Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

Old subthreads
Locked
ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4021

Post by ERV »

sacha wrote:Abbie!

Ricky Gervais needs you:
AIDS vs Rabies.png
HIV (not AIDS ;) ) wins, unquestionably. HIV is a sick-and-stick virus, slow burning so you can transmit as much as possible, vs Ebola with is sick-and-run. It burns out before real epidemics can occur, while HIV is a pandemic.

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4022

Post by ERV »

ERV wrote:
sacha wrote:Abbie!

Ricky Gervais needs you:
AIDS vs Rabies.png
HIV (not AIDS ;) ) wins, unquestionably. HIV is a sick-and-stick virus, slow burning so you can transmit as much as possible, vs Ebola with is sick-and-run. It burns out before real epidemics can occur, while HIV is a pandemic.
Oh, and we cant give HIV cancer, but we can give cancer HIV (lentiviral gene therapy vs any number of cancers).

:)

Brain Box
.
.
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4023

Post by Brain Box »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
welch wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.

There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:

1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.

Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:

<snip>

Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
<snip>

Don't make threats of violence against people - including the sort of youtube comment style 'threats' that Watson relies on - which is exactly what SDG did.

<snip>
And what evidence do you adduce to support that contention? For instance, how about this statement of SDG’s:
I'd say Marcotte needs a shit ton more rape in her life. Mary Koss, Nasrim Tasleema who say that men can't be raped? Fine, fuck them both. Get raped chickadees. Fuck off AND DIE.
Is that any more of a credible “threat” of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens”?

Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose” and all that ….
Ohhh...THAT shit. Then again, SDG writes like ass. Kind of like Steers, but worse, and in less space. Steers takes so long, it's kind of relaxing, like white noise. But I have to agree with Steers here. If one is going to point out that one set of "you should be raped" statements is naught but trolling, suddenly taking another set seriously not because of any danger to the possible targets, but because of an inconvenience to your forum is a bit um...hypocritical?
I think the argument is that the youtube comments that Rebecca Watson gets are not credible threats but still worth taking some action over. If someone is sending threats from a youtube account then they should be reported and the account banned. It doesn't matter whether the threats are credible or not. It is against the rules of youtube to do that and there is no way to judge whether the threatener is just a troll (most likely) or is a psycho.
It's the same thing here.
Perhaps 'Some Dumb Guy' is not really going to rape Amanda Marcotte and dump her body in a ditch, but that is what he advocated.

Why are we even having a debate about this?

Isn't it fucking obvious what we should do?
Exactly. It should be a question of whether threats should or shouldn't be taken seriously, but how seriously (i.e. whether a threat constitutes an actual physical danger), and most importantly, whether these anonymous threats constitute evidence of wide spread misogyny within the skeptic community. If we can identify people who claim to be skeptics and who openly advocate violence, rape or other illegal acts against others (even as a "joke") they should be ostracized.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4024

Post by Skep tickle »

jimthepleb wrote:PZ pontificates (again)
haven't watched so not sure what he is bullshitting about this time...
youtube g8auml0Zgk /youtube
That video not found - can you check the identifier & post it again?

Also, go ahead & tell us all about your judgment of the video, without having watched it. That's what PZ does, so it must be fine, right?

Brain Box
.
.
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4025

Post by Brain Box »

Er, It shouldn't be a question...

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4026

Post by Git »

Skep tickle wrote:correction, next to last line: 'they might feel "naked" if not clothed & adorned differently than they were raised to believe is acceptable).'
I'm more than happy to criticise any arbitrary and ridiculous "cultural" and "religious" restrictions (and have done so here often). The Islamic version is because in Islam women are deemed inferior to men, and women must cover themselves to "avoid exciting" men, i.e. a removal of their bodily autonomy.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4027

Post by Tigzy »

decius wrote: I have nothing against mockery, which shouldn't be conflated with tasteless personal attacks, however.
But I'm certainly more interested in the quick restoration the 'movement' to its primeval ideology-free essence than to participate in slum-building for the sake of providing people with the kind of environment they prefer.
In other words, what we're doing isn't necessarily the best strategy for the greater goal.
:lol: - Jesus, you're a snooty git, aren't you!

In short - you're not finding the ambience of the pit suited to your more refined temperament. Oh well. Remind me not to forget the doily should I ever be in a position to present you with a salver of custard creams, Miss Haversham.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4028

Post by decius »

jimthepleb wrote: The pit is a deliberately provocative and edgy place, hence the adoption of the name that was intended as a smear. I doubt anyone who has come here hasn't had advance warning of what to expect, especially if they have come from FtB or A+. From what I have seen, most find the place to be completely unlike it's description elsewhere and many stay because there is intellectual and articulate debate occurring even if the number of swearwords and jokes might disguise that to the casual observer.
I agree. But the etymology of edgy suggests pushing envelopes, not crossing lines.

Can you name a potential benefit deriving from attacking the physical appearance of a mean-spirited ideological moron? Isn't she offering sufficient reasons for scorn as it were?
It's like mocking the Kim dynasty for their pot bellies and calling it satire.

However, I'm tired to consider these points. Yesterday, I practically argued the opposite position against our critics, who are much tougher cookies than the lot of you.

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4029

Post by ERV »

Lsuoma wrote:
welch wrote:
can someone tell me when being fucking ignorant of the world around you became cool?

I don't much care about football. Or the SB. But I know enough about it to know what is going on. Yeesh.
She's in Seattle, right?

She's probably still crying in her beer about how the Shitehawks fucked up against Atlanta.
Also about the Seattle Seahawks OKC Thunder THUNDERIN IT UP WHOOOOOOOOOOO! THUNDER!!!

jk I dont think shes a sports fan.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4030

Post by decius »

Tigzy wrote:
:lol: - Jesus, you're a snooty git, aren't you!

