Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Scunner]

And then there's PeeZus, pretending that his trip to Romania is some sort of humanitarian science education activist mission.

Why exactly is he going there again? I assume he's on the list of speakers, though given him happily spending ridiculous amounts of money to attend a (botched) echo chamber in DC I can't be certain.

[Apples]

Richard Carrier has jumped on the 'Burn Lindsay' bandwagon with customary tact and restraint, comparing Ron Lindsay's speech with the death and destruction caused by the Oklahoma tornado.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3626/

That is a profoundly insensitive comparison. As I wrote on Monday on my blog:

As with any tragedy, a certain kind of opportunist will see this event as a chance to evangelize for their god(s), or favorite political issue, or even as a chance to leverage the evidential argument from evil while the pain is still fresh.

Didn't occur to me that Atheism+ would jump into the fray so boldly or so soon.

I found Richard Carrier's piece very interesting. See his frame: he builts up that Lindsay wasn't listening enough, or to the wrong people. With that in place, Carrier can discard disagreement as "wrong side" and agreement as (paraphrased) "Nothing new. We said this all along, didn't he hear it". His not very astute readership won't notice.

Amusing that he plugs his A+ speech on youtube yet again ("where I explain to nearly 30,000 viewers thus far...") ... Of course, if the ratio of those who reject the speech to those who approve it (around 8-to-1) holds for the full population of viewers, at least 26,000 of those people think he is full of shit.

One thing I've noticed is that folks are complaining that A+ is being misrepresented compared to the rhetoric of its "proponents" (presumably folks like Carrier, Zvan, PZ, et al), which is kind of like suggesting that the lack of WMDs and the bloodbath that followed the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant to evaluating that war -- rather it should be described purely in terms of whatever patriotic intentions and benevolent motives Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Blair would attribute to themselves.

[Cunning Punt]

where is Steersman?

Heh, funny I was thinking exact same thing. In fact, I was going to ask if you pitters buried him in the backyard or something.

Maybe he's working on a really really long post.

[Clarence]

where is Steersman?

Heh, funny I was thinking exact same thing. In fact, I was going to ask if you pitters buried him in the backyard or something.

Maybe he's working on a really really long post.

You want long posts? I bet you don't know what 'long posts' are.
Behold the Wonder and Glory that is artfldgr:

http://neoneocon.com/2013/03/01/looking ... h-of-time/

I have seen posts by this guy that run almost to ten thousand words, often when he decides to explain the intellectual history of something or the other. And often in a thread where he does a 5000 or more long essay he'll have at least 2 or 3 smaller posts that clock in around the 1000 to 2000 word range.
I've never seen another like him on the 'net' and I doubt this 'Steersman' can match that. The funny thing is that the commenters and the blog mistress usually tell him tldr and beg him to be more succinct but he just can't bring himself to prize brevity over information :lol:

[Clarence]

Ok ...derp...derp...derp. I think I just quoted something I should have put a hyperlink in. I better go get my coffee.

[Pitchguest]

The fuck? David Silverman is trying his damndest to get Justin to 'denounce the hate' from 'his side', but when someone asks 'when has PZ ever denounced the bile from "his side" of the aisle', the response from David is to 'quit crying.' Wow. Wow. No, David, they shouldn't 'quit crying' - If you want people to 'denounce the hate', you want people to do it from 'both' sides, you dishonest, pandering piece of shit.

And then Silverman and Brian Fields implies that Justin endorses 'nasty graphics' of Watson because he hasn't *specifically* said anything about it. Huh.

[ERV]

Richard Carrier has jumped on the 'Burn Lindsay' bandwagon with customary tact and restraint, comparing Ron Lindsay's speech with the death and destruction caused by the Oklahoma tornado.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3626/

That is a profoundly insensitive comparison. As I wrote on Monday Tuesday on my blog:

As with any tragedy, a certain kind of opportunist will see this event as a chance to evangelize for their god(s), or favorite political issue, or even as a chance to leverage the evidential argument from evil while the pain is still fresh.

Didn't occur to me that Atheism+ would jump into the fray so boldly or so soon.

1-- A† doesnt actually care about people in need.
2-- Oklahoma is officially blacklisted/full of SPs/etc.
3-- Bad things that happen to Oklahomans are a perfect excuse for dumb yokle jokes ("DERP! WHY DUNT U JUST GO TO UR BASEMENT? STUPID! DERP!") and fodder for political fires ("DERP! SOMEBODYS TALK IZ LIEK, EXACTLY LIEK A DEADLY DEVASTATING TORNADOE. DERP!")

Dear Richard Carrier--
Just a suggestion for you:
[youtube]YmLw4Q4KaFI[/youtube]
--Oklahoma!

[Ericb]

The fuck? David Silverman is trying his damndest to get Justin to 'denounce the hate' from 'his side', but when someone asks 'when has PZ ever denounced the bile from "his side" of the aisle', the response from David is to 'quit crying.' Wow. Wow. No, David, they shouldn't 'quit crying' - If you want people to 'denounce the hate', you want people to do it from 'both' sides, you dishonest, pandering piece of shit.

