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

[jimthepleb]

Fuck you, assbag.

What the fuck is an "assbag" anyway? Is it something you wear to hide your a/ss/rse out of shame, or to utilize your a/ss/rse for its intended purpose on the go. Or more horribly, is it something that painfully protrudes from your a/ss/rse after an ill-advised clean-and-jerk (I'm talking weightlifting here. Don't even go there). I'm at a loss.

This:
http://www.personalwellnessconsultant.c ... ma-bag.jpg

[Reap]

To anyone concerned. I have made it clear to Lee Moore that no one person is qualified to speak for the slymepit. His lack of a better term referring to opposition of FTB was probably why there was some confusion. I wasn't aware that was the way it was being presented. I only speak for me and I have never claimed otherwise. I understand that some idiots are probably going to make the mistake of assuming anyone who is a member of this forum and speaks in public is speaking for the entire forum there isn't much can be done about that except make it clear that isn't the case.

How could anyone speak for the slymepit? We are so diverse that we can't talk about friggin' bread without having a fight.

Exactly.

Fuck you, assbag.

Suck it..yea you like that don't cha?

[cunt]

Imagine this, but with a white background and a gumby figure in the background.

I suppose for some, it is, just as some skeptics base their position on a desire to feel superior to stupid people.

[Mykeru]

So, what we've got is:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

2. Abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses/theories and discontinue the use of "studies" and "scholarly papers", which assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise, as evidence.

3. It could be helpful to require that they define some of their terms. For example feminism (A radical notion... or ?), misogyny (Hatred of all women, or ?), patriarchy (A nation or group whose leaders are a majority male, or ?) etc. Choosing whatever terms are relevant to the topic of the discussion.

My caveat is that #3 should be applicable where they claim that someone is "anti". That is to say, in order to claim somone is "anti-feminist" they have to provide a clear definition of feminism where that claim is applicable.

Maybe we need a thread for this?

[cunt]

Nah, Myers would never stoop to something so low as to constantly debate the existence of bigfoot. His eye is on the prize, proving that Ken Ham's illustrations of people riding dinosaurs are bullshit.

[another lurker]

Imagine this, but with a white background and a gumby figure in the background.

I suppose for some, it is, just as some skeptics base their position on a desire to feel superior to stupid people.

I was just thinking about this. I was 'arguing' with idiots on yahoo comments, and feeling all 'superior' to people who cannot manage to type without contradicting their own stances. Ok, to be honest, I don't reallly feel 'superior'. I don't even feel superior when I call them 'fools'. I'm not very good at being mean, or hateful. I *try* really hard, to hit them with incisive, biting commentary, but I feel that I fall short. My heart just isn't in it.

And then I thought about all of the mean, hateful comments on FTB and A+. These people are *pros* at the put-down.

Take cunt's sig for example "You are a bad person. You say horrible things and you should feel bad about yourself."

The entire point is to shame and upset the target of the insult. To make them fucking *hate* themselves. These people are in it b/c they love to draw blood. And then they love to skull-fuck their adversary into oblivion. Their egos are so fragile that they must constantly fluff 'em up by being mean on the internet.

This is probably one of the many reasons why they were so nasty to me over 'grammar gate'. Any chance to make someone squirm...they just cannot resist!

[Metalogic42]

Ok, serious contribution: Addendum to 2 - *require* actual studies and scholarly papers which do not assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise.

[LMU]

Ok, serious contribution: Addendum to 2 - *require* actual studies and scholarly papers which do not assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise.

Just made a thread! http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=250

[d4m10n]

We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.

Example:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.

What other conditions?

2. Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0

[Zenspace]

My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.

And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.

And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.

repeating my previous question lsuoma, can a minor give permission to release her info without her parents say so?
I've stayed out of this brouhaha until now, but it's beginning to look like she is some sort of agent provocateur.

I've avoided the whole Eucliwood thing, but maybe it is time to add my two bits.