In short - you're not finding the ambience of the pit suited to your more refined temperament. Oh well. Remind me not to forget the doily should I ever be in a position to present you with a salver of custard creams, Miss Haversham.
"Snotty", sure. But "git" truly better suits you the likes of you, trust me.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4031

Post by cunt »

ERV wrote:
sacha wrote:Abbie!

Ricky Gervais needs you:
AIDS vs Rabies.png
HIV (not AIDS ;) ) wins, unquestionably. HIV is a sick-and-stick virus, slow burning so you can transmit as much as possible, vs Ebola with is sick-and-run. It burns out before real epidemics can occur, while HIV is a pandemic.
Probably a stupid question, but what determines that? Is it just that ebola is actually better at infecting surrounding cells?

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4032

Post by ERV »

cunt wrote:
ERV wrote:
sacha wrote:Abbie!

Ricky Gervais needs you:
AIDS vs Rabies.png
HIV (not AIDS ;) ) wins, unquestionably. HIV is a sick-and-stick virus, slow burning so you can transmit as much as possible, vs Ebola with is sick-and-run. It burns out before real epidemics can occur, while HIV is a pandemic.
Probably a stupid question, but what determines that? Is it just that ebola is actually better at infecting surrounding cells?
*shrug* Just a different survival strategy. There is nothing 'wrong' with ebola, or influenza for another example-- its just that the sick-and-stick viruses are 'better' at their job of infecting all of us. The less pathogenic, the better. We are all infected with herpes (chicken pox, mono, HSV-1 or 2), FOREVER. ERVs are in every damn person on this planet. The 'best' virus would infect all of us for life and rarely cause us any problems.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4033

Post by Tigzy »

Decius, if you ever find an atheist forum populated by carbolic scented Edwardian schoolmarms, I'd venture that you might find a happier home there.

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4034

Post by jimthepleb »

Skep tickle wrote:
jimthepleb wrote:PZ pontificates (again)
haven't watched so not sure what he is bullshitting about this time...
youtube g8auml0Zgk /youtube
That video not found - can you check the identifier & post it again?

Also, go ahead & tell us all about your judgment of the video, without having watched it. That's what PZ does, so it must be fine, right?
[youtube]-g8auml0Zgk[/youtube]

I made no judgement on the video, having not watched it, but i have become familiar with PZ's style and that he has been known to be less than honest when dealing with topics outside his immediate sphere of knowledge. But yeah it was a kneejerk comment for the lulz rather than a critique so i take your point.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4035

Post by decius »

Tigzy wrote:Decius, if you ever find an atheist forum populated by carbolic scented Edwardian schoolmarms, I'd venture that you might find a happier home there.
You see, it isn't that difficult. This one really cracked me up. :clap:

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4036

Post by Dick Strawkins »

decius wrote:
jimthepleb wrote: The pit is a deliberately provocative and edgy place, hence the adoption of the name that was intended as a smear. I doubt anyone who has come here hasn't had advance warning of what to expect, especially if they have come from FtB or A+. From what I have seen, most find the place to be completely unlike it's description elsewhere and many stay because there is intellectual and articulate debate occurring even if the number of swearwords and jokes might disguise that to the casual observer.
I agree. But the etymology of edgy suggests pushing envelopes, not crossing lines.

Can you name a potential benefit deriving from attacking the physical appearance of a mean-spirited ideological moron? Isn't she offering sufficient reasons for scorn as it were?
It's like mocking the Kim dynasty for their pot bellies and calling it satire.

However, I'm tired to consider these points. Yesterday, I practically argued the opposite position against our critics, who are much tougher cookies than the lot of you.
I don't think we are ever going to get complete agreement on this issue.
I am more convinced personally that we should avoid the fat or ugly jokes in favor of jokes about the behavior of our opponents, but there are bound to be times when someone goes for the cheap gag.
There's nothing sexist or racist about these types of jokes. They just don't tend to be very funny.
I am much more concerned about the reaction to the wowbaggerism (I think we need a specific expression for a statement that is basically a wish that something horribly nasty befalls an opponent - and using I-sincerely-hope-you-die-in-a-fire wowbagger to name the expression just seems to fit)

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4037

Post by Za-zen »

Welch are you on speed?

The coverage has kicked off, i've been a 49'ers fan ever since my uncle in philly (yeah i know i don't get it either) sent me a 49ers helmet, i was about seven.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4038

Post by Tigzy »

decius wrote: It's like mocking the Kim dynasty for their pot bellies and calling it satire.
When you consider the amount of starvation amongst the rural populace of NK, then I'd wager it was a necessity to mock the Kim dynasty for their pot bellies.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4039

Post by Tigzy »

decius wrote:
Tigzy wrote:Decius, if you ever find an atheist forum populated by carbolic scented Edwardian schoolmarms, I'd venture that you might find a happier home there.
You see, it isn't that difficult. This one really cracked me up. :clap:
For you, dear Decius, I didn't even have to try.

jimthepleb
.
.
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
Location: you kay?

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4040

Post by jimthepleb »

Tigzy wrote:
decius wrote: It's like mocking the Kim dynasty for their pot bellies and calling it satire.
When you consider the amount of starvation amongst the rural populace of NK, then I'd wager it was a necessity to mock the Kim dynasty for their pot bellies.
From Hogarth onwards the caricature has used the physical appearance of people in the public eye to satirise them. Why do you give the pearl-clutchers a free pass on this?

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Zvan

#4041

Post by justinvacula »

It is interesting that Stephanie would post the 'bad names' people call her and the photoshops ridiculing her. As many here know, not everyone here (including me) is a fan of ridicule or coarse language when addressing our detractors. Stephanie, though, makes it seem like everyone here is similar - although she's quite happy to reject the 'hivemind' ideas concerning Freethought Blogs.

It's the internet, Stephanie. It's going to happen regardless of what you talk about or what gender you identify with. If you share controversial opinions, it may be the case that you experience pushback...and it's not because you are a woman, either [I'm still waiting for some evidence as to how someone knows that women are targeted because they are women].