And then Silverman and Brian Fields implies that Justin endorses 'nasty graphics' of Watson because he hasn't *specifically* said anything about it. Huh.

They seem to be under the impression that the 'Pit is some kind of ideology rather than just an internet forum.

[Stretchycheese]

Agreed. Our Canadian rednecks are some of the friendliest people around. And I must admit, I myself have twice owned a "Scarborough Dinner Jacket", once in green and once in red. My next one will be blue. I miss those jackets, but I wore them right out to the point there were holes and tears in them.

http://img3.etsystatic.com/012/0/554377 ... 3_1ts9.jpg

Weren't those called "lumberjack jackets"? I remember that they were popular with the 1980s headbangers and came in shades of green, red, purple, and grey.

[JAB]

AndrewV69 - super cool pix! I would have been terrified!

Huh! Why? These are only Black Bears and they used to be prey animals (based on the way they behave) so most of the time the wild ones are scared of you (well me anyway) unless you do something silly like run away, which tells them that you are prey and not them.

Here's a scary bear vid...NOT

[youtube]KfiZPXsQvrQ[/youtube]

[Dick Strawkins]

The fuck? David Silverman is trying his damndest to get Justin to 'denounce the hate' from 'his side', but when someone asks 'when has PZ ever denounced the bile from "his side" of the aisle', the response from David is to 'quit crying.' Wow. Wow. No, David, they shouldn't 'quit crying' - If you want people to 'denounce the hate', you want people to do it from 'both' sides, you dishonest, pandering piece of shit.

And then Silverman and Brian Fields implies that Justin endorses 'nasty graphics' of Watson because he hasn't *specifically* said anything about it. Huh.

It's all just politics at the moment.
Ron Lindsay is actually in a stronger position than Silverman because his organization has to remain based on a foundation of rationalism and skepticism.
American Atheists, on the other hand, are simply a non-religious, or anti-religious, organization. They have plenty of members who are not skeptics and I suspect they garner their major income from legacies of people who are anti-religious and who want to leave their money to an organization that opposes organized religion.

Do the FTB side ever wonder why, despite the online atheist community being worldwide, the arguments regarding organization heads, conferences etc, are confined to the US? Even Nugent, the closest to an FTB clone in Europe, isn't half as wacky as his US allies, and his organization has no internal disputes along the same lines.

[Clarence]

The fuck? David Silverman is trying his damndest to get Justin to 'denounce the hate' from 'his side', but when someone asks 'when has PZ ever denounced the bile from "his side" of the aisle', the response from David is to 'quit crying.' Wow. Wow. No, David, they shouldn't 'quit crying' - If you want people to 'denounce the hate', you want people to do it from 'both' sides, you dishonest, pandering piece of shit.

And then Silverman and Brian Fields implies that Justin endorses 'nasty graphics' of Watson because he hasn't *specifically* said anything about it. Huh.

They seem to be under the impression that the 'Pit is some kind of ideology rather than just an internet forum.

They think the 'Pit is an ideology WHEN IT SUITS THEM.
Which is why blue is red and red is blue, depending.

Yes, THAT is what Justin and others here like Erv are up against.

[welch]

AndrewV69 - super cool pix! I would have been terrified!

Huh! Why? These are only Black Bears and they used to be prey animals (based on the way they behave) so most of the time the wild ones are scared of you (well me anyway) unless you do something silly like run away, which tells them that you are prey and not them.

It's the city gal in me, I suppose. A few years back, when I lived in very suburban Bellevue, WA, we had more than a few inhabitants leave the green belt located at the end of our street to explore the neighborhood. One fine morning, while getting to the car to take my kids to school, I looked up the street to see a very large and very antlered deer meandering down the way. I completed freaked out and ran inside the house. As if the deer was going to chase *me*.

Yeah, so for me, wildlife is awesome in pictures or at the zoo. IRL - I become a shrieking girlie-girl :D

Deer can actually be pretty dangerous when spooked, especially in a populated area.

Yep. When I lived in N.D., we had a couple guys decide that fucking with a deer was happy fun drunky times. There is nothing that can remove the shame of a deer completely kicking your ass.

[welch]

Looks like I am going to have to use the "ignore" function if this keeps up ...

*yawn* - if no one engages him, he will tire and go away

But he's such a fun cat toy. The nip should be wearing out soon, then into the bin with it, but can I bat it around a few more times, PLEEEEEEASE?

[Submariner]

Always willing to "listen to the women" I actually followed Greta Christina's advice here.

My email as sent to CFI can be read here.

[Southern]

I'll still feel free to disagree with you, but I'll try to always be polite about it. I'll treat you as you treat me. That's all I can promise. As you can see, I don't feel intimidated speaking my mind even to a fucking moderator.

The Pit has moderators now?

Damn Secret Forum, they are taking all the decisions and not letting me to take a part on it. That's a shame, I tell you all, a shame! I need to be a part of the moderation team! I NEED IT! I RULE YOU MOTHERFUCKING FREEZE PEACH!!!! BOW DOWN TO YOUR DIGITAL RULER!!!

