for whom it's a problem isn't going to impress me; you could end the sentence at "I didn't think".

No matter how I present them, my rights are my rights. My right to not have a preventable seizure or to not be run off the sidewalk (cyclists, I'm looking at you. Well, I'm not, actually, because you're neurological hazards on wheels, and if you run into me because you thought the sidewalk was yours so help me I will end you AND your bike) or to be presented important information in a manner I can process and use or to block sounds that overwhelm me in a manner of my choosing.

My rights are my rights.

I have a right to be nice. I have a right to be snarky. My only responsibility is the one I have to myself, that of getting my needs met. I don't really care if you're offended if I'm abrupt or pissy. Your feelings are not my concern. You really have no place lecturing me on how I present my needs, especially in a situation where the only option is to do something about it now. Being nice doesn't work. Letting my snark flag fly does. Talking to you as though you're choosing to be an asshat works a lot better than assuming you are unaware. Talking to you as though you're choosing to be an asshat gets your attention. Being nice doesn't. It just makes you feel fuzzy.

It is my right to assume you're an asshat. It is my right to be pissy when you are making my brain hurt. If you decide that it's your place to Argument From Tone me about my needs, my assumption that you are an asshat is correct.

They are my rights. Nowhere among anyone's rights are included the right to not be made uncomfortable or the right to not be offended.

Those aren't your rights.

Being pissy about mine is mine, though.

:suimouth:

[windy]

Oh but you got to have some sympathy? Isn't this a problem most forums face? Doesn't the slymepit attract vegans coming here preaching?

No? I wonder what it is about that place that attracts raving nutters?

The SJWs don't actually have a good defense against the radical vegans, because they agree with them that every single act should be politicised and being preached at should be used as an opportunity to "check their privilege". That's why they must try to turn the tables so that the radical vegan is actually oppressing them by asking them to eat slimy food! The rest of us omnivores can admit that the vegans have a point about the ethical issues with meat-eating, explain why we don't agree with their solution, and move on.

[d4m10n]

I find the omission of child care arrangements for WISC astounding, especially considering the amount of rhetoric about making conferences more welcoming for women that comes from the blowhards such as Hensley.

Why is childcare so readily assumed to be primarily a women's issue? I'm personally much more likely to need childcare than the young women at these conferences, many if not most of whom are child-free.

If the answer has anything to do with divorce and the judicial bias towards maternal custody, then surely that is just the sort of men's rights issue that SJW must relegate to invisible pixels, because patriarchy.

[Metalogic42]

dude, no. don't fucking use that word, full stop. there are real people here who have or can have that awful term applied to them and they will be the first to tell you that it is not. fucking. ok. do NOT slur autism or other developmental disabilities with the fucking r-word.

People with autism are fucking retarded. Got a problem with that? Read this: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 710#p42710

Stop whining, Shitar. Just stop.

[Za-zen]

I find the omission of child care arrangements for WISC astounding, especially considering the amount of rhetoric about making conferences more welcoming for women that comes from the blowhards such as Hensley.

Why is childcare so readily assumed to be primarily a women's issue? I'm personally much more likely to need childcare than the young women at these conferences, many if not most of whom are child-free.

If the answer has anything to do with divorce and the judicial bias towards maternal custody, then surely that is just the sort of men's rights issue that SJW must relegate to invisible pixels, because patriarchy.

Your point is well made, and i agree, i also consider that when i wrote that post. Nonetheless i was/am operating from their own playbook of "why conferences aren't open/welcoming to ze wymynz"

[Tony Parsehole]

Josh the Spokesgay is a dirty minded cunt isn't he?
From the Pharyngula comments section, comment 113:

Now we’ll get to watch it with Justin Vacula shitting all over women at Women in Secularism 2.

I like Justin and the work he does but if he defecates all over ANY woman at the Women is Secularism conference then I may go off him.
Or fap.
It's hard to tell.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -each-one/

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I find the omission of child care arrangements for WISC astounding, especially considering the amount of rhetoric about making conferences more welcoming for women that comes from the blowhards such as Hensley.