When you have a negative and dismissive attitude, when you launch/support campaigns of character attacks, when people say you are spreading lies...you're going to get pushback. Stephanie just doesn't get it and probably never will.

Even people who are nice and use mild language may experience pushback. Hell, in 2009, when I challenged a courthouse nativity scene and had it taken down, I got all sorts of nasty messages (and some threats, which are documented for all to see and were reported to campus security at the time).

When I was photoshopped and received hatred from Christians, I was mostly laughing at the hate and smiling just like Rebecca Watson does when she talks about the alleged 'hundreds of rape and death threats from atheists' that she, for whatever reason, won't make public. Hate, as I see it, proves my point because the persons have no argument and resort to personal attacks [although on the pit it seems like people have come to a conclusion that honest interaction is impossible because diplomacy and interaction continues to fail so they employ ridicule].

http://i.imgur.com/od4ceHy.png
http://rockintraddy.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... acula.html
(A photoshop from 'The Rockin Traddy' who described me as a 'dungeons and dragons playing, girlfriendless loser living in my mom's basement - a classic, really, I must say)

Stephanie and company just don't get it - even when they see the results of their online behavior. Post after post of the same propaganda, often making dubious allegations and demonizing men, seems to attract detractors who will say nasty things about them. Rather than changing what they do, they dial up the rhetoric and get similar results. Oh, woe is me, they say. Give me a break. They see it instead as 'people attack me because I am a woman and talk about feminism' while many women who talk about feminism do not get these 'attacks' directed at them. Surely there is a reason Stephanie and company are 'targets' while others are not.

I have very little compassion for them - and especially so because they have launched character attacks against me and friends of mine. At any time they can simply turn off the internet, stop blogging, stop the character attacks, etc, but they don't want to. They want the constant in-fighting. They initiate the in-fighting. Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole reason this forum exists is to respond to the nonsense. If there were nothing to respond to, this forum wouldn't exist...or otherwise wouldn't be responding to our detractors day in and day out when the next propaganda pieces comes out.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4042

Post by BarnOwl »

ERV wrote: There is nothing 'wrong' with ebola, or influenza for another example-- its just that the sick-and-stick viruses are 'better' at their job of infecting all of us. The less pathogenic, the better. We are all infected with herpes (chicken pox, mono, HSV-1 or 2), FOREVER. ERVs are in every damn person on this planet. The 'best' virus would infect all of us for life and rarely cause us any problems.
Chicken pox at age 6 ---> shingles at age 38. And I know exactly which dorsal root ganglion the virus is hanging out in.

Fucking anatomy ... how does it work??!!??

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4043

Post by decius »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
I don't think we are ever going to get complete agreement on this issue.
I am more convinced personally that we should avoid the fat or ugly jokes in favor of jokes about the behavior of our opponents, but there are bound to be times when someone goes for the cheap gag.
There's nothing sexist or racist about these types of jokes. They just don't tend to be very funny.
I am much more concerned about the reaction to the wowbaggerism (I think we need a specific expression for a statement that is basically a wish that something horribly nasty befalls an opponent - and using I-sincerely-hope-you-die-in-a-fire wowbagger to name the expression just seems to fit)
I fully agree.
However, it was worthwhile to expose our fellow pitters to the more fair criticism they are receiving from the same side of the barricade. Not that I entertained too much hope for it to be well received, mind you.

Zenspace
.
.
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:13 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4044

Post by Zenspace »

ERV wrote:
cunt wrote:
ERV wrote:
sacha wrote:Abbie!

Ricky Gervais needs you:
AIDS vs Rabies.png
HIV (not AIDS ;) ) wins, unquestionably. HIV is a sick-and-stick virus, slow burning so you can transmit as much as possible, vs Ebola with is sick-and-run. It burns out before real epidemics can occur, while HIV is a pandemic.
Probably a stupid question, but what determines that? Is it just that ebola is actually better at infecting surrounding cells?
*shrug* Just a different survival strategy. There is nothing 'wrong' with ebola, or influenza for another example-- its just that the sick-and-stick viruses are 'better' at their job of infecting all of us. The less pathogenic, the better. We are all infected with herpes (chicken pox, mono, HSV-1 or 2), FOREVER. ERVs are in every damn person on this planet. The 'best' virus would infect all of us for life and rarely cause us any problems.
Or, to put it in layman's (me!) terms, some virus' are so aggressive that they kill their hosts before they can spread effectively (ebola). Others, replicate without doind so much damage, or do it slowly enough they can replicate and spread throughout the nearby population (HIV).

Abbie - is this correct as a simplified explanation?

TheMan
.
.
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4045

Post by TheMan »

Git wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:correction, next to last line: 'they might feel "naked" if not clothed & adorned differently than they were raised to believe is acceptable).'
I'm more than happy to criticise any arbitrary and ridiculous "cultural" and "religious" restrictions (and have done so here often). The Islamic version is because in Islam women are deemed inferior to men, and women must cover themselves to "avoid exciting" men, i.e. a removal of their bodily autonomy.

Traditionally men are required to dress modestly too... http://southernmuslimah.wordpress.com/2 ... ress-code/
How many men actually follow these rules? How many dismiss them and think they aren’t that important? Often, the very same ones who dismiss their own dress codes are the most outspoken on the dress of women in Islam. Brothers need to wake up and take care to make sure they are dressed correctly. It is just as important that brothers follow the rulings as women. Also, men need to know, just because a woman is dressed provocitavely, letting it all hang out so to speak doesn’t give you the right to stare at her. The rules of lowering the gaze applies whether the woman is wearing a burqa or a bikini. Most brothers need to take care and remember that.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4046

Post by Scented Nectar »

ERV wrote:
cunt wrote:
ERV wrote:
sacha wrote:Abbie!