[welch]

I have it right here next to my laundry basket of assorted vibrators, dildos, wax, and black vinyl accessories. Oh, and yes, mums the word on the lube ;)

You forgot to mention the sybian.

It's out for repairs :D

I told you to get the improved shock mount and reinforced hydraulics options. Does anyone listen? NOOOooooo

[Skep tickle]

Carrier opens with comparison to tornado, but most of his post reads like a longer version of trying to temp-ban Lindsay for not having swallowed wholesale the "101 level" stuff in the Feminism-the-FtB/A+ way curriculum. He repeatedly states that he knows what "Lindsay OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T READ" rather than (for the most part) allowing the possibility that Lindsay is DISAGREEING.

If there were a mod/admin at A+ forum as pedantic & long-winded as Carrier, I'd think he were active there - though actually given his self-absorption & bragging he wouldn't last long there. But at least he has jumped the skepticism ship (if he was ever on it).

I found this part of his post particularly amusing:

="Richard Carrier"]One thing I’d like to add to these critiques is his equally-ignorant treatment of Atheism+… Apparently he has never read (or at least paid much attention to) anything by Atheism+ advocates or listened to any of their podcasts or videos. Just as he evidently doesn’t talk to feminists or bother to learn anything about feminism before lecturing to an audience of feminists about feminism…for example, he doesn’t understand the difference between defining feminism, on which there is no disagreement among feminists, and deciding how to implement the goals of feminism, on which there is abundant disagreement and everyone knows it, whereas conflating the two is common among anti-feminists, a fact Lindsay seems quite unaware of, and thus he remains clueless as to why he’s getting his head bitten off over repeating an anti-feminist trope.

1) No mention of, or even allusion to, the Atheism+ forum
2) "Atheism+ advocates[']...podcasts or videos" but again no mention of the forum, and the only video I saw him specifically reference was his own with 30K views (of which he is SURE Lindsay isn't one) - this would be the place for links to other people's best efforts re A+, Richard
3) "defining feminism, on which there is no disagreement among feminists" - rofl
4) wasn't it just a day or two ago that Lousy Canuck tried to say that it's OBVIOUS that feminism IS skepticism applied to gender in society etc etc - ah well Richard isn't helping that claim at all

[welch]

From Thimbledick's blog:

Those sorts of re-fighting the same territory with little added value are a distraction, certainly, but they are not themselves exemplar of any sort of abrogation of “civility” of the sort decried in the Open Letter that is supposedly epidemic in our movement except that they themselves claim to be members of our community of skeptics, and/or are names that have long been associated with fighting these specific fights.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but can anyone else parse this word salad?

No. Lord, I thought Steersman could write dense, but man.

[welch]

I live in the woods, and a few years back had a 400 lb. black bear on my front porch, chowing down on some dog food I'd forgotten to put away. I did the reasonable thing* and impulsively charged him, hollering, and chased him back into the woods. The next night, the bear returned, and I chased him again, banging on a kitchen pot this time. The bears have stayed away since.

* (But I'm nuts.)

Not really. You can get away with it with a healthy black bear in good shape that is not accustomed to humans. All others YMMV especially if the bear is in poor shape. A dull/matted coat and/or thin with a loose pelt is not a good sign.

I also would not try it with a grizzly period. If it has a hump then it is time to lock and load. The only good grizzly is a dead one as far as I am concerned.

If you're going to use a gun, use a big one and aim well. Them fuckers don't drop fast at all.

[DW Adams]

Can I get one of our graphic artist magicians to create a new banner for my site, please? I had to change Themes because of some coding issues and the replacement doesn't match the newer one.

Please email link or the actual file to skeeve@atheiststoday.com, if you'd be so kind.


And fuck Silverman and his "cry" tweet. I never expected that from him.

[Tribble]

BEHOLD THE MIGHTY HERO, FOR WHOM THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

I was playing Tropico 4 last night after my bitter and hot disappointment over the inept failure of SimCity V. It, like Civilization, uses a lot of quotes from dead people to add atmosphere to the game, like Lenin's quote which is so widely misquoted. Kind of like much of Adam Smith and Keynes and a raft of others, but anyway, that's another kettle of fish...

Most common:
"A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified."

Also quoted as:
"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."

I notice people never really deal with the second part of the quote. That the end must be justified before you can use it to justify the means.

Nothing about you. Just woolgathering. Reminded of something...

[welch]

Also, what the fuck is up with clarence and his allergy to not fucking up quotes? It's really not that hard. Stop dicking with the quotes you addlepated goat rectum.

I'll explain that. I often can't quote you, because being the dipshit you are you like to embed multiple quotes and it always tells me you can't embed more than 5 quotes. I've never claimed to be a web jockey but I know enough to try and strip out all the extraneous quotes. Alas, even when I strip out all but one pair for some reason it still doesn't quote properly. Oh well.