Why is childcare so readily assumed to be primarily a women's issue? I'm personally much more likely to need childcare than the young women at these conferences, many if not most of whom are child-free.

If the answer has anything to do with divorce and the judicial bias towards maternal custody, then surely that is just the sort of men's rights issue that SJW must relegate to invisible pixels, because patriarchy.

No, I think it was more of a remark in relation with the fact that "childcare at conferences" was one of the early battlehorses at Skepchick's, and was indeed argued by here as being a women's issue.

Don't quote me on that though, I am known to sometimes have a faulty memory, but that's what I recall from the "Darwin's coup de grâce in Vegas" thread at Abbie's.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

"Argued by her"* Damn typos!!!

[debaser71]

From my interactions with internet radfems, they mostly seem to hate "breeders"....they use words like "child-free" instead of childless. (haha) Anyway, yeah, why is childcare a woman's thing?

[Tony Parsehole]

[spoiler]This revelation that the Women in Skepticism conference is NOT going to have child-care facilities has blown my lid!
I mean, WTF?
Is it an oversight?
Was it planned this way?
Are the organisers selfish lamebrains?
Did they spend money on airfares and speaker's fees in lieu of even basic child-care?
I am truly staggered and stunned that self-professed feminists neglect this vital detail!

They have the audacity to slander Richard Dawkins, (neglecting the fact that he was the first to offer and fund child-care at secular meetings, before that poisonous parasite Beccy-boo-boos (spit) "came up" with the notion and claimed that he did it because of her, the lying cunt).

"We haven't got a grant yet" is the excuse of a clueless sociopath.

Again: WTF?[/spoiler]

Absolutely mind boggling. Shows how much they really care about women eh?

[Za-zen]

It was/is as far as i'm aware a banner issue in enabling women to attend conference, and identified by the fftb/skepbabes as a reason for poor wymyn attendance. that banner waved by no less a flag waver than Miss beccybooze.

[TedDahlberg]

Apologies to Paul Simon… and basically everyone else.


The Pit of Slime

Hello Slymepit, you old cunt
I've come to talk with you again
Because a PZ softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the pit of slime

In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow tubes of trolling stone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a Skepchick blog
That split the fog
And touched the pit of slime

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never shared
No one dared
Disturb the pit of slime

"Fools," said I, "you do not know
Slime like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you"
But my words like silent slimedrops fell
And echoed in the pits of slime

And the people bowed and prayed
To the blogger god they made
And the blog flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the blog said "The words of the prophets are written on the twitter walls
And the freethought blogs
And whispered in the pit of slime

[Apples]

This is my last for a week. Spent more time on this than the last one.
Took a little more poetic licence. Might not be as true to the source material.

Really nice work. As far as I'm concerned, you can quit your dayjob.

[Tony Parsehole]

Just wait until one of the skepchicks has kids and want to attend a conference without childcare facilities.
Then we'll hear all about it.

[Scented Nectar]

Women turn in to “invisible pixels” when a slymepitter is around. They will attack them, slur them, but they do everything they can to avoid talking directly to them.

Hey SN, Abbie, sacha, Renee, fascination, Vicky, etc., etc. (apologies for not listing everyone, and deliberately ignoring Tammy Strop Teenager): how do you like THEM "invisible pixels", eh?

Ah, that's easily explained in a manner which makes that pharyngulite appear truthful. You see, there can't possibly be any members of the SlimePit who are female. We are all just Franc's socks and are therefore, really male. That's why the SlimePit men can talk directly with us SlimePit women, and it still be true that SlimePitters are only men and "do everything they can to avoid talking directly to" women. Or not. :?

Invisible pixels! How come it's always the feminists who declare women to be all sorts of oppressed, vile, or degraded things?

