Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Dick Strawkins]

A few weeks ago I posted a satirical version of Peezus new book, with the punchline being that the back cover reviews by the top New Atheists, (Dawkins, Sam Harris etc) were conspicuously missing or dissmissive.
Fast forward a few weeks and we find the first publicity for the book from his publisher.

In fact it does contain positive reviews!
From Dawkins?
Sam Harris?
Daniel Dennett?
Michael Shermer?
DJ Grothe?
Jerry Coyne?
AC Grayling?

Errrrrr..... read on

About the Author
PZ Myers is a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota in Morris. He was named Humanist of the Year in 2009 by the American Humanist Association, and was granted the International Humanist Award in 2011 by the International Ethical Humanist Union. He has traveled internationally to lecture on biology and evolution, atheism, and skepticism. His blog, "Pharyngula," has won many awards, including "Best Science Blog," "Best Expert Blog," and the esteemed science journal "Nature" has given it its highest rating.
Reviews
Praise for PZ Myers' "The Happy Atheist
"
"PZ Myers sets himself apart from the rest of the New Atheist authors by talking, not just about the bigger picture of God, but about religion as all of us experience it on a daily basis. Yes, he tackles the philosophers and theologians, but he also reserves energy to take on casual believers and the myths we come across every day. Nothing--not Communion, not the Holy Spirit, not even death--is too sacred to dissect. And that's what he does, dismantling religious cliches with ease, making you reconsider all those ideas you grew up with (and may still hold). If you're still religious after reading this book, you didn't read it carefully enough."
--Hemant Mehta, author of "The Young Atheist's Survival Guide" and blogger at FriendlyAtheist.com

"With a style that blends confrontation, humor, irreverence, and common sense, PZ Myers has become an important voice for America's growing nonreligious demographic. "The Happy Atheist" is quintessential Myers--ridiculing absurdities, exposing contradictions, rejecting claims of authority, and reminding readers that religious dogmatism too often obstructs reason and critical thinking."
--David Niose, Author of "Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans" and President of the Secular Coalition for America

"PZ Myers is well known as an angry man in the land of 140-characters and blogs where he made his name. That anger is also here in this book, and it's always a righteous anger. But PZ Myers is also a happy man, amused as well as bemused by religious follies."
--Andrew Copson, Chief Executive, British Humanist Association

Oh dear...

[JustAtheist]

<snip>

[youtube]Oc0kYOB0Mfs[/youtube]

Reminded me of

[youtube]IhJQp-q1Y1s[/youtube]

[welch]

But as women being parasites... I don't think they know what a parasite is.

My understanding is that basically what their argument boils down is that the "traditional" model where women traded their fertility for provisioning by males is broken and that now women in general continue to get provisioned without providing services.

That is, those promoting the model are complaining that women aren't putting out, conveniently ignoring the fact that women are putting out like they've never been putting out before. I mean, it's a clam-bake fiesta out there. However, women, being duplicitous creatures, are apparently not, to oversimplify, putting out to the guys using the argument. Or enough. Who, I suspect are not provisioning nearly as much as they think they are.

In any case, it's the sort of "coin for cunt" argument -- or worse "money for emotions" made by the sort of people who have little to give because they think in terms of pure inter-personal transactions and eyeball the receipt looking for places where they might have gotten less than their money's worth. I assume they would make piss-poor friends too.

The problem is that women no longer view putting out as the man's rightful reward, which means those guys have fuck all nothing of a chance to get laid.

[Guest]

I wasn't saying AVFM is not turning into an echo chamber at all, just trying to shed some light on how they are different, and in what ways they are not an echo chamber, or how being an echo chamber is okay considering their self-given mission.

You aren't saying AVfM is not turning into an echo chamber, but they are not an echo chamber, but it's okay if they are?

You are either an idiot shill or the worst POE ever. And just so as not to make a false dichotomy, you are probably an asshole as well.

You're still butthurt over last night I see.

AVFM has a shit load of problems.
AVFM is not some skeptical/secular community of people with claims to science
AVFM is not an echo chamber in its editorial policies, you Mykeru, could probably get published there today
AVFM does have an obnoxious moderation policy in its comments, intended to protect the WBB and to promote a bit of civility across all MRA spaces
AVFM presumably doesn't want pieces that just incite flamewars and make followers and the mainstream press move away. FOR all the shit that happens at SlymePit OR FTB, you fuckers are virtually unknown, except as assholes the entire planet wouldn't mind dumping off on Golgafrincham.
AVFM does not claim to be the uber civil rights movement on the planet, there to protect the entire planet from oppressors.
AVFM does not say you cannot speak for the men's movements, they say they are "A" voice for men, not representative of ALL voice for men, which you fucking formaldehyde face is specifically what you claimed on twitter to be, your bullshit denials to the contrary. (oh woe is me, I only had 140 characters.)