Ricky Gervais needs you:
AIDS vs Rabies.png
HIV (not AIDS ;) ) wins, unquestionably. HIV is a sick-and-stick virus, slow burning so you can transmit as much as possible, vs Ebola with is sick-and-run. It burns out before real epidemics can occur, while HIV is a pandemic.
Probably a stupid question, but what determines that? Is it just that ebola is actually better at infecting surrounding cells?
*shrug* Just a different survival strategy. There is nothing 'wrong' with ebola, or influenza for another example-- its just that the sick-and-stick viruses are 'better' at their job of infecting all of us. The less pathogenic, the better. We are all infected with herpes (chicken pox, mono, HSV-1 or 2), FOREVER. ERVs are in every damn person on this planet. The 'best' virus would infect all of us for life and rarely cause us any problems.
I think it was HIV vs rabies, not ebola.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4047

Post by decius »

jimthepleb wrote: From Hogarth onwards the caricature has used the physical appearance of people in the public eye to satirise them. Why do you give the pearl-clutchers a free pass on this?
We have our Hogarths. People like Jan Steen and the other fellow (was he Cunning Punt?).

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4048

Post by Lsuoma »

decius wrote:
jimthepleb wrote: From Hogarth onwards the caricature has used the physical appearance of people in the public eye to satirise them. Why do you give the pearl-clutchers a free pass on this?
We have our Hogarths. People like Jan Steen and the other fellow (was he Cunning Punt?).
Ape+Lust

JAB
.
.
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:04 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4049

Post by JAB »

BarnOwl wrote:
ERV wrote: There is nothing 'wrong' with ebola, or influenza for another example-- its just that the sick-and-stick viruses are 'better' at their job of infecting all of us. The less pathogenic, the better. We are all infected with herpes (chicken pox, mono, HSV-1 or 2), FOREVER. ERVs are in every damn person on this planet. The 'best' virus would infect all of us for life and rarely cause us any problems.
Chicken pox at age 6 ---> shingles at age 38. And I know exactly which dorsal root ganglion the virus is hanging out in.

Fucking anatomy ... how does it work??!!??
There's a shot for that now.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4050

Post by BarnOwl »

welch wrote:
can someone tell me when being fucking ignorant of the world around you became cool?

I don't much care about football. Or the SB. But I know enough about it to know what is going on. Yeesh.
A disinjennious tweet, I suspect ... you'd have to eschew most USAian media, to be a Merkin and to fail to realize that the SuperBowl is today. She's obviously not unaware of US popular cultural trends, and I doubt she's had her eyeballs glued to PubMed or Google Scholar all week.

I don't much care about American football any more either, and I realize that the vast majority of human beings on this planet don't give a rat's arse about it either. But from US public radio (and even the BBC programs aired thereon), internet news outlets, and listening to people at work as sources, it's readily apparent that there's a) a Super Bowl today, b) the San Francisco 49ers and Baltimore Ravens are playing, and c) the head coaches of the opposing teams are brothers.

Good time to go to the gym, actually - won't be crowded at all. :mrgreen:

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: "Deep Rifts!"

#4051

Post by Steersman »

FWIW since Thibeault isn’t likely to let this out of moderation at his place:
Jason Thibeault said (#57):
Jason Thibeault wrote:
Steersman wrote:it is egregiously bad logic if not bad judgement to use Shermer’s statement as an “example” of sexism unless you and she and Christina and Brayton and Myers, et al., have first proven that the statement so qualifies. Which I note you have declined the challenge to do so.
That’s because it’s self-evident. “You know, it’s more of a guy thing.”

Unless “guy” means “person”, and Shermer was NOT describing why there are apparently more guys in vocal skepticism than girls, I don’t know how you could cut it any other way.
Right – “self-evident” the way it was self-evident that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe – you might want to take a look at the Wikipedia article on “conventional wisdom”. Unless you can prove that his statement meets the requirements of the definition for sexism – i.e., “discrimination based on gender”; or “attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping” – methinks you’re just blowing smoke. Isn’t it supposed to be the hallmark of skeptics to ask for and provide evidence? Why is it that no one has addressed that challenge?

As for “why there are more guys in vocal skepticism than girls”, I don’t think there is any doubt that he was referring to “males” and not “persons” – “gerbils” hardly seems a plausible alternative. And while I’ll concede that his statement is somewhat of a tautology – there are more guys in atheism because there are more guys in atheism, it also contains a grain of truth and useful information. For instance, the same way that – fact – “[being in prison], it’s more of a guy thing” says something about men as opposed to women. Or similarly, as Pinker might have phrased it [from my previously linked article], “[viewing pornography; purchasing the services of prostitutes], it’s more of a guy thing”. And a state of affairs which is not at all detracted from or contradicted by the facts that there are some women who are in prison and some women who hire prostitutes. You, and many others, apparently have some difficulty with recognizing that any given attribute is a spectrum with a varying distribution by sex: most men are larger than most women, but some women are larger than some men; you really should try reading that article of Pinker’s as he has a very good description of that concept.

However, I will concede that “maleness” is unlikely to be the entire explanation for any given gender disparity – culture does have some influence on our behaviours. But I very much object to the idea and argument that genetics – nature – has no influence on those disparities.
Jason Thibeault wrote:The null hypothesis here, faced with a statement so cut and dry about one sex being superior to another in some regard, is that it’s sexist — that’s the plain English reading of the phrasing. I don’t know of anything but the most tortured explanations that might suggest that it’s NOT sexist. What are your explanations?
Apart from the barenaked fact that “you” are the ones who have made the claim so you should be the ones obliged to prove it, why is it such a hard thing for you, and others, to wrap your head around the fact that there might be some innate “superiorities” – on average – due to sex? Although one might argue that that is because you are unable to recognize that the superiority of one individual in a sex relative to another individual in the other sex – Male M1 is stronger than female F1 – hardly justifies concluding that all males are stronger than all females. Once again, I strongly recommend reading that article of Pinker’s, but I’ll close for the moment with a few relevant quotes that shows that some women are going to be “superior” to some men in some areas:
Pinker wrote:Men and women have all the same genes except for a handful on the Y chromosome, and their brains are so similar that it takes an eagle-eyed neuroanatomist to find the small differences between them. Their average levels of general intelligence are the same, according to the best psychometric estimates, and they use language and think about the physical and living world in the same general way.