So you're here figuring out the problems in society but you still can't quite work out how to post on the internet?

You'd think having BEEN ON THE INTERNET SINCE 1998 he could work a BBcode forum.

Sigh...they don't make Internet fogies like they used to.

[welch]

Richard Carrier has jumped on the 'Burn Lindsay' bandwagon with customary tact and restraint, comparing Ron Lindsay's speech with the death and destruction caused by the Oklahoma tornado.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3626/

It's interesting to see how far Carrier has moved in his thinking in recent years.

http://i.imgur.com/YxNbGg0.jpg

Given the increase in attention and speaking dollars it's getting him, it may be interesting, but it's hardly surprising.

[Skep tickle]

Deer can actually be pretty dangerous when spooked, especially in a populated area.

Yep. When I lived in N.D., we had a couple guys decide that fucking with a deer was happy fun drunky times. There is nothing that can remove the shame of a deer completely kicking your ass.

That happened to "a couple guys" in the past, you say? :think:

Hoofprint on butt cheek...where have I seen that recently...

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2869/8749 ... 10cd_c.jpg


....YEP, THAT IS MY ASS. HAAAHSHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

:D

[welch]

Funny thing is, at first I thought FtB was going to be great. Get away from ScienceBlogs and their lousy software. Sure, some of my favorites didn't come over (like Orac, the women who ran The Pump Handle and Jason Rosenhouse) but I thought it'd be great. And maybe some of other favorite bloggers, like Russell Blackford and John Wilkins would come into the fold.

PZ decided to co-found and move to FtB largely out of concerns that SB's new owner, NatGeo, would tamp down on the free-for-all in the Pharyngula comments. When PZ announced the possible move, and asked what the commenters thought, their response to the idea of FtB was overwhelmingly positive, because they were concerned about their free speech being limited under NatGeo. These are the same people who now belittle others with the exact same censorship concerns as "THEY WANTS THEIR FREEZE PEACH!!!" FtB has been a bloodbath of hypocrisy from the start.

Even better: he, zvanity and Laden then tried to use those eeeeeeeevil Conduct Rules to get NatGeo to force Abbie to take the OMGBADPOSTS down.

Fair Game, Motherfuckers.

[welch]

where is Steersman?

Heh, funny I was thinking exact same thing. In fact, I was going to ask if you pitters buried him in the backyard or something.

I like Steersman. I mean, he annoys me, but I like him. He tries to do the right thing by however he defines it, and he is remarkably consistent in living up to the things he wishes from others.

He's also an amazing cure for insomnia.

[bovarchist]

This video will take a colossal 12 minutes out of your life, but I think it's worth the time. It's a very nice graduation speech about the importance of empathy in not being a jerk.

My favorite part, which I'll include above the fold, is a story about a group of students, one of them Muslim, watching the news of the fall of Baghdad. The reporter was standing in the street, in front of a house with a hole blown in the side. The hole was covered over with plywood, and the plywood was covered with Arabic graffiti in black spraypaint. And the reporter was talking about the anger in the streets, when suddenly the Muslim student started laughing for the first time in a week. The other students asked him what was so funny, and he replied, "The graffiti. It says 'Happy Birthday sir, despite the circumstances.'"

http://www.upworthy.com/would-you-rathe ... ous?c=slt1

[DW Adams]

Btw, for those not aware of her, @SecularlyYours looks like someone worth following.

[Skep tickle]

From Pharyngula thread "David Silverman, a principled atheist"

I'm reading backwards chronologically.

FWIW, near the current end of the thread, Aratina says that hyperdeath helped intervene, got PZ to remove Oolon from the dungeon.

And,

22 May 2013 at 10:35 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

It’s a disappointment that Dave is going on Vacula’s show. I get that his personal bar is low since he goes on O’Rielly’s, but the two things really aren’t that comparable. No one thinks that Dave treats Fox News seriously. It’s obviously a means to an end: reaching an audience of right-wing religious people who normally avoid anything to do with atheism, and perhaps educating some of them. This is more like going on a show put out by a nobody endorsed by Stormfront to talk about how white supremacy is misguided. All it does is say that Vacula’s position merits discussion and attention.

At this point, the talking should be *over*. It’s time to speak out, condemn, shun, marginalise, and burn bridges.

[Cunning Punt]

Ok ...derp...derp...derp. I think I just quoted something I should have put a hyperlink in. I better go get my coffee.

It's alright, I can cut and paste.

Steersman is different. I think the word recursion was invented just for him.

[bovarchist]

Looks like I am going to have to use the "ignore" function if this keeps up ...

Oh, my! Why whomever could you be ignoring and please pray tell why you felt the Need to Announce This Important Message instead, of, you know, just quietly doing it? I mean, I don't know about some of these guys but I'll listen to your complaint. However this sort of thing means I guess we can expect a big Rage Flounce out of you at some point in the future?

Settle down, Francis.