1) I have not blocked s/h/it's posts, but stopped reading them a long time ago (thank you, whoever invented the scrollwheel). Aside from their general pointlessness, there is just some odd quality, a subtle multiple personality sort of thing, that just sets off my alarms. There is something not right there. Someone mentioned their suspicions that s/h/it is really an adult male acting out and my take has very much that sort of feel. I just start to itch all over.

2) Do NOT take the potential reality the s/h/it is actually a minor of either sex lightly. The threat of legal ramifications to your personal self are very real and life changing in a really bad and permanent way.

I have indirect experience in this in that a former online associate (never met IRL) was entrapped by a police sting, pretending to be a teen girl. The associate agreed to meet 'her' IRL, supposedly to teach her what a bad idea meeting online strangers was, but who knows. He was met by a squad of police instead. The result. Job: gone. Family: no updates, but likely gone as well. Including his own kids, whom he was prevented from seeing unsupervised, and then only rarely. Communication: gone. Forbidden from any web access at all. Forced to shut down blog, etc., cut off from online friends - the main reason updates stopped. Status: permanently sex offender registry as pedophile. We happened to know someone in the area who did us the favor of stopping by for some of the court hearings. This is how we were able to learn as much as we know. Describing the guy as devastated does not begin to cover it.

In other words, he is Fucked For Life.

Lsuoma is playing it smart and by the book here. I would be careful with that release of personal info as others have noted here, however. Given the open nature of the Pyt and the importance we attach to that, I fully appreciate the reluctance to ban someone, but some circumstances do require it. Personally, I have not and will not engage in any way with Eucliwood. Period.

This has been a public service announcement. Please carry on.

[Dick Strawkins]

We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.

Example:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.

What other conditions?

2. Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0

3. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden when he threatened to punch one of his commenters, Becca, in the face, and told her to "get off the rag and kiss my ass".

[cunt]

Imagine this, but with a white background and a gumby figure in the background.

I suppose for some, it is, just as some skeptics base their position on a desire to feel superior to stupid people.

I was just thinking about this. I was 'arguing' with idiots on yahoo comments, and feeling all 'superior' to people who cannot manage to type without contradicting their own stances. Ok, to be honest, I don't reallly feel 'superior'. I don't even feel superior when I call them 'fools'. I'm not very good at being mean, or hateful. I *try* really hard, to hit them with incisive, biting commentary, but I feel that I fall short. My heart just isn't in it.

And then I thought about all of the mean, hateful comments on FTB and A+. These people are *pros* at the put-down.

Take cunt's sig for example "You are a bad person. You say horrible things and you should feel bad about yourself."

The entire point is to shame and upset the target of the insult. To make them fucking *hate* themselves. These people are in it b/c they love to draw blood. And then they love to skull-fuck their adversary into oblivion. Their egos are so fragile that they must constantly fluff 'em up by being mean on the internet.

This is probably one of the many reasons why they were so nasty to me over 'grammar gate'. Any chance to make someone squirm...they just cannot resist!

It really is just the sheer hypocrisy that gets me every time. Myers has posted how many blog-posts now? Sometimes 3 to 4 a day for years if not decades. Most of which have been to point out a, frankly obvious, piece of stupidity from the creationists or just the american religious right. Oh yeah, i'll gumby quote this one up good, stick in a few snarky comments and post.

Now he thinks thats just beneath him, and its only other people who have the superiority complex.

[UnbelieveSteve]

We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.

Example:

1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).

Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.

What other conditions?

THIS 8^10 TIMES :clap:

[Dick Strawkins]

As for Eucliwood.
You have no real choice.
She's only got herself to blame (and by "she", I mean the weird thirty-something year old man who is getting his kicks by impersonating a teenage girl online.)

[UnbelieveSteve]

3. All future blog posts must include at least 500 original words. (ha!)

Fucken love this rule. Oh wait a minute. Didn't OB struggle with 6 original words the other day?

[Metalogic42]

3. All future blog posts must include at least 500 original words. (ha!)

Fucken love this rule. Oh wait a minute. Didn't OB struggle with 6 original words the other day?