[Za-zen]

Further i should state that i fully support the idea of creche at conference, we can send all the sulky babes there when they throw tantrums.

The chief sexist Dr. Dawkins was the first to fund childcare at a major conference as far as i'm aware.

[Scented Nectar]

I find the omission of child care arrangements for WISC astounding, especially considering the amount of rhetoric about making conferences more welcoming for women that comes from the blowhards such as Hensley.

I'd love to take a look at the accounts! Watch where the money goes in any outfit and that will tell you about where their priorities lie. I got a hold of the accounts for a church once, and the cash sread was very revealing. Pastor salaries were phenomenal, whereas the investment in any real tangible "good work" was minimal.

So where has all the money gone? That they are now, and i stress, now, going to be grant beging to cover their asses.

This. This. This. Follow the money and compare salaries+unnecessary-overhead to actual charitable actions.

Call me cynical, but I think most self-declared "charity" organizations are corrupt as fuck when looked at with the above comparison.

[Tony Parsehole]

OK, so, short summary is, anyone who is skeptical or critical of their position is an ORC, ala Lord of the Ring orcs--not, you know, human or anything.

... Really?

No one has mentioned the new guys BEAUTIFUL ANGELIC HAIR OH MY GOD SO PRETTY YOU LOOK LIKE DAVID GILMOUR WHY DO SO MANY GUYS HERE HAVE LONG PRETTY HAIR?

Old picture of me:

http://s14.beta.photobucket.com/user/Pi ... sort=3&o=0

I always imagined you exactly like your avatar, typing away messages on FTB dressed as Batman.

[Scented Nectar]

From my interactions with internet radfems, they mostly seem to hate "breeders"....they use words like "child-free" instead of childless. (haha) Anyway, yeah, why is childcare a woman's thing?

The radical lesbian feminist separatists back in the 1980s used 'breeder' as a derogatory word meaning a hetero woman. They probably still do. But the hetero radfems must not have liked that.

[cunt]

I'm actually David Cameron. Don't tell Labour.

[Za-zen]

Just wait until one of the skepchicks has kids and want to attend a conference without childcare facilities.
Then we'll hear all about it.

You are operating from an assumed premise that the sulkybabes would have kidz. I suggest this is flawed. Kids require such a high degree of sacrifice and maturity that i can't see the narcicists undertaking parenthood voluntarily. Much better to be a perpertual prepubescent and whine about how hard life is, living as you, with nobody understanding just what it is you have to go through everyday.

[windy]

It was/is as far as i'm aware a banner issue in enabling women to attend conference, and identified by the fftb/skepbabes as a reason for poor wymyn attendance. that banner waved by no less a flag waver than Miss beccybooze.

Blaghag after the Dawkins announcement:

This was received to much applause, including my own. Having available child care at conferences has been one of the practical solutions I and other atheists have suggested repeatedly as a way to get more women to attend conferences. Yes, it certainly benefits both parents - but even amongst skeptics, mothers often end up (for whatever reason) in more traditional roles and are likely to be the ones stuck at home watching the kids.

[Tony Parsehole]

Food lulz at A+ forums, hilarious!!!

Kassiane needs 2500 - 3000 calories per day? Really? And throwing up is "potentially fatally catastrophic?"

Sequencing difficulties, my arse. Cowgirl up and try acting like something other than a spoiled toddler.

I am currently a 244 lbg man. My daily kcal intake should not exceed 2450kcal if I am to lose 0,5kg every week. In other words, to stay fat, but not gain fat, I need about 2800-2900 kcal every day. So when a girl nags about absolutely needing 2500-3000kcal every day, and if not she is in dire danger of dying; I laugh my arse off. She's just another lazy slacktivist moaning about how hard white middle-class American life is in order to feel good about not eating less and working out.

Kassiane is an extremely large hummingbird. You're being speciesist, check your privilege!