If that's a Stripes reference, then it's "lighten up, Francis". :lol:

[youtube]0OnpkDWbeJs[/youtube]

[Gefan]

I have it right here next to my laundry basket of assorted vibrators, dildos, wax, and black vinyl accessories. Oh, and yes, mums the word on the lube ;)

You forgot to mention the sybian.

It's out for repairs :D

I told you to get the improved shock mount and reinforced hydraulics options. Does anyone listen? NOOOooooo

http://media.captiontool.com/a/caption_ ... 1369323529

[Tribble]

The first question for me is, how realistic is the 'shoop? If it just looks like some shitty MSPaint job, it's harmless mockery. If it looks like a real photo, it could cross into libelous territory -- not that that means being sexually active before a camera is more shameful than being a terrorist.

His "You really have to ask that?" kind of made me wonder what's so terrible about a cumshot. And his "I've been called a terrorist many times this week" made me wonder why he would think the rarity of an attack would contribute to, rather than detract from, its significance as a legitimate threat. He's refuted himself.

I lost a lot of my admiration for his reasoning last year, when he linked a list of ten things men can do to make women feel more comfortable in secularism on his FB page. One of the list items instructed men to say they agree with women in online comments even when they don't agree with them, because women need the support. How is that possibly not considered misogyny? Women's arguments rest on their merits, not on men coddling our cunts. It's possible the assumption is that if a man disagrees with a woman, it must be because he's a misogynist, not because he doesn't accept the content of her argument on rational grounds. If so, it's an example misandry instead.

Oh, crap, he's one of those? I can't stand people who pander and lie for a 'higher cause.' It's extremely dishonest and has a lot of negative consequences for all parties involved with no real upside beyond the temporary (delusional) belief that you're succeeding in making your point.

[Tribble]

I have it right here next to my laundry basket of assorted vibrators, dildos, wax, and black vinyl accessories. Oh, and yes, mums the word on the lube ;)

You forgot to mention the sybian.

Too damn noisy if you have kids. :oops: Great piece of equipment though. The wife and I are counting down the days until the youngest goes off to college... :)

[Lsuoma]

where is Steersman?

Heh, funny I was thinking exact same thing. In fact, I was going to ask if you pitters buried him in the backyard or something.

Maybe he's working on a really really long post.

Paging the roflcopter!!!

[AndrewV69]

I live in the woods, and a few years back had a 400 lb. black bear on my front porch, chowing down on some dog food I'd forgotten to put away. I did the reasonable thing* and impulsively charged him, hollering, and chased him back into the woods. The next night, the bear returned, and I chased him again, banging on a kitchen pot this time. The bears have stayed away since.

* (But I'm nuts.)

You know what happens when Man* loses fear of Bear:

gWycuaWJFCM

* I know, that's sexist. It's horrible.

I remember that lunatic. Not surprised he wound up getting himself (and his girlfriend) eaten. Just a sec ... let me see if I can find it.

Charlie Vandergaw who never got eaten but over the years did get wounded from time to time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_Among_Bears

Animal Planet video:
http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/ot ... videos.htm

[Southern]

it's Eucli's younger brother

Whoever that is.
Then again, this IS the pit and there are some feminists and probably a few OOLON sock puppets lurking about...

Pff. Everybody knows that the only sock puppets are franc's.

And, as you are discussing with welch and all, I'm pretty sure YOU are a sock puppet of franc hoggle. Ha! Gotcha.

[Submariner]

Twitter yesterday:

twit.JPG

(58.64 KiB) Downloaded 333 times

[Southern]

Yawn. At least you were amusing this time. Arguments aren't won and lost by how many servers you ran little boy. The point is you can keep that dunce cap on your avatar until you learn how to address someone properly when they are trying argue facts with you. Facts you were only able to 'refute' if you count moving the goalposts as a refutation.

Now go back to playing D&D in your corner, Gandolt.

You keep this up young man, and you won't get invited to the big cuddle party over at Welch's place.

Uh, nerd shaming! Very original.

[welch]

You whining about goalpost moving. Now THAT is irony. I bet you're the most awesome rules lawyer ever. Still butthurt about that whole "I sourced from a shitty website that used random reports of vigilantism, and you responded with an example of a national approval of violence against women! UNFAIR!"
What was your response?

1) rape doesn't count, only domestic violence
2) you will only accept examples that fit your millimeter-wide narrow definition of domestic violence
3) women do shitty things too, so men are innocent.

At that point, you're a moron, and I treat you as such.

And did your attempt to whip out your Internet dick fail? I bet that "I've been on the Internet since 1998 wows the millennials. Here? Not so much, especially since you've been a troll ever since. That's the problem with Internet dicks. Someone always has a bigger one.

And really, if you're so lame that mocking D&D is the best you have, (fuck yeah I play that shit, I have damned near since it was first called D&D), at least get the cultural references right.

Since you are slow or dishonest or maybe both, I will make this a simple 101 level lesson for you.
A. I talk about domestic violence and link to a site that shows reports of both vigilantist AND LEGAL penalties for such actions in order to show that society wasn't all rah-rah about domestic violence. Yes, dumbass it was ILLEGAL TO BEAT YOUR FUCKING WIFE. Do you deny that? Are you going to try to tell me there was 'rule of thumb'?