If by "the other day", you mean "every day", then yes. :lol:

[lurking coward]

Hasn't it always been said that

science makes no comment on the supernatural

- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.

Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).

Just ask Uri Geller.

Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).

[jimthepleb]

3. All future blog posts must include at least 500 original words. (ha!)

Fucken love this rule. Oh wait a minute. Didn't OB struggle with 6 original words the other day?

If by "the other day", you mean "every day", then yes. :lol:

to my knowledge OB has only ever written one original word, and she tried to attribute that to us.
The notorious 'rebitchka' that never was? Every other word she has written was previously extant.
(takes pedantic arsehole hat off and puts racist hat back on)

[Apples]

Nah, Myers would never stoop to something so low as to constantly debate the existence of bigfoot. His eye is on the prize, proving that Ken Ham's illustrations of people riding dinosaurs are bullshit.

Bingo. Real skepticism is hard work. PZ's version is on a par with Rebecca's debunking of 'bad graphs' and her epic take-down of evo-psych.
http://store.discoveryeducation.com/ima ... 1225296659
It would actually be really interesting and worthwhile to see people like them actually apply open-minded, rigorous skepticism to social sciences / economics / social justice without an predetermined agenda.
http://www.bbsradio.com/userfiles/image ... igsFly.jpg

[Mykeru]

Also, apropos of nothing,

When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg

Seriously, I will fuck you up.

[Za-zen]

So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.

Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.

So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.

For what it's worth, i reckon you acted with due dilligence, and in keeping with preserving the pyt's ethos of freedom of expression. Ultimately there has to be a line with regards to content and membership, and that line has to be the one when crossed that could land you in front of a judge. This to my mind is sensible self (as well as board) preservation.

[Zenspace]

Also, apropos of nothing,

When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg

Seriously, I will fuck you up.

:lol:

I thought you weren't a lightpacker?

Oh, and where is that bid link... :whistle:

[Metalogic42]

Hasn't it always been said that

science makes no comment on the supernatural

- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.

Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).

Just ask Uri Geller.

Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).

Science can test some supernatural claims but not others. Examples:

1) God supernaturally caused a global flood while not suspending any natural laws other than the ones required to actually cause the flood (testable)
2) God supernaturally caused a global flood, and suspended natural laws required to cause the flood, as well as laws governing the evidence such a flood would leave (not testable)

[Dick Strawkins]

Hasn't it always been said that

science makes no comment on the supernatural

- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.

Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).

Just ask Uri Geller.

Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).

If PZ had stuck with this point then he might have a better argument.
There isn't really a good reason why the skeptic movement avoids the religious questions other than a sort of pragmatic cowardice.
It's true that skepticism/the scientific method cannot tell you that a God doesn't exist, but it can whittle down the claims of supernatural intervention in nature that are made by the major religions - probably the biggest form of woo that affects all our lives.
You don't have to kill God to defeat religion - you just need to turn Him into Santa.

[Submariner]

Hasn't it always been said that

science makes no comment on the supernatural

- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")

Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.

Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).

Just ask Uri Geller.

Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).

Absolutely science can test supernatural claims, but the gist of the "science makes no comment..." quote is that atheism is not a byproduct of science. There are in fact many theistic ( or deistic) scientists extant. Conflation of science with atheism has been a religious claim the we atheists have been disavowing for a long time.

[Metalogic42]

Also, apropos of nothing,

When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg

Seriously, I will fuck you up.

brb, ebay.

[jimthepleb]

Also, apropos of nothing,

When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg

Seriously, I will fuck you up.

brb, ebay.

Don't fall into his trap, he's the seller ;)
:lol:

[Metalogic42]

Also, apropos of nothing,

When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg

Seriously, I will fuck you up.

brb, ebay.

Don't fall into his trap, he's the seller ;)
:lol:

Even better, I've always wanted a bobcat.

[Mykeru]

Also, apropos of nothing,

When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg

Seriously, I will fuck you up.

:lol:

I thought you weren't a lightpacker?