AVFM IS a lobbying site for a specific set of human rights, mens.
AVFM IS owned by a single person and his voice comes through loud and clear.

I dislike much of Elam's policies, and think he has a lot of problems, but your being a narcissist is not one.

[welch]

Hit the wrong button damnit...
When you move someone in with you in some states all property becomes community property. So no matter who actually purchased it both parties here in california are equally entitled to it as community property. Even if you make the majority of the income its 50/50.

So furniture, savings accounts, stock holdings, 401k?

If three guys move in together and share an apartment do the same rules apply?

Marriage. Don't know about civil unions. Merely cohabitating isn't a valid marriage.

Isn't there some precedent in Cali for joint property outside of marriage for a long-term relationship, i.e. "palimony"?

[Mykeru]

But as women being parasites... I don't think they know what a parasite is.

My understanding is that basically what their argument boils down is that the "traditional" model where women traded their fertility for provisioning by males is broken and that now women in general continue to get provisioned without providing services.

That is, those promoting the model are complaining that women aren't putting out, conveniently ignoring the fact that women are putting out like they've never been putting out before. I mean, it's a clam-bake fiesta out there. However, women, being duplicitous creatures, are apparently not, to oversimplify, putting out to the guys using the argument. Or enough. Who, I suspect are not provisioning nearly as much as they think they are.

In any case, it's the sort of "coin for cunt" argument -- or worse "money for emotions" made by the sort of people who have little to give because they think in terms of pure inter-personal transactions and eyeball the receipt looking for places where they might have gotten less than their money's worth. I assume they would make piss-poor friends too.

The problem is that women no longer view putting out as the man's rightful reward, which means those guys have fuck all nothing of a chance to get laid.

It could also be interpreted as "I keep buying them stuff, but still, no woman will love me".


http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/ ... oneplz.png

[another lurker]

Since people are discussing female sexuality, this might be on topic:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/47843 ... n-like-sex

In his new book, “What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire,” journalist Daniel Bergner makes a shocking declaration about female desire: It’s base, animalistic, and ravenous:

“Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety … One of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale.”

Speaking of tenderness, it is men who have historically found comfort in the idea that women are emotionally-dependent, nurturing sexual lacklusters — women mewing kittens, men roaring lions waiting to pounce and mount their unwilling/disinterested prey. Even our language has been structured to position men as the subjects and women as the objects: e.g., “He fucked her.”

[Remick]

Hit the wrong button damnit...
When you move someone in with you in some states all property becomes community property. So no matter who actually purchased it both parties here in california are equally entitled to it as community property. Even if you make the majority of the income its 50/50.

So furniture, savings accounts, stock holdings, 401k?

If three guys move in together and share an apartment do the same rules apply?

Marriage. Don't know about civil unions. Merely cohabitating isn't a valid marriage.

Isn't there some precedent in Cali for joint property outside of marriage for a long-term relationship, i.e. "palimony"?

Living together for 10 years while in a relationship.

[JustAtheist]

Hit the wrong button damnit...
When you move someone in with you in some states all property becomes community property. So no matter who actually purchased it both parties here in california are equally entitled to it as community property. Even if you make the majority of the income its 50/50.

So furniture, savings accounts, stock holdings, 401k?

If three guys move in together and share an apartment do the same rules apply?

This is not correct, it is if, the threshold to trigger this is higher than simply moving in together. It requires a certain duration, and most require some level of a relationship.

The moment you move in with a romantic partner in community property states anything purchased together or comingled with other assets is community property. So even if you owned it prior to and mingled it into other assets like say joint banking you have now made it community property.

Yes it has to be a relationship but time duration is common law states which is a different ballgame.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf ... operty.asp

From your link

The community property statutes mandate that whatever property each partner brings into the marriage or relationship is their own, but anything acquired once the couple is living together is considered joint property.

So your comment:

So even if you owned it prior to and mingled it into other assets like say joint banking you have now made it community property.

It is very simple to not make it a joint account. Why would you do that? It's not like your car you bought before suddenly becomes hers. You made a deliberate decision to share the account.... what the fuck do you think that means?