Actually, that site didn't do shit to analyze the laws at the time. It supplied a bunch of anectdotes and examples of vigilantism. It features a bunch of newspaper articles, but again, nothing really involving laws. That would have required, you know, linking to laws and court decisions. Which isn't as much fun, but there you go.

It also parses things, as you do, *extremely* finely. Which was something I noticed, because by focusing on one highly specific crime and anecdotes, it was ignoring the overall problem, and again, was essentially nothing but a collection of anecdotes. I responded showing a different part of the same problem, to point out that no, it isn't a "myth". There was, for a long time, in this country and others, systemic support for abusing women.

Note that it doesn't mean your point that there were cases where the right thing was done is WRONG. But it does mean the idea that at no time has this country ever systemically, tacitly approved of violence against women, that the entire concept is a myth is simply incorrect.

It also does nothing to suggest that there aren't aspects of the laws of this country that don't fuck over men solely for being male. Because there are parts of the laws of this country that do that, and I wish the MRAs would stop allowing OMGFEMINISTS rage to distract them from problems that are not only more real, but more actionable. As hard as it may seem, it is much easier to fix a law than do whatever it is they want to do to feminism, it changes from second to second.

You had a few possible reactions. You of course, chose to rules lawyer it.

B. You bring up marital rape which is legally not counted as domestic violence and is not what I was talking about

Of course I brought up rape, because it's a form of domestic violence. Yes, different implementations of that concept have different penalties. For example, if you shoot your SO in the face and kill them, you will be tried for MURDER not simple Domestic Abuse or what have you. That doesn't mean what you did wasn't a form of domestic violence, it just means you're going to be tried for the crime of KILLING someone instead of the crime of punching them in the face. Still domestic violence.

C. I pointed out you could still be prosecuted for assault (not sexual assault but at least the violence) if you beat her and then raped her. I didn't say that it was all cool and all that marital rape wasn't illegal, I merely pointed out that men didn't have societal legitimacy to beat the crap out of their wives and then take sex from them.

Well, actually, they did have social and legal legitimacy to force their wives to have sex. In fact, in such cases where the only witness was the wife, she would have actually been legally barred from testifying against her husband. So, the only way he could have been tried back then would be for their to be an outside witness. Spousal privilege has obviously been modified so that yes, a wife or husband can now testify against their spouse, even if the spouse opposes it. But as recently as 1958, in Hawkins v. United States, the one spouse, (usually the husband), could shut down the ability of the other spouse to testify against them. This particular case is detailed here: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... /case.html

Now, at this point, you started this bizarre parsing of the difference between rape and using force, and it became obvious to me that you were determined to "win" no matter what, and that any form of discussion that did not result in you "winning" was of no use or interest to you. I was satisfied that I had proved my point, and if the only way for you to "win" was some bizarre "it only counts if they're convicted of the specific charge of domestic/spousal abuse", well, I had no interest in that sort of idiocy, or really, you at all. So, I started assholing you, because that's what one does with a rules lawyer. It's my response to people who play the ONLY THE WORDS THAT I SPECIFICALLY TYPE COUNT bullshit as well, and you were dipping a bit into that.

D. And you've been nothing but an asshole ever since, implying if not outright stating that I must approve of marital rape.

Guilty as charged on the asshole thing, the rest is your own insecurity. I do not think, did not imply, nor did I state you "favor" marital rape. I said you were being a fuckwad for how you were defining things. There's a difference. You were being a specious, rules-lawyering tit. I see no reason to treat you any better than I would anyone else playing that game.

As for the rest, I pointed out that I've been on the internet for a very long time as support that your stupidity and insults wouldn't faze me. In response to my argument about how I've taken lots of shit (and occasionally given it back) your brought up your technical prowess for some reason.

Sure thing puddinhead. You're such a badass and you don't care so hard that you keep coming back, because you just have to win. For whatever value of win you're currently scrabbling for. I don't faze you so hard that you find it impossible to not respond just to tell me how much I don't faze you. If I fazed you any less, you might be crying.

I didn't know fazing was homeopathic in nature. Huh, learn something new every day.

Anyway, I put my real photo up and leave myself open for shit about my weight, my face, my thinning hair, the clothes I am wearing, etc, while you put up something that looks like it came from the backside of a container by Wizards of The Coast. I don't know about who might be winning the battle of brains or hearts, but I don't hesitate to declare I think I've won the battle over who has more balls.

Oh lord, he's pulling the FTB "AT LEAST I'M NOT ANONYMOUS" shit. Sigh. Okay puddinhead, you have the biggest internet balls of all. But okay, you want a real picture of me? Enjoy. If you get up real close to the screen, you can see your face.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2869/8749 ... 10cd_c.jpg

[welch]

Well, Mr. Smarty-farty if you can tell me how literally HITTING A BUTTON to get italics (something I've done without problem at websites all over the place, hell, I've even set up my own simple singular webpages and put Italics tags in myself Tech Guru that I am) is MY error, then I'll be sure grant you Buddha Tech status. I've literally never had this particular problem before.