I currently weigh 17 stone, not really fat and eat about 3000-4000 calories a day. If I have any less I find it really hard to stay awake and get motivated. I doubt I'd die if I had less though. I'd just yawn more often.

[Za-zen]

I'm actually David Cameron. Don't tell Labour.

Yes you are a cunt

[Tony Parsehole]

I'm actually David Cameron. Don't tell Labour.

I always imagine you looking exactly as Cameron too.

[cunt]

Shut it pleb.

[Za-zen]

Food lulz at A+ forums, hilarious!!!

Kassiane needs 2500 - 3000 calories per day? Really? And throwing up is "potentially fatally catastrophic?"

Sequencing difficulties, my arse. Cowgirl up and try acting like something other than a spoiled toddler.

I am currently a 244 lbg man. My daily kcal intake should not exceed 2450kcal if I am to lose 0,5kg every week. In other words, to stay fat, but not gain fat, I need about 2800-2900 kcal every day. So when a girl nags about absolutely needing 2500-3000kcal every day, and if not she is in dire danger of dying; I laugh my arse off. She's just another lazy slacktivist moaning about how hard white middle-class American life is in order to feel good about not eating less and working out.

Kassiane is an extremely large hummingbird. You're being speciesist, check your privilege!

I currently weigh 17 stone, not really fat and eat about 3000-4000 calories a day. If I have any less I find it really hard to stay awake and get motivated. I doubt I'd die if I had less though. I'd just yawn more often.

You find it really hard to stay awake because your body is working overtime digesting shit. Fuck me man, eat less move more enter into a regular sleep pattern, your energy levels will increase

[welch]

I find the omission of child care arrangements for WISC astounding, especially considering the amount of rhetoric about making conferences more welcoming for women that comes from the blowhards such as Hensley.

Why is childcare so readily assumed to be primarily a women's issue? I'm personally much more likely to need childcare than the young women at these conferences, many if not most of whom are child-free.

If the answer has anything to do with divorce and the judicial bias towards maternal custody, then surely that is just the sort of men's rights issue that SJW must relegate to invisible pixels, because patriarchy.

I was leaving that bit off but yeah. As someone who was a single parent sans local family for too many years, it is really galling to ask about childcare and be talked to like either I am joking or eventually asked for the mother's info. Sorry folks, just me. I am the one doing this particular job. And no, I am not babysitting.

[ERV]

I find the omission of child care arrangements for WISC astounding, especially considering the amount of rhetoric about making conferences more welcoming for women that comes from the blowhards such as Hensley.

Why is childcare so readily assumed to be primarily a women's issue? I'm personally much more likely to need childcare than the young women at these conferences, many if not most of whom are child-free.

If the answer has anything to do with divorce and the judicial bias towards maternal custody, then surely that is just the sort of men's rights issue that SJW must relegate to invisible pixels, because patriarchy.

No, I think it was more of a remark in relation with the fact that "childcare at conferences" was one of the early battlehorses at Skepchick's, and was indeed argued by here as being a women's issue.

Don't quote me on that though, I am known to sometimes have a faulty memory, but that's what I recall from the "Darwin's coup de grâce in Vegas" thread at Abbie's.

Yes-- Its also on Christinas Official List of Diva Demands-- which I made fun of because she obviously had no clue what childcare costs/entails.

Though I do love that the Women in Secularism conference is exorbitantly expensive, being held in one of the most expensive parts of the country (>$200 a night for hotel), doesnt provide childcare (a feature the supporters demand of other conferences), all to see speakers who have their talks readily available online, right now, for free.

Its not feminism. Its stupidity.

[Tony Parsehole]

You are to blame for this Cameron, you cunt!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21141815

[Tony Parsehole]

Food lulz at A+ forums, hilarious!!!

Kassiane needs 2500 - 3000 calories per day? Really? And throwing up is "potentially fatally catastrophic?"

Sequencing difficulties, my arse. Cowgirl up and try acting like something other than a spoiled toddler.