Oh, and where is that bid link... :whistle:

No, for my bug out kit that would go great with my modular sleeping bag system. That'll probably roll up right in the compression sack that comes with the modular bag.

Check out the big bag on me:

http://www.tennierindustries.com/images/MSS-4-Part.png

I do pack light. Difference is, I don't make a big purist stink about light packing and then borrow shit off people.

There is no link.

[rayshul]

So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.

Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.

So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.

For what it's worth, i reckon you acted with due dilligence, and in keeping with preserving the pyt's ethos of freedom of expression. Ultimately there has to be a line with regards to content and membership, and that line has to be the one when crossed that could land you in front of a judge. This to my mind is sensible self (as well as board) preservation.

^^This. :)

[Zenspace]

Also, apropos of nothing,

When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg

Seriously, I will fuck you up.

:lol:

I thought you weren't a lightpacker?

Oh, and where is that bid link... :whistle:

No, for my bug out kit that would go great with my modular sleeping bag system. That'll probably roll up right in the compression sack that comes with the modular bag.

Check out the big bag on me:

http://www.tennierindustries.com/images/MSS-4-Part.png

I do pack light. Difference is, I don't make a big purist stink about light packing and then borrow shit off people.

There is no link.

I do very light, but I also do solo, so the borrowing thing doesn't work so well. :D

Ah! Looks military. Heavy, but solid, rugged quality stuff. I use the Marmot Helium to about 20F, then the Velandre Shocking Blue for anything colder. Bivy of choice is the Black Diamond Light Sabre.

[Scented Nectar]

Preach it Sister!

ummm-hmmm

*pausing for air*

Ranting is exhilarating. :)

[rayshul]

Flipping around wikipedia to look up information on identity politics and ran into political correctness...

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent. In current usage, the term is [strong]primarily pejorative,[/strong] while the term politically incorrect has been used as an[strong] implicitly positive self-description[/strong].

I remember back when it was *good* to be politically correct. Oh joy. :)

[Scented Nectar]

Bolded mine. That's the thing, and this is how I believe the FTBers manage to sucker in noobies such as myself. As a casual reader/poster at FTB, I just assumed that they were talking about the REAL PATRIARCHY and not the imaginary conspiracy one. So, when they said horrible things about MRA's and the Slymepit, I once again, wrongly assumed, that the pit and MRA's were *suppporting* misogynist fucks like Rick Santorum and Todd Akin. The thing is, since they lump anyone who disagrees with them into the same basket, it's really difficult to discern truth from propaganda unless you look deeper. So yeah, I was an 'unquestioning' supporter, at the start, b/c who *would* want to take away women's rights, or subjugate anyone who is not a cis-white-male?

Now if only more people would visit the pit, and see that it's a nice place...

And in the end I do think that they will burn themselves out. They are too hostile to newcomers, and their 'movement' will only shrink, not grow. I also suspect that in the broader spectrum, most modern 'feminists', are more likely to be funfems than radfems. Millenials want to enjoy sex, and enjoy men, not sit in a corner hating everyone who says bad words!

Feminism is a bait and switch game. You come for the real sexism, and if you are gullible, you stay for the ideology instead. The ideology focuses on western thought crimes and unproven social assumptions, instead of actual unequal rights like theocratic countries where religious rules against women are the law. Sometimes though, there is a bit of lip service against theocratic sexism, but they don't really do fuck all about it. Some of them even support it thinking that it would be racist to speak against a sexist religious/cultural practice (even though race has nothing to do with it).

Notice how rarely the feminist bloggers actually link to the Pit whenever they accuse the people here of various nasty things? They don't want people to actually read it for themselves. They want people to make the assumption that we would support real sexism against women, such as authentically sexist asshole senators, as you were led to infer.

[rayshul]

Boy I've entered a wikipedia rabbit hole...