I really, really, APPRECIATE that I don't think your first impulse upon disagreeing with someone is to call them in one way or the other : poopyhead, stupid, or a hater of some type.

:doh: :doh: :doh:

Oh my! You struck me with an acronym that assumes stupidity on my part, and I struck back very mildly. Heck, I even offered you a graceful way out by asking you to show your mad tek skillz off so I could grant you Tech Buddha status. Aren't I just such a horrible person for refusing to bow and scrape at your feet when you insult me? My what an UTTER HYPOCRITE I WOULD BE ...IF my argument had been that it was the never appropriate to call names when somebody calls you names first.

D'oh. The lack of logic here ...hurts.

it's Eucli's younger brother

That's what I was thinking... Eucliwood, but with tits.
BTW, I managed to remove the extra embedded quote without fucking it up. Delete buttons, how do they work?

OH MY GOD! HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN ON THE INTERNET TO WORK SUCH MAGIC?

[welch]

BEHOLD THE MIGHTY HERO, FOR WHOM THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

I was playing Tropico 4 last night after my bitter and hot disappointment over the inept failure of SimCity V. It, like Civilization, uses a lot of quotes from dead people to add atmosphere to the game, like Lenin's quote which is so widely misquoted. Kind of like much of Adam Smith and Keynes and a raft of others, but anyway, that's another kettle of fish...

Most common:
"A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified."

Also quoted as:
"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."

I notice people never really deal with the second part of the quote. That the end must be justified before you can use it to justify the means.

Nothing about you. Just woolgathering. Reminded of something...

I like the original concept, because there's the corresponding idea that the ends do not free you from the responsibility of the means. It just means that in this case, you're willing to do "wrong" things for a better goal.

For example, to use a trope, MLK. He was, for the time, doing "wrong" or "bad" things. He broke the law, and he even went to jail for it. He accepted the penalties of his actions because he knew his end goal was worth it.

Nowadays, it's used as a fucking get out of jail free card. "BUT THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS" "yeah, okay Gandhi, you still shot someone, and now you're going to jail for it." "BUT...BUT"

[welch]

Yawn. At least you were amusing this time. Arguments aren't won and lost by how many servers you ran little boy. The point is you can keep that dunce cap on your avatar until you learn how to address someone properly when they are trying argue facts with you. Facts you were only able to 'refute' if you count moving the goalposts as a refutation.

Now go back to playing D&D in your corner, Gandolt.

You keep this up young man, and you won't get invited to the big cuddle party over at Welch's place.

Uh, nerd shaming! Very original.

<shrug>, snakes on a plane, what can you do

[Angry_Drunk]

I'm pretty sure the world will end up regretting John's clumsy ass falling off that ladder far more than he ever will.

[ERV]

Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.

Carrier, Myers, hurrdurrdurring about the tornado? All the assholes who threw a tantrum about WBC being at WISC2?

You.

Are.

Scum.

[dresq]

For what it's worth, I've seen Clarence around various gender blogs for the last 6 or so years (Hi, Clarence, I'm another FC wag from way back, though under a different handle) and I can vouch that he's neither Oolon nor a troll. He does seem to be coming down with a case of Tough Guy on the Internet Syndrome in this thread.

Clarence, the advice you were given vis a vis not taking anyone, or yourself, too seriously here is good advice.

[Parge]

Oh fucking right we got mulletts and rednecks, eh. :D However I usually hear the adjective Molson applied to penises instead of hairstyles. It's a condition that can happen if far, far, far too much Molson beer has been drunk, so much that they can't get an erection - called Molson Dick. :)

Near Toronto, our rednecks can sometimes be found in certain parts of town, but for the largest concentration are in most towns north of us, like Barrie or Sudbury. They have our version of rednecks...

Reposting the vid because.

Anyway, dunno what rednecks in other countries are like but in my experience Canukistan rednecks out in the sticks are pretty decent people on the whole. So I am not going to make fun of them.

Not to mention I do not care if they have mulletts.

Two words: "Whiskey Trench".
[youtube]1coZQ7qKkt4[/youtube]
Although in La belle province, I understand they're referred to as "Bluenecks". And since the slur is in English, I assume it's an Anglo slur. God! That's a pretty triangle of hate: French/English/Native. It's a veritable "Hinterland Who's Who" of prejudice, mistrust and othering.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong. As with everything, there are exceptions to the rule. I've never met a Canadian redneck who wasn't a decent person. But obviously, they're out there... seething.

[welch]

Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.

Carrier, Myers, hurrdurrdurring about the tornado? All the assholes who threw a tantrum about WBC being at WISC2?

You.

Are.

Scum.

Ah, the hyperbolympics. just when you thought they wouldn't go lower.

With any luck, the WBC won't be at that one. Unfortunately, you're close enough to topeka that they can make that trip on the cheap. FWIW, I really wish you didn't have to make that trip.