I am currently a 244 lbg man. My daily kcal intake should not exceed 2450kcal if I am to lose 0,5kg every week. In other words, to stay fat, but not gain fat, I need about 2800-2900 kcal every day. So when a girl nags about absolutely needing 2500-3000kcal every day, and if not she is in dire danger of dying; I laugh my arse off. She's just another lazy slacktivist moaning about how hard white middle-class American life is in order to feel good about not eating less and working out.

Kassiane is an extremely large hummingbird. You're being speciesist, check your privilege!

I currently weigh 17 stone, not really fat and eat about 3000-4000 calories a day. If I have any less I find it really hard to stay awake and get motivated. I doubt I'd die if I had less though. I'd just yawn more often.

You find it really hard to stay awake because your body is working overtime digesting shit. Fuck me man, eat less move more enter into a regular sleep pattern, your energy levels will increase

Move more? Cheeky cunt! I do 2+ hours of gym 5 times a week and work full time. That's why I need the calories and that's why I get knackered if I don't have them. I wouldn't say I was a fat cunt or a lazy cunt by any stretch of the imagination.

[cunt]

You are to blame for this Cameron, you cunt!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21141815

Bunch of shirkers.

[debaser71]

"stuck at home watching the kids."

More disdain towards parenting. I am not "stuck" home with the kids. I openly choose to be home with the kids. Another example (and hahhaahahah boys it's fun to police language maybe I should be a SJW!!!) I don't "deal" with the kids, I "tend" to them.

And SN, in my early days of the gendersphere I stupidly read through a blog post and comments at Shakesville. It was full of people hating on parents, kids, breeders, etc. And one person made a post saying this and the thread was closed for comments after that. It's as if a person (especially a woman) wants kids, and wants to take care of them, then this woman is a traitor to the cause.

[surreptitious57]

So how did attempts at your own personal style of olive branch waving go over at Atheism Plus ? Do a lot of bridge building or were you treated with contempt ?

I no longer post there as I am a restricted user, and could therefore be perma banned so decided that it was better to just be a lurker. But their site, so their rules. However, in defence I would like to say that I have learned much since joining. I now know about privilege, spoon theory and mansplaining for example, which I did not before. I also realise that some of them need to be in a safe place too, because they are damaged individuals, and that mocking someone for that is not fuuny or clever. And I do not condone that one iota either. I treat eveyone the same no matter who they are. I am interested in ideas not individuals. I continue to lurk at Atheism Plus but any discussion is on other fora. I am doing what they would want of me. And that is a win win situation as far as I am concerned because it shows I am listening instead of talking, which given how I am white and male would not be greatly appreciated now. So it is all good

[Za-zen]

I'm a father too, though thankfully not a single one ( que sjw accusing me of lone parent shaming) childcare at cons would be a great option for opening the cons up to more people. But suggesting it should be mandatory, or expected of cons to provide is a degree to far in my opinion.

The point is the loons have been raving that the lack of childcare shows the patriachy in action, as white male con organisers don't take it into consideration because it's a wymynz issue. To then see Hensley's fucking women in sexularism con didn't have it in place from the get go is just, well, fucking hilarious.

[Scented Nectar]

Hmm, PZ has linked to an old article that was pre-EG. It's at: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... t-weekend/

The weird thing is, that the main thing I remember from it, seems to have been edited out! *feigned shock*

The original mentioned that part of deciding to go to the medical center instead of just going home and ignoring the pain, was realizing how much of a dick he'd look like, and how much others would laugh at him, if he did not follow the logical route of the med center and instead went home and had a heart attack. He chose the medical center out of worry that he'd be thought an idiot for not doing the logical thing. He definitely used to the word 'dick' or his 'inner dick' which is now missing from the page. He used it to refer to half of the arguing conversation in his head.

In the now missing comments, since it was before realizing that he's an insane feminist, I even commented that I was glad he listened to his 'inner dick' and was still alive, or something along those lines.