But of course the minds of men and women are not identical, and recent reviews of sex differences have converged on some reliable differences. Sometimes the differences are large, with only slight overlap in the bell curves. Men have a much stronger taste for no-strings sex with multiple or anonymous partners, as we see in the almost all-male consumer base for prostitution and visual pornography.

With some other traits the differences are small on average but can be large at the extremes. …. Along the left tail of the curve, one finds that boys are far more likely to be dyslexic, learning disabled, attention deficient, emotionally disturbed, and mentally retarded (at least for some types of retardation). At the right tail, one finds that in a sample of talented students who score above 700 (out of 800) on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Assessment Test, boys outnumber girls by thirteen to one, even though the scores of boys and girls are similar within the bulk of the curve.

With still other traits, the average values for the two sexes differ by smaller amounts and in different directions for different traits. Though men, on average, are better at mentally rotating objects and maps, women are better at remembering landmarks and the positions of objects. Men are better throwers; women are more dexterous. Men are better at solving mathematical word problems, women at mathematical calculation. Women are more sensitive to sounds and smells, have better depth perception, match shapes faster, and are much better at reading facial expressions and body language. Women are better spellers, retrieve words more fluently, and have a better memory for verbal material. ….
But to summarize, to say – as justified by the above – “[dyslexic], it’s more of a guy thing” is a perfectly true statement, but it does not at all, in the slightest, qualify as a sexist comment.
Jason: if you have any balls you might want to try to demonstrate where the foregoing exhibits any of the “antisocial behaviour” that you apparently use to lay-on with the “banhammer”, frequently with very little justification - even if you’re unprepared or unwilling to address the points raised.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4052

Post by Dick Strawkins »

decius wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
I don't think we are ever going to get complete agreement on this issue.
I am more convinced personally that we should avoid the fat or ugly jokes in favor of jokes about the behavior of our opponents, but there are bound to be times when someone goes for the cheap gag.
There's nothing sexist or racist about these types of jokes. They just don't tend to be very funny.
I am much more concerned about the reaction to the wowbaggerism (I think we need a specific expression for a statement that is basically a wish that something horribly nasty befalls an opponent - and using I-sincerely-hope-you-die-in-a-fire wowbagger to name the expression just seems to fit)
I fully agree.
However, it was worthwhile to expose our fellow pitters to the more fair criticism they are receiving from the same side of the barricade. Not that I entertained too much hope for it to be well received, mind you.
You might not get praised for calling for less jokes based on physical appearance but that doesn't mean it isn't having an effect.

Look at things in terms of the evidence.
Svan is almost universally hated on this site.
She lies, labels people misogynists just for disagreeing with her, organizes campaigns that target peoples jobs, and supports threats of violence by allies on her opponents.
She is quite simply a toxic influence on the entire skeptic movement.
Now, go through the number of jokes about Svan on the slymepit and compare it to the number of jokes about Peezus.
Or look at the number of jokes about Laden (for example the pictures of him looking like a penis)
In my opinions we have gone easy on the physical jokes against her.

Svan, if you are reading this I have only one thing to say to you:

"Get off the rag and kiss my ass"

(It's not a request, I just want to know if you still support this line from Greg...)

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4053

Post by Tigzy »

LMFAO @ Pruney's latest post.

She's trying to make the point that Justin Vacula is mistaken in thinking that actual radical feminists do not believe that the patriarchy - and all it entails - are largely responsible for womens' ills:
There’s Vacula’s definition for example.
Secular Woman is an organization, launched in June of 2012, which aims to “amplify the voice, presence, and influence of non-religious woman.” I was initially supportive of the organization and helped promote it because I had hoped that this organization would provide a fresh breath of air to the discussion about women’s issues – something much different than what many have already heard from the likes of radical or gender feminists in the secular community who seem to believe that men, ‘the patriarchy,’ and misogyny are responsible for all or most of the problems women face.
Mmm. Yeh. Except we don’t.
However, the word 'radical' in JV's excerpt links to this:
Radical feminism is a current perspective within feminism that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy[1] oppresses women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

Apparently blithely unaware of this link, Pruney goes on to pronounce:
A straw definition if ever I saw one. I don’t talk about “the patriarchy” for example; I don’t even talk about it much without the definite article. I also don’t think anything as stupid or crude or off the mark as that. I don’t think even actual radical feminists think anything as stupid as that.
:lol: So who's strawmanning here, Ophelia? Justin Vacula, or wikipedia?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ural-crap/

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4054

Post by BarnOwl »

JAB wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:
ERV wrote: There is nothing 'wrong' with ebola, or influenza for another example-- its just that the sick-and-stick viruses are 'better' at their job of infecting all of us. The less pathogenic, the better. We are all infected with herpes (chicken pox, mono, HSV-1 or 2), FOREVER. ERVs are in every damn person on this planet. The 'best' virus would infect all of us for life and rarely cause us any problems.
Chicken pox at age 6 ---> shingles at age 38. And I know exactly which dorsal root ganglion the virus is hanging out in.

Fucking anatomy ... how does it work??!!??
There's a shot for that now.
Yeah, slight problem with that for me. The vaccine is readily available now, and I'm a good candidate for it, but if you're under 60 (as I am), you need a physician's note to get it. The records of my (so far) only shingles outbreak were destroyed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Possibly they could be recovered somehow, but I haven't been able to contact the physician who diagnosed and treated the shingles.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4055

Post by justinvacula »

Ophelia admits the patriarchy is a stupid idea. Good for her :)

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4056

Post by justinvacula »

Ophelia should really check out RADFEMhub.

http://radicalhub.com/

Just an except from their 101 page:
Handmaidens of the patriarchy
In real life, and as mirrored in media images, women often police other women’s behaviors, dress, or life choices and situations, engage in girl-fighting, handmaidensplain to other women how to shift their perspective to a more male-centric one or why a woman-centric perspective is wrong, and otherwise enforce patriarchal mandates on themselves and others. For example, girls or women might fight with each other over an individual man, while never acknowledging the possibility of eschewing all men and PIV-centric sexuality altogether; or a mother might be hypercritical of her daughter’s appearance, and enforce femininity or fuckability, while the father might stay silent or even disagree that the mother’s actions or values are appropriate.