Its a common practice for married couples and people living together to co mingle banking. If you had followed this from the beginning you would have seen what i said first off. Note suggestion number 1, which then diverged into a discussion questioning why not live together prior to marriage in which community property states were sited by me as a reason not to. But thanks for questioning something i already said like i was daft.

Instead of whining how awful women are or removing yourself from society wouldnt it be smarter to teach young men about protecting themselves thru ..1. not sharing financial accounts with their partners, 2.not living with a partner before marriage. 3. if they do marry using prenuptial agreements?.

And where did i say your car becomes theirs? I said co mingled property. Trust me i have been through this. If you buy a house car boat whatever after your start of the relationship even as the sole bread winner in a community property state they have rights to half the asset. You will be forced to sell it and divide it. I lost a house and my sister a business this way. Im not speaking from mythology but actually going through this.

[Mykeru]

You're still butthurt over last night I see.

Why, what happened last night? I was watching Game of Thrones on Amazon Prime after hearing people go on about it and got hooked. Although the death of Viserys in A Golden Crown was a pretty cheesy practical effect, I'm not exactly butt-hurt over it.

AVFM has a shit load of problems.

The poor dears. Maybe they should try something less taxing.

AVFM is not some skeptical/secular community of people with claims to science

Not good for much, is it?

AVFM is not an echo chamber in its editorial policies, you Mykeru, could probably get published there today

And you know this how? Oh, I forgot, you don't do that skeptical thing...

AVFM does have an obnoxious moderation policy in its comments, intended to protect the WBB and to promote a bit of civility across all MRA spaces

Fuck "civility" and the censorious schoolmarms who promote it.

AVFM presumably doesn't want pieces that just incite flamewars and make followers and the mainstream press move away. FOR all the shit that happens at SlymePit OR FTB, you fuckers are virtually unknown, except as assholes the entire planet wouldn't mind dumping off on Golgafrincham.

We have people here who are known. Abbie Smith, for example. Others through their blogs and videos. AVfM had fuck all to do with that.

You've got it backwards. The A/S community gave AVfM a bump, not the other way around.

AVFM does not claim to be the uber civil rights movement on the planet, there to protect the entire planet from oppressors.

So, like most SJWs. "Human Rights" is synonymous with "self interest". Way to be different.

AVFM does not say you cannot speak for the men's movements, they say they are "A" voice for men, not representative of ALL voice for men, which you fucking formaldehyde face is specifically what you claimed on twitter to be, your bullshit denials to the contrary. (oh woe is me, I only had 140 characters.)

You seem overwrought. Here, have a refreshing beverage.

http://i.infopls.com/images/home/jonestown.jpg

AVFM IS a lobbying site for a specific set of human rights, mens.

Well, fuck them, then.

AVFM IS owned by a single person and his voice comes through loud and clear.

You just love being his bitch, don't you?

I dislike much of Elam's policies, and think he has a lot of problems, but your being a narcissist is not one.

Hey, I'm not a narcissist. I'm just a lobbying site for a specific set of human rights.

Now run along.

[Guest]

Anyway,

I think it is reasonable to say, I dislike their comment policy which I think is heavy handed, and I am dislike the thrust of many of their recent articles, I think AVFM is in danger of becoming an echo chamber, if they aren't one already.

I think it is unreasonable to say, AVFM is an echo chamber, FTB/A+ is an echo chamber, therefore AVFM is the same as FTB/A+.

These apples are totally not oranges as I have tried to explain, and you simply cannot compare the daily bannings abuse of commenters and other bloggers/people from FTB/A+ with the firing of one person at AVFM and the banning apparently of two others.

I just wish it mattered, because it doesn't matter, AVFM shoots itself in the foot way too often to ever become a mainstream voice that matters.

[curriejean]

(quote from guest snipped)

Mullet are quite aware of the water, as they also jump out of it to escape danger. We have to tell tourists that if you run you boat over a school of mullet at high speeds, you're going to get a ten-lb fish in the face at however fast you're going. SHit hurts like hell. some folks have been seriously injured.

Welch, if you have any footage of a tourist getting a ten pound fish in the face, please, please post it. I may not be a misogynist but as a misanthrope I would likely find it hysterical.

Hit at 5:10, but the opening credit is a must!

[youtube]Oc0kYOB0Mfs[/youtube]

Reminded me of

[youtube]IhJQp-q1Y1s[/youtube]

I'm still five.