[Altair]

[spoiler]

This revelation that the Women in Skepticism conference is NOT going to have child-care facilities has blown my lid!
I mean, WTF?
Is it an oversight?
Was it planned this way?
Are the organisers selfish lamebrains?
Did they spend money on airfares and speaker's fees in lieu of even basic child-care?
I am truly staggered and stunned that self-professed feminists neglect this vital detail!

They have the audacity to slander Richard Dawkins, (neglecting the fact that he was the first to offer and fund child-care at secular meetings, before that poisonous parasite Beccy-boo-boos (spit) "came up" with the notion and claimed that he did it because of her, the lying cunt).

"We haven't got a grant yet" is the excuse of a clueless sociopath.

Again: WTF?

[/spoiler]

Hold on, check your privilege.

Assuming that just because women are attending this conference that they may need childcare services is sexist and misogynistic and a leftover idea of patriarchal oppression. Also many women can't have children and the sight of kids or knowledge that they are in the vicinity might cause a triggering event, because of ableist oppression and/or possible transphobia. It might also cause DEEP RIFTS if there are any womyn there who dislike associating with open "breeders". Furthermore, should childcare services be provided, who shall care for the children? If you staff the kids' area with women then you are furthering the misogyny and might as well be telling them that they should stay barefoot in the kitchen baking and popping out offspring for their men! If you staff the kids' area with men, well we all know from Greg Laden that all men have rape switches, so the likelihood is that they could prey upon the children! So you see, until we have a non-gendered asexual robot who can provide childcare in an offsite underground safe space away from the conference where the kids may induce triggers in attendees, then childcare is not feasible.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Notung]

Blaghag after the Dawkins announcement:

I remember in the comments on that post McCreight and Elisabeth Cornwell had an argument over the false suggestion that Dawkins funded childcare to deflect from Elevatorgate. Shame the comments were all deleted.

[Submariner]

I don't know if this has been covered before but Ophelia Benson put out a blog about Muslim apostates who are female are not killed as the male apostates are:

"Via the Ex-Muslims Forum – “perhaps the only time when the misogyny of Islamic Fiqh could ever be described as a relief.”





It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said, “The female apostate is not killed.” This is because the unbelief of the woman is not equal to the unbelief of the man – which leads to (physical) devastation. So, she is not equal in the liability to be killed, as is known.

- Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373 AH/ 983 CE). Mukhtalaf al-Riwayah,, vol 3, p. 1299

Makes sense. The woman’s belief is puny and weak compared to the man’s, so her unbelief is the same way, so meh – nobody cares. No need to kill her; keep her to do the dishes."

In what kind of bizzaro universe is the fact that men are put to DEATH for a belief and women are not, count as being sexist against women????

[jimthepleb]

From my interactions with internet radfems, they mostly seem to hate "breeders"....they use words like "child-free" instead of childless. (haha) Anyway, yeah, why is childcare a woman's thing?

uh cos teh patriarchy! :roll:

[Za-zen]

You find it really hard to stay awake because your body is working overtime digesting shit. Fuck me man, eat less move more enter into a regular sleep pattern, your energy levels will increase

Move more? Cheeky cunt! I do 2+ hours of gym 5 times a week and work full time. That's why I need the calories and that's why I get knackered if I don't have them. I wouldn't say I was a fat cunt or a lazy cunt by any stretch of the imagination.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

As a famous tory would have said. "On your bike" when what he really meant to say was "on yer bike ya fat fuck an stop cryin"

[jimthepleb]

Women turn in to “invisible pixels” when a slymepitter is around. They will attack them, slur them, but they do everything they can to avoid talking directly to them.

Hey SN, Abbie, sacha, Renee, fascination, Vicky, etc., etc. (apologies for not listing everyone, and deliberately ignoring Tammy Strop Teenager): how do you like THEM "invisible pixels", eh?