[Pitchguest]

Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.

Carrier, Myers, hurrdurrdurring about the tornado? All the assholes who threw a tantrum about WBC being at WISC2?

You.

Are.

Scum.

:(

A relative or a friend's? Shit, Abbie. :( :( :(

[Ericb]

Condolences Abbie

[Ericb]

Oh fucking right we got mulletts and rednecks, eh. :D However I usually hear the adjective Molson applied to penises instead of hairstyles. It's a condition that can happen if far, far, far too much Molson beer has been drunk, so much that they can't get an erection - called Molson Dick. :)

Near Toronto, our rednecks can sometimes be found in certain parts of town, but for the largest concentration are in most towns north of us, like Barrie or Sudbury. They have our version of rednecks...

Reposting the vid because.

Anyway, dunno what rednecks in other countries are like but in my experience Canukistan rednecks out in the sticks are pretty decent people on the whole. So I am not going to make fun of them.

Not to mention I do not care if they have mulletts.

Two words: "Whiskey Trench".
[youtube]1coZQ7qKkt4[/youtube]
Although in La belle province, I understand they're referred to as "Bluenecks". And since the slur is in English, I assume it's an Anglo slur. God! That's a pretty triangle of hate: French/English/Native. It's a veritable "Hinterland Who's Who" of prejudice, mistrust and othering.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong. As with everything, there are exceptions to the rule. I've never met a Canadian redneck who wasn't a decent person. But obviously, they're out there... seething.

What kind of -neck is this guy?

http://thetyee.cachefly.net/Opinion/201 ... d300px.jpg

[ReneeHendricks]

Gefan, LOL Thanks for my first genuine laugh of the morning!

[AbsurdWalls]

BEHOLD THE MIGHTY HERO, FOR WHOM THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

I was playing Tropico 4 last night after my bitter and hot disappointment over the inept failure of SimCity V. It, like Civilization, uses a lot of quotes from dead people to add atmosphere to the game, like Lenin's quote which is so widely misquoted. Kind of like much of Adam Smith and Keynes and a raft of others, but anyway, that's another kettle of fish...

Most common:
"A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified."

Also quoted as:
"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."

I notice people never really deal with the second part of the quote. That the end must be justified before you can use it to justify the means.

Nothing about you. Just woolgathering. Reminded of something...

I like the original concept, because there's the corresponding idea that the ends do not free you from the responsibility of the means. It just means that in this case, you're willing to do "wrong" things for a better goal.

For example, to use a trope, MLK. He was, for the time, doing "wrong" or "bad" things. He broke the law, and he even went to jail for it. He accepted the penalties of his actions because he knew his end goal was worth it.

Nowadays, it's used as a fucking get out of jail free card. "BUT THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS" "yeah, okay Gandhi, you still shot someone, and now you're going to jail for it." "BUT...BUT"

The significant thing about MLK to me has been that 1) the laws he was breaking were themselves unjust and 2) he was willing to go to jail for it and used that to make people aware of the injustice.

I am appalled when people who dress up in balaclavas and smash windows or who threaten to assassinate elected politicians compare themselves to King.

[JackSkeptic]

Masked English Defence League supporters flood Woolwich: Far-Right clash with police near scene of killing
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lling.html

Oh, great.

Last time I was in the UK I was struck by how far the place had come (at least in London) in developing into a multi-racial, multi-cultural, diverse and tolerant place.
Cameron seemed to have de-fanged the cynical, divisive right and was even pushing for marriage equality. The rise of UKIP and the BNP seemed to be symptom that the idiots had been driven out of the mainstream.

And now this shit.

There's truly horrible symbiosis between the Jihadists and the home-grown fascists. I'd be all in favor of a three-way dance, steel cage death-match between them with the fucking loons over at Shakesville thrown in, if it wasn't for the collateral damage.

Considering the size of the country the amount of far right wingers is fairly low here still. The EDL includes people who would not consider themselves political at all as well, which is a change from the old National Front. It's not perfect of course but 100 EDL turning up really does not bother me too much. Years ago it would have been thousands in the East side of London.

[windy]

Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.

Oh crap :( My condolences.

[Dave]

Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.

Jeeze. My condolences.

[Cunning Punt]

http://i.imgur.com/nMOs5cg.jpg

[Gefan]

Just found out one of the children killed on Monday was one of 'ours'. Im going to go throw up. Got to take Arnieman to a kids funeral on Saturday to keep some parents/family from killing a WBCer.

Carrier, Myers, hurrdurrdurring about the tornado? All the assholes who threw a tantrum about WBC being at WISC2?

You.

Are.

Scum.

Condolences, Abbie. Nothing else to say, but I think all of us are ready to listen.

[Southern]

Twitter yesterday:

twit.JPG

Well, Mr. Silverman, if this hypothetic criticism from WBC was in fact right and reasonable, then I would be, by default, inclined to seriously consider it as valid. I think you're getting it wrong: people think WBC is a sack of shit because they say a lot of shit; the things they say aren't shit because it's them saying it.