Why? Because…

Handmaidens of the patriarchy support male power. By getting women to do patriarchy’s dirty work, the patriarchal agenda is advanced even within female-only or female-dominated spaces, such as the household and female friendships, and there is simply nowhere for girls and women to go to get away. When women do this to each other, it appears as if girls and women have meaningful power over each other, or over their own lives, or that men are individually or collectively kind, benign or blameless compared to women, when none of these things is true. In reality, patriarchal mandates, all of them, regardless of who enforces them, benefit men and men only; girls and women who are stuck in patriarchal families, workplaces and communities are almost completely powerless to radically change patriarchal mandates or the anti-woman, pro-patriarchy value system, or to create a culture to benefit themselves. This dynamic of the female patriarchal enforcer invisiblizes who has the real power, what that power looks like, where it comes from, and how it is used: namely, men have power that they frequently wield over women, and use it abusively; it is sexual, physical, economic, and structural; and they get it from other men and male-centric institutions, and by abusing women through economic coercion and sexual violence, and decreasing women’s power through sex-based discrimination. See also Harm reduction/refusal to name the agent; Mansplaining/women’s perspective is wrong.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4057

Post by Tigzy »

justinvacula wrote:Ophelia admits the patriarchy is a stupid idea. Good for her :)
Seems that only the Not True Radfems believe in patriarcy theory. :D

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4058

Post by Za-zen »

The problem with talking about feminism is the same thing we encountered with atheismplus and is the very exact same thing we've been dealing with xtians for aslong as i've been attempting to nail down exactly what the fuck they believe. Each one has a brand new definition for their feminism/christianity/atheismplus. We do have a term for it; no true scotsman.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4059

Post by Steersman »

justinvacula wrote:Ophelia admits the patriarchy is a stupid idea. Good for her :)
It’s a start. But I won’t begin holding my breath until she repudiates this:
Ophelia Benson wrote:Connecting the word “feminism” with the word “virulent” … is misogyny.

JAB
.
.
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:04 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4060

Post by JAB »

Why do you need to have had shingles... I just had to have had chicken pox, and I'm not even sure I'd have to prove that since just about everybody here got them when I was a kid. I was told about it recently and will likely get it my next time at the doctors and I haven't had shingles yet.

ShadowOfTheWickerman
.
.
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:59 pm
Location: LA, CA

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4061

Post by ShadowOfTheWickerman »

Ophelia Benson wrote:Connecting the word “feminism” with the word “virulent” … is misogyny.
[youtube][/youtube]

Hemisphere
.
.
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:49 pm
Location: UK

Re: "Deep Rifts!"

#4062

Post by Hemisphere »

Steersman wrote:FWIW since Thibeault isn’t likely to let this out of moderation at his place:

<snip>

Jason: if you have any balls you might want to try to demonstrate where the foregoing exhibits any of the “antisocial behaviour” that you apparently use to lay-on with the “banhammer”, frequently with very little justification - even if you’re unprepared or unwilling to address the points raised.
Bravo. That entire post was excellent.

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4063

Post by JackSkeptic »

Za-zen wrote:The problem with talking about feminism is the same thing we encountered with atheismplus and is the very exact same thing we've been dealing with xtians for aslong as i've been attempting to nail down exactly what the fuck they believe. Each one has a brand new definition for their feminism/christianity/atheismplus. We do have a term for it; no true scotsman.
Exactly, so as far as they are concerned they have the one true Feminism and there is no other. Therefore if you are not a follower, even if you are a self described Feminist, you are automatically a misogynist.

It is extremely unsophisticated which is why it is so easy to laugh at.

incognito
.
.
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:47 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4064

Post by incognito »

Is "invisiblizes" a real word?

ShadowOfTheWickerman
.
.
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:59 pm
Location: LA, CA

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4065

Post by ShadowOfTheWickerman »

You didn't get to the best part, Vacula/

From radicalhub:
PIV-centric narrative
In real life, and as mirrored in media images, penis-in-vagina sex (PIV) or “intercourse” comprises the totality or majority of heterosexuality, including women’s sexuality, despite women having reported for centuries that intercourse is not their preferred sex act. Intercourse also has reproductive consequences to female-bodied persons, and is therefore uniquely harmful to women who engage in it when they do not wish to become pregnant. Normalizing intercourse and normalizing and invisiblizing the harms of intercourse through media images is accomplished through a complicated multi-faceted narrative which is particularly insidious. The details of the narrative are important individually and collectively and are given thorough treatment here.

Why? Because…

PIV and PIV-centric sexuality support male power. Intercourse and its attendant female-specific reproductive harm is the source of terrible suffering for women all around the world. While some women may experience pleasure from intercourse, many do not; regardless, intercourse always occurs against a backdrop of institutional and interpersonal misogyny and includes extreme physical and emotional risks to women, who are both more vulnerable to disease transmission than are men via PIV, and where women and only women experience pregnancy, including unwanted and ambivalent pregnancy. Intercourse is a harmful cultural practice which harms women and benefits men, as women are frequently removed from the public sphere, whilst they spend time, energy and resources dealing with intercourse-related complications, leaving opportunities and resources for men to share amongst themselves.

The harmful consequences of intercourse to female-bodied persons are clear. Even in this day and age, some 500,000 women continue to die globally each year due to complications from pregnancy. Many more are made gravely ill or are permanently injured, often being left to suffer the rest of their lives with obstetric fistulas which leave the women incontinent of urine and/or feces, for which they are abandoned by their husbands and families. All of this female suffering, every bit of it, is due to the reproductive consequences to women of mandatory PIV and rape. And where almost all instances of rape include PIV, normalizing PIV also serves to normalize rape: we are expected to accept that penises belong in vaginas regardless of context, and where the reproductive harms of PIV as well as the political and coercive context of all PIV under conditions of patriarchy are routinely ignored.