Ah, that's easily explained in a manner which makes that pharyngulite appear truthful. You see, there can't possibly be any members of the SlimePit who are female. We are all just Franc's cock and are therefore, really male. That's why the SlimePit men can talk directly with us SlimePit women, and it still be true that SlimePitters are only men and "do everything they can to avoid talking directly to" women. Or not. :?

Invisible pixels! How come it's always the feminists who declare women to be all sorts of oppressed, vile, or degraded things?

ftfy

[Za-zen]

I don't know if this has been covered before but Ophelia Benson put out a blog about Muslim apostates who are female are not killed as the male apostates are:

"Via the Ex-Muslims Forum – “perhaps the only time when the misogyny of Islamic Fiqh could ever be described as a relief.”





It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said, “The female apostate is not killed.” This is because the unbelief of the woman is not equal to the unbelief of the man – which leads to (physical) devastation. So, she is not equal in the liability to be killed, as is known.

- Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373 AH/ 983 CE). Mukhtalaf al-Riwayah,, vol 3, p. 1299



Makes sense. The woman’s belief is puny and weak compared to the man’s, so her unbelief is the same way, so meh – nobody cares. No need to kill her; keep her to do the dishes."

In what kind of bizzaro universe is the fact that men are put to DEATH for a belief and women are not, count as being sexist against women????

Lol welcome to the bizarro mindz of da newz athifemz

[jimthepleb]

Shut it pleb.

wtf did i do cunt?

[debaser71]

For the record, here in New York they made some sort of mandatory school lunch changes about having less meat and more vegetables, smaller portions, etc etc etc. With the assumption that everyone is a 60 pound waif instead of for example an 17 year old teenage football player at 160 pounds. These poor kids are starving by the time 3pm rolls around.

My point is that insisting on what other people eat is stupid.

[HoneyWagon]

http://i.imgur.com/cWxDtY7.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9gsKuFF.jpg

Plan ahead Vacula. Preemptively communicate with Melody's boss before you are painted as a total rage-filled woman hater.
Or even more so.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I don't know if this has been covered before but Ophelia Benson put out a blog about Muslim apostates who are female are not killed as the male apostates are:

"Via the Ex-Muslims Forum – “perhaps the only time when the misogyny of Islamic Fiqh could ever be described as a relief.”





It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said, “The female apostate is not killed.” This is because the unbelief of the woman is not equal to the unbelief of the man – which leads to (physical) devastation. So, she is not equal in the liability to be killed, as is known.

- Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373 AH/ 983 CE). Mukhtalaf al-Riwayah,, vol 3, p. 1299

Makes sense. The woman’s belief is puny and weak compared to the man’s, so her unbelief is the same way, so meh – nobody cares. No need to kill her; keep her to do the dishes."

In what kind of bizzaro universe is the fact that men are put to DEATH for a belief and women are not, count as being sexist against women????

Ok, that one takes the cake. She's completely lost her marbles!

[cunt]

Shut it pleb.

wtf did i do cunt?

Nothing at all. Just kidding around with Tony.

[Richard Dworkins]

So how did attempts at your own personal style of olive branch waving go over at Atheism Plus ? Do a lot of bridge building or were you treated with contempt ?

I no longer post there as I am a restricted user, and could therefore be perma banned so decided that it was better to just be a lurker. But their site, so their rules. However, in defence I would like to say that I have learned much since joining. I now know about privilege, spoon theory and mansplaining for example, which I did not before. I also realise that some of them need to be in a safe place too, because they are damaged individuals, and that mocking someone for that is not fuuny or clever. And I do not condone that one iota either. I treat eveyone the same no matter who they are. I am interested in ideas not individuals. I continue to lurk at Atheism Plus but any discussion is on other fora. I am doing what they would want of me. And that is a win win situation as far as I am concerned because it shows I am listening instead of talking, which given how I am white and male would not be greatly appreciated now. So it is all good

What happened in your life to make you so servile to the whims of the obnoxious?