A common criticism is that terms chosen by an identity group, as acceptable descriptors of themselves, then pass into common usage, including usage by the racists and sexists whose racism and sexism, et cetera, the new terms mean to supersede. Alternately put, the new terms gradually acquire the same disparaging connotations of the old terms. The new terms are thus devalued, and another set of words must be coined, giving rise to lengthy progressions such as Negro, Colored, Black, Afro-American, African-American, and so on,

Bless social justice warriors, they're never happy with a word for long before it becomes EVIL. AHAHAHAHAH. Fucking morons.

Also... wtf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language

[windy]

Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).

Just ask Uri Geller.

Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).

Absolutely science can test supernatural claims, but the gist of the "science makes no comment..." quote is that atheism is not a byproduct of science. There are in fact many theistic ( or deistic) scientists extant. Conflation of science with atheism has been a religious claim the we atheists have been disavowing for a long time.

No, "we" haven't, some atheists disavow it, and some (not just PZ) think there's a connection between science and unbelief. Certainly there are theistic scientists, but scientists are also more likely to be unbelievers than the general population. Before we find out why that is, denying the possibility of any association would be as dumb as saying that science necessarily leads to atheism.

[bhoytony]

Septic = American, in rhyming slang. Septic tank = Yank = USAian.

IIRC you're Norwegian? Don't think there's rhyming slang for Norwegians ... those of your nationality have to earn the ire, disdain, and/or prejudice of the English, to achieve rhyming slang "status."

<--- Septic

There is no ire, distain or prejudice involved in being referred to in rhyming slang. I am described as a Sweaty Sock for no other reason than that it rhymes. Why is it that Septics just do not get how this works?

[UnbelieveSteve]

@Mykeru
Don't forget to pack your ball buffer when you head out camping.
[youtube]nZQcqWDYoJ8[/youtube]

[Scented Nectar]

Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.

Ugh. I think I just saw it too. Was it her chatting up the person with "pedophile" in their name, commiserating about pedophilia, and wanting them to email her?

I now think she's an undercover pedo entrapper. Either that or very fucking disturbed.

I just found it too. I think i'll steer clear of her if she returns. Block/ignore whatever it takes. She a fucken weird one.

I'm glad she's banned. Trouble from the moment she gave us the nasty combo of: 1. being a minor, 2. trying to engage adults in sex talk, especially Lousy Canuck, and 3. threatening to do a false accusation involving the FBI. No matter whether she's an undercover entrapper or a very mentally disturbed minor, that's one big clusterfuck of "keep her the fuck away from us" either way.

[bhoytony]

I do very light, but I also do solo, so the borrowing thing doesn't work so well. :D

Ah! Looks military. Heavy, but solid, rugged quality stuff. I use the Marmot Helium to about 20F, then the Velandre Shocking Blue for anything colder. Bivy of choice is the Black Diamond Light Sabre.

My own personal choice is the Air-Con Room Service Hotel Room (with mini-bar).

[Submariner]

Feminism is a bait and switch game. You come for the real sexism, and if you are gullible, you stay for the ideology instead. The ideology focuses on western thought crimes and unproven social assumptions, instead of actual unequal rights like theocratic countries where religious rules against women are the law. Sometimes though, there is a bit of lip service against theocratic sexism, but they don't really do fuck all about it. Some of them even support it thinking that it would be racist to speak against a sexist religious/cultural practice (even though race has nothing to do with it).

Notice how rarely the feminist bloggers actually link to the Pit whenever they accuse the people here of various nasty things? They don't want people to actually read it for themselves. They want people to make the assumption that we would support real sexism against women, such as authentically sexist asshole senators, as you were led to infer.

Hallelujah! Praise Nectar!

Woooohh, I gots the fever! The fever of righteousness that come from the WORD. Ramen.

[UnbelieveSteve]

I'm glad she's banned. Trouble from the moment she gave us the nasty combo of: 1. being a minor, 2. trying to engage adults in sex talk, especially Lousy Canuck, and 3. threatening to do a false accusation involving the FBI. No matter whether she's an undercover entrapper or a very mentally disturbed minor, that's one big clusterfuck of "keep her the fuck away from us" either way.