Intercourse being central, necessary or even included in female sexual pleasure is ahistorical, acontextual, and dependent on consumerist “first world” conveniences and harm-reduction strategies such as hormonal and other birth control devices and products which are dangerous themselves, and less than 100% effective. To call intercourse “sex” or conflate it with women’s or even men’s sexual pleasure is not merely misguided, but rather, a deliberate and effective means of normalizing female submission and suffering and increasing men’s individual and collective power. Because PIV and its attendant harms affect all women, across time and place, and is central to our suffering and our political and interpersonal standing, and because men’s political and interpersonal standing increase as ours decrease, intercourse should rightly be seen as the foundation of patriarchy itself.

Regardless of the wishful-thinking of — and deliberate obfuscation by — some liberals and feminists, intercourse continues to be very much a political act and a political institution that is supportive of male power: the “Big 3″ of the patriarchal institutions, namely, medicine, religion and law, all attach to women’s bodies and women’s lives at the moment of conception, where the same oppressive controls never attach to men’s bodies and men’s lives. The direct correlation and causation between intercourse and formal, institutional and often state control of women is obvious, and deliberate, and is obviously supportive of male power, but the political implications of intercourse are never addressed (except by radical feminists) and have yet to be remedied. Indeed, when the many ways intercourse benefits men are revealed, and when it is accepted that the relationship between intercourse and patriarchal institutional control of women is deliberate, and meant to harm women and to support male power, it seems unlikely that the harms will ever be remedied under patriarchy because men like things the way they are. And although politically-active women and radical feminists have been doing intercourse-critical work for decades, anyone who continues to address it continues to be shunned and marginalized, and the long history of this work is all but erased.
TLDR: Straight sex is unnatural, and part of a male conspiracy against women.

incognito
.
.
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:47 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4066

Post by incognito »

JAB wrote:Why do you need to have had shingles... I just had to have had chicken pox, and I'm not even sure I'd have to prove that since just about everybody here got them when I was a kid. I was told about it recently and will likely get it my next time at the doctors and I haven't had shingles yet.
They usually only give it to people over 60 because it's pretty rare in younger people.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: "Deep Rifts!"

#4067

Post by Steersman »

Hemisphere wrote:
Steersman wrote:FWIW since Thibeault isn’t likely to let this out of moderation at his place:

<snip>

Jason: if you have any balls you might want to try to demonstrate where the foregoing exhibits any of the “antisocial behaviour” that you apparently use to lay-on with the “banhammer”, frequently with very little justification - even if you’re unprepared or unwilling to address the points raised.
Bravo. That entire post was excellent.
Thanks.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4068

Post by Dick Strawkins »

justinvacula wrote:Ophelia should really check out RADFEMhub.

http://radicalhub.com/

Just an except from their 101 page:
Handmaidens of the patriarchy
In real life, and as mirrored in media images, women often police other women’s behaviors, dress, or life choices and situations, engage in girl-fighting, handmaidensplain to other women how to shift their perspective to a more male-centric one or why a woman-centric perspective is wrong, and otherwise enforce patriarchal mandates on themselves and others. For example, girls or women might fight with each other over an individual man, while never acknowledging the possibility of eschewing all men and PIV-centric sexuality altogether; or a mother might be hypercritical of her daughter’s appearance, and enforce femininity or fuckability, while the father might stay silent or even disagree that the mother’s actions or values are appropriate.

Why? Because…

Handmaidens of the patriarchy support male power. By getting women to do patriarchy’s dirty work, the patriarchal agenda is advanced even within female-only or female-dominated spaces, such as the household and female friendships, and there is simply nowhere for girls and women to go to get away. When women do this to each other, it appears as if girls and women have meaningful power over each other, or over their own lives, or that men are individually or collectively kind, benign or blameless compared to women, when none of these things is true. In reality, patriarchal mandates, all of them, regardless of who enforces them, benefit men and men only; girls and women who are stuck in patriarchal families, workplaces and communities are almost completely powerless to radically change patriarchal mandates or the anti-woman, pro-patriarchy value system, or to create a culture to benefit themselves. This dynamic of the female patriarchal enforcer invisiblizes who has the real power, what that power looks like, where it comes from, and how it is used: namely, men have power that they frequently wield over women, and use it abusively; it is sexual, physical, economic, and structural; and they get it from other men and male-centric institutions, and by abusing women through economic coercion and sexual violence, and decreasing women’s power through sex-based discrimination. See also Harm reduction/refusal to name the agent; Mansplaining/women’s perspective is wrong.
It is very interesting to read that page.
You start to realize the origin of all the SJW language that has infected the skeptical community in the past two years - it's all from here. All the mansplainin', privilege, rape-culture, patriarchy etc.
A couple of years ago if someone said something sexist they were still called out on it. But after elevatorgate the language changed and the various SJW and radfem terms took over the conversation.
As for Ophelia explaining feminism, I wouldn't bother listening;Ophelia isn't a serious feminist - she just playe one on the internet.
You would be better going to read Libby Anne over on Patheos.
Windy linked this piece the other day.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... ology.html

incognito
.
.
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:47 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4069

Post by incognito »

ShadowOfTheWickerman wrote:You didn't get to the best part, Vacula/


TLDR: Straight sex is unnatural, and part of a male conspiracy against women.
WOW!

That is really...something else. :shock:

Dan
.
.
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:09 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4070

Post by Dan »

decius wrote:
Dan wrote:
Maybe you could start a new forum with your set of rules to attract these other atheists. You could even give it a Latin name like Altus Equine
That would be equus altus.
Perfect :dance:

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4071

Post by Submariner »

incognito wrote:
ShadowOfTheWickerman wrote:You didn't get to the best part, Vacula/


TLDR: Straight sex is unnatural, and part of a male conspiracy against women.
WOW!