She wants the ban lifted.
http://i.imgur.com/Vm7VCgm.jpg

[Scented Nectar]

Women are not allowed to consent to that, since the feminists won't believe her consent. She was brainwashed or doesn't know any better.

The fucking scary thing is that you're not hyperbolic, this is actually how some of them thing and reason:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/201 ... mment-4765

Btw, that whole blog post was like the 2nd non-tf00t FTB post I ever read, and it so smock full of crazy that it needs a trigger warning for anyone suffering from nut allergy. It's also to only thing I've ever read by Taslima, so when posters here were talking about Taslima not being as crazy as the rest of the FC(n) shortly after I had signed up here, I was literally scratching my head. I mean, common...

I wasn't exaggerating at all, although not all of them are that extreme in their beliefs. Most of the women I was friends with in the 80s believed that kind of stuff, me included. I was taught by the feminists I knew and/or read books by, that any woman who gets horny by men and has sex with them, is really just brainwashed and has been raped. She didn't really consent at all. Seeing through that particular lie, was what triggered my leaving the radicallesbianfeministseparatist (try saying that 3 times fast!) cult and shedding the rest of the radfem ideology too. I still remain against sexism however, no matter which sex is being discriminated against.

[another lurker]

Feminism is a bait and switch game. You come for the real sexism, and if you are gullible, you stay for the ideology instead. The ideology focuses on western thought crimes and unproven social assumptions, instead of actual unequal rights like theocratic countries where religious rules against women are the law. Sometimes though, there is a bit of lip service against theocratic sexism, but they don't really do fuck all about it. Some of them even support it thinking that it would be racist to speak against a sexist religious/cultural practice (even though race has nothing to do with it).

Notice how rarely the feminist bloggers actually link to the Pit whenever they accuse the people here of various nasty things? They don't want people to actually read it for themselves. They want people to make the assumption that we would support real sexism against women, such as authentically sexist asshole senators, as you were led to infer.

Hallelujah! Praise Nectar!

Woooohh, I gots the fever! The fever of righteousness that come from the WORD. Ramen.

Agreed!

I :clap: for SN!

[lonesagi]

Also, apropos of nothing,

When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg

Seriously, I will fuck you up.

:lol:

I thought you weren't a lightpacker?

Oh, and where is that bid link... :whistle:

No, for my bug out kit that would go great with my modular sleeping bag system. That'll probably roll up right in the compression sack that comes with the modular bag.

Check out the big bag on me:

http://www.tennierindustries.com/images/MSS-4-Part.png

I do pack light. Difference is, I don't make a big purist stink about light packing and then borrow shit off people.

There is no link.

I do very light, but I also do solo, so the borrowing thing doesn't work so well. :D

Ah! Looks military. Heavy, but solid, rugged quality stuff. I use the Marmot Helium to about 20F, then the Velandre Shocking Blue for anything colder. Bivy of choice is the Black Diamond Light Sabre.

It is military. I used one during my time stationed in Alaska. It'll keep you warm up to -40F or so, and the modular system allows you to bring only the liners you need to meet weather conditions. Good choice.

[Scented Nectar]

Fuck you, assbag.

What the fuck is an "assbag" anyway? Is it something you wear to hide your a/ss/rse out of shame, or to utilize your a/ss/rse for its intended purpose on the go. Or more horribly, is it something that painfully protrudes from your a/ss/rse after an ill-advised clean-and-jerk (I'm talking weightlifting here. Don't even go there). I'm at a loss.

Maybe a colostomy bag, which attach to surgical outlet from your side? That's for cases where intestinal surgery or damage means you can't shit normally out your butthole. There's a bag you empty/replace instead.

I used to have a friend, who, when she wanted to turn off someone who was turned on by her, would fake having a bag with grabbing her side and saying something like "uh oh, I think my colostomy bag just broke off. I'd better go to the bathroom to check". Trouble was it only worked on people who knew what colostomy bags were. :lol:

[Zenspace]

I do very light, but I also do solo, so the borrowing thing doesn't work so well. :D

Ah! Looks military. Heavy, but solid, rugged quality stuff. I use the Marmot Helium to about 20F, then the Velandre Shocking Blue for anything colder. Bivy of choice is the Black Diamond Light Sabre.