That is really...something else. :shock:

Ok. That was fucking hard to read.

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4072

Post by ERV »

Scented Nectar wrote:
ERV wrote:
cunt wrote:
ERV wrote:
sacha wrote:Abbie!

Ricky Gervais needs you:
AIDS vs Rabies.png
HIV (not AIDS ;) ) wins, unquestionably. HIV is a sick-and-stick virus, slow burning so you can transmit as much as possible, vs Ebola with is sick-and-run. It burns out before real epidemics can occur, while HIV is a pandemic.
Probably a stupid question, but what determines that? Is it just that ebola is actually better at infecting surrounding cells?
*shrug* Just a different survival strategy. There is nothing 'wrong' with ebola, or influenza for another example-- its just that the sick-and-stick viruses are 'better' at their job of infecting all of us. The less pathogenic, the better. We are all infected with herpes (chicken pox, mono, HSV-1 or 2), FOREVER. ERVs are in every damn person on this planet. The 'best' virus would infect all of us for life and rarely cause us any problems.
I think it was HIV vs rabies, not ebola.
Oh! Then even easier-- Humans are a dead-end host for Rabies. Epic loss to HIV. :)

incognito
.
.
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:47 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4073

Post by incognito »

HPVs are amazingly successful. Most people have their own invisible microflora of them.

JAB
.
.
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:04 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4074

Post by JAB »

incognito wrote:
JAB wrote:Why do you need to have had shingles... I just had to have had chicken pox, and I'm not even sure I'd have to prove that since just about everybody here got them when I was a kid. I was told about it recently and will likely get it my next time at the doctors and I haven't had shingles yet.
They usually only give it to people over 60 because it's pretty rare in younger people.
I haven't had shingles yet but my son, age 33, spent new years eve with one eye pretty much closed from a bout of it. They put him on some sort of antiviral to help protect his eye and he seems fine now. My ex told me then about the shot and then my doctor brought it up when i was in for my diabetic checkup this week. (hi Al) I'm 54. It seems to be the new thing that our govt health plan is pushing right now.

JAB
.
.
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:04 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4075

Post by JAB »

Submariner wrote:
incognito wrote:
ShadowOfTheWickerman wrote:You didn't get to the best part, Vacula/


TLDR: Straight sex is unnatural, and part of a male conspiracy against women.
WOW!

That is really...something else. :shock:

Ok. That was fucking hard to read.
Has no one ever explained to them that they owe their existense to a particular session of PIV sex? Patriarchy be praised!

comslave
.
.
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:30 am

Re: Zvan

#4076

Post by comslave »

justinvacula wrote:It is interesting that Stephanie would post the 'bad names' people call her and the photoshops ridiculing her. As many here know, not everyone here (including me) is a fan of ridicule or coarse language when addressing our detractors. Stephanie, though, makes it seem like everyone here is similar - although she's quite happy to reject the 'hivemind' ideas concerning Freethought Blogs.

It's the internet, Stephanie. It's going to happen regardless of what you talk about or what gender you identify with. If you share controversial opinions, it may be the case that you experience pushback...and it's not because you are a woman, either [I'm still waiting for some evidence as to how someone knows that women are targeted because they are women].
In my opinion I think the issue is being judged on a results based metric. These women anticipate a specific desirable result from their efforts, and when that result does not occur, Patriarchyâ„¢, misogyny, etc... This is why evidence is not necessary in their mind. The evidence is that their elevated expectations of woreship was not realized. Her evidence was she was treated like any other human on the net, and not to the chorus of adulation she envisioned.

ShadowOfTheWickerman
.
.
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:59 pm
Location: LA, CA

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4077

Post by ShadowOfTheWickerman »

ERV wrote: Oh! Then even easier-- Humans are a dead-end host for Rabies. Epic loss to HIV. :)
So HIV could heave been in humans all along unnoticed until current modern medical technology?

Oh, and PUPPY!

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4078

Post by Skep tickle »

JAB wrote:Why do you need to have had shingles... I just had to have had chicken pox, and I'm not even sure I'd have to prove that since just about everybody here got them when I was a kid. I was told about it recently and will likely get it my next time at the doctors and I haven't had shingles yet.
In US, Zostavax (shingles vaccine) is FDA-approved for people age 50 & up, but the ACIP (Adult Council on Immunization Practices, of the CDC) has only advised it for age 60 & up, so insurances typically won't cover it for people younger than 60. The vaccine costs ~$200 (for 1 dose).

It's a live weakened virus that boosts immunity to varicella zoster virus. It doesn't completely prevent shingles; pre-approval studies found reduction in risk of shingles is 40% for ages 60-69, 25% for ages 70-79, and 10% for ages 80-89. However, even when it doesn't prevent shingles, the shingles outbreak tends to be much less painful (or even not painful), which is an amazing thing.

It's not clear that Zostavax is more protective than having had a shingles outbreak w/in the last 2 yrs, but the protection from Zostavax lasts longer.

(There might be newer info on some of this; this is my brain dump on the info I currently use in the office when counseling pts on the vaccine.)

incognito
.
.
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:47 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4079

Post by incognito »

ShadowOfTheWickerman wrote:
ERV wrote: Oh! Then even easier-- Humans are a dead-end host for Rabies. Epic loss to HIV. :)
So HIV could heave been in humans all along unnoticed until current modern medical technology?
No. Babies/children who are infected with it as fetuses die from it quickly (usually before age 5 without antiretroviral treatment.) SIV (chimp version of HIV, direct ancestor of HIV) could have crossed over and wiped out a few isolated tribes before in the past without being documented, though.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#4080

Post by welch »

decius wrote:
welch wrote: so they're only allies when we act as they wish?
I don't recall any of them wishing to impose anything on anyone. They are only exercising their right of criticism and free association. I can definitely see their point and I'm not afraid to admit as much here.
So we've lost nothing.

Locked