My own personal choice is the Air-Con Room Service Hotel Room (with mini-bar).

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah. I hear that a lot. I have one friend who's idea of camping is staying in a Holiday Inn Express. :D

[Submariner]

Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).

Just ask Uri Geller.

Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).

Absolutely science can test supernatural claims, but the gist of the "science makes no comment..." quote is that atheism is not a byproduct of science. There are in fact many theistic ( or deistic) scientists extant. Conflation of science with atheism has been a religious claim the we atheists have been disavowing for a long time.

No, "we" haven't, some atheists disavow it, and some (not just PZ) think there's a connection between science and unbelief. Certainly there are theistic scientists, but scientists are also more likely to be unbelievers than the general population. Before we find out why that is, denying the possibility of any association would be as dumb as saying that science necessarily leads to atheism.

I'm not saying there isn't an association (correlation). I'm saying atheists have been disavowing causation, for some time due to the obvious ethical problem that would raise in debates and that creationists would then have an "in" to schools because science is commenting on existential claims not of the natural world. In effect saying " Science claims there is no god, therefore it is claiming things which cannot be demonstrated, so how is it different than religious beliefs?"
I'm saying that this is an area where science really needs to stay out of metaphysical arenas. Science can only comment on claims affecting the natural world. The existence of God isn't such a claim. Claiming prayer can cause real world effects, is a testable claim.

[Apples]

Bless social justice warriors, they're never happy with a word for long before it becomes EVIL. AHAHAHAHAH. Fucking morons.

Also... wtf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language

From that 'people-first language' link:

The US National Federation of the Blind in 1993 adopted a resolution condemning politically correct language. The resolution dismissed the notion that "the word 'person' must invariably precede the word 'blind' to emphasize the fact that a blind person is first and foremost a person" as "totally unacceptable and pernicious" and resulting in the exact opposite of its purported aim, since "it is overly defensive, implies shame instead of true equality, and portrays the blind as touchy and belligerent".

In deaf culture, person first language has long been rejected. Instead, Deaf culture uses Deaf-first language since being culturally deaf is a source of positive identity and pride. Correct terms to use for this group would be “deaf person” or “hard of hearing person”. The phrase "hearing impaired” is not acceptable to most deaf or hard of hearing people.

The autism rights movement also rejects person-first language, on the grounds that saying "person with autism" suggests that autism can be separated from the person.

[Chilly P.]

My fave picture from her post about "men hate woman's bodies" -
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/fil ... having.jpg
OMG men make women bleeeeeed by forcing them to shave their legs!!!!

Because western women these days absolutely love both body and facial hair, worn wild and free.

No woman has ever pressured a man into shaving his face, butt, chest, or back, ever. Damn Male Hypocrites!

[Scented Nectar]

Feminism is a bait and switch game. You come for the real sexism, and if you are gullible, you stay for the ideology instead. The ideology focuses on western thought crimes and unproven social assumptions, instead of actual unequal rights like theocratic countries where religious rules against women are the law. Sometimes though, there is a bit of lip service against theocratic sexism, but they don't really do fuck all about it. Some of them even support it thinking that it would be racist to speak against a sexist religious/cultural practice (even though race has nothing to do with it).

Notice how rarely the feminist bloggers actually link to the Pit whenever they accuse the people here of various nasty things? They don't want people to actually read it for themselves. They want people to make the assumption that we would support real sexism against women, such as authentically sexist asshole senators, as you were led to infer.

Hallelujah! Praise Nectar!

Woooohh, I gots the fever! The fever of righteousness that come from the WORD. Ramen.

(Hmmm, I think that's my cue for passing around a collection plate...) Can I hear another RAMEN, brothers and sisters! :angelic-halo: :angelic-green:

[Parge]

Also, apropos of nothing,

When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.

Seriously, I will fuck you up.

Have you tried hammock camping?

[Submariner]

RAMEN!!

[Submariner]

@ Scented Nectar:

You should totes do a rant video. Just read what you wrote here. 8-)

[Scented Nectar]

Feminism is a bait and switch game. You come for the real sexism, and if you are gullible, you stay for the ideology instead. The ideology focuses on western thought crimes and unproven social assumptions, instead of actual unequal rights like theocratic countries where religious rules against women are the law. Sometimes though, there is a bit of lip service against theocratic sexism, but they don't really do fuck all about it. Some of them even support it thinking that it would be racist to speak against a sexist religious/cultural practice (even though race has nothing to do with it).

Notice how rarely the feminist bloggers actually link to the Pit whenever they accuse the people here of various nasty things? They don't want people to actually read it for themselves. They want people to make the assumption that we would support real sexism against women, such as authentically sexist asshole senators, as you were led to infer.

Hallelujah! Praise Nectar!

Woooohh, I gots the fever! The fever of righteousness that come from the WORD. Ramen.

Agreed!

I :clap: for SN!

Welcome to my congregation. The name of my religion is the First Atheistical Temple Of Ethical Evidence-Based Anti-Ideology-Based Hedonism (or FATOEEBAIBH if you can pronounce it). And no tithings, just kidding about that collection plate.

[d4m10n]

On the topic of science and theology, I've a little thought experiment. Imagine if converting to Catholicism and praying to saints instantly and completely healed people. Praying to St. Laziosi inevitably cures sincere believers of cancer, St. Gonzaga cures them of HIV, and so forth.

How long before scientists would begin to doubt the validity of methodological naturalism and start to look for a broader framework? Would anyone continue to maintain the notion that supernatural claims are untestable?

[Scented Nectar]

@ Scented Nectar:

You should totes do a rant video. Just read what you wrote here. 8-)

That one's out of my system already. Maybe I can catch the next one on camera instead. My rants are way better when unscripted. :)

[another lurker]

Feminism is a bait and switch game. You come for the real sexism, and if you are gullible, you stay for the ideology instead. The ideology focuses on western thought crimes and unproven social assumptions, instead of actual unequal rights like theocratic countries where religious rules against women are the law. Sometimes though, there is a bit of lip service against theocratic sexism, but they don't really do fuck all about it. Some of them even support it thinking that it would be racist to speak against a sexist religious/cultural practice (even though race has nothing to do with it).

Notice how rarely the feminist bloggers actually link to the Pit whenever they accuse the people here of various nasty things? They don't want people to actually read it for themselves. They want people to make the assumption that we would support real sexism against women, such as authentically sexist asshole senators, as you were led to infer.

Hallelujah! Praise Nectar!

Woooohh, I gots the fever! The fever of righteousness that come from the WORD. Ramen.

Agreed!

I :clap: for SN!

Welcome to my congregation. The name of my religion is the First Atheistical Temple Of Ethical Evidence-Based Anti-Ideology-Based Hedonism (or FATOEEBAIBH if you can pronounce it). And no tithings, just kidding about that collection plate.

Let's buy this woman some shoes!!

[Submariner]

On the topic of science and theology, I've a little thought experiment. Imagine if converting to Catholicism and praying to saints instantly and completely healed people. Praying to St. Laziosi inevitably cures sincere believers of cancer, St. Gonzaga cures them of HIV, and so forth.

How long before scientists would begin to doubt the validity of methodological naturalism and start to look for a broader framework? Would anyone continue to maintain the notion that supernatural claims are untestable?

Even this could be tested. Surveying potential converts for inclusion in a study. Upon actual conversion, prayers to the saints could be delayed until the converts went to the testing center. MRI's, Cat scans,x-rays, blood tests etc. taken during the prayer could potentially discover a mechanism or at least a descriptive account of the miracle.

[justinvacula]

Haters, they gon' hate :p

http://i.imgur.com/auLsyM0.jpg