[youtube]cUusX1Js6R0[/youtube]

[Altair]

I honestly have no idea, google images says they're porcupines. Dammit, Skeptickle, I'm a software developer, not a porcupineologist!
(Knowing you're actually a doctor makes that McCoy line funnier in my head :lol: )

porcupine
http://www.theanimalprintshop.com/image ... Prints.jpg

What a cute little fella!
Thanks for the info, Sacha

[JAB]

How many "guests" are posting on this page? Come on, give some identity to yourself to avoid confusion. How hard can it be to make up a name or put a number after "guest" so we can follow an actual conversation. Even better, register with whatever name you make up, so you at least have the courtesy of allowing us to mark you with ignore if we find you too boring.

Lsuoma, is it possible to make the name field in the comment form blank and required to be filled in so people can't be this lazy?

[windy]

Well, a pox on everyone's house. But my takeaway was this. First I listened to WB's video, in which she airs a brief clip of their conversation, making a huge deal about JOO and Elam being confused about what date she was sent an email. She intentionally and explicitly implies that they are lying and she was never sent an email at all. But when you listen to Elam's unedited version, it becomes obvious that she requested an avfm.com email and then failed to integrate it with her normal email routine and never bothered to check it. Elam apparently emailed her at that address.

Pretty much this, Elam may be a whiny censorious tit, but WB doesn't do herself any favors by quote-mining the call.

WB's version:

Elam's version:

[Tribble]

Hit the wrong button damnit...
When you move someone in with you in some states all property becomes community property. So no matter who actually purchased it both parties here in california are equally entitled to it as community property. Even if you make the majority of the income its 50/50.

So furniture, savings accounts, stock holdings, 401k?

If three guys move in together and share an apartment do the same rules apply?

Marriage. Don't know about civil unions. Merely cohabitating isn't a valid marriage.

Isn't there some precedent in Cali for joint property outside of marriage for a long-term relationship, i.e. "palimony"?

Last I was in California and even remotely acquainted with the body of case law, palimony was not faring well. It, basically, seems to come down to there has to be some kind of contractual agreement that can be enforced between the parties. And I don't mean pillow talk, I mean evidence of some sort that is clear and unambiguous. I haven't heard of anything that's changed that. But I don't follow anything Californian anymore.

[Outwest]

Hit the wrong button damnit...
When you move someone in with you in some states all property becomes community property. So no matter who actually purchased it both parties here in california are equally entitled to it as community property. Even if you make the majority of the income its 50/50.

So furniture, savings accounts, stock holdings, 401k?

If three guys move in together and share an apartment do the same rules apply?

Marriage. Don't know about civil unions. Merely cohabitating isn't a valid marriage.

Isn't there some precedent in Cali for joint property outside of marriage for a long-term relationship, i.e. "palimony"?

Last I was in California and even remotely acquainted with the body of case law, palimony was not faring well. It, basically, seems to come down to there has to be some kind of contractual agreement that can be enforced between the parties. And I don't mean pillow talk, I mean evidence of some sort that is clear and unambiguous. I haven't heard of anything that's changed that. But I don't follow anything Californian anymore.

A case from California from many years ago involved the actor Lee Marvin. He had been living with this woman "Michelle" for years, unmarried, but whenever they were out together, she was introduced as "Michelle Marvin". When they broke up, Lee, tried to get out of paying her anything because he said they were never legally married. The testimony, however proved that she was always introduced as either "Michelle Marvin", "my wife", or "Ms Marvin".

Yeah, he paid. BIG.

[Altair]

Since people are discussing female sexuality, this might be on topic:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/47843 ... n-like-sex

In his new book, “What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire,” journalist Daniel Bergner makes a shocking declaration about female desire: It’s base, animalistic, and ravenous:

“Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety … One of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale.”

Speaking of tenderness, it is men who have historically found comfort in the idea that women are emotionally-dependent, nurturing sexual lacklusters — women mewing kittens, men roaring lions waiting to pounce and mount their unwilling/disinterested prey. Even our language has been structured to position men as the subjects and women as the objects: e.g., “He fucked her.”

Hey, another lurker, long time no see you! welcome back

It's weird that men historically have found comfort in seeing women as "unwilling disinterested prey", since I can't imagine anyone wanting to have sex with an uninterested person. I like it when the woman is interested and wild, when her desire and wants are clearly apparent.

I wouldn't want a woman who sees sex with me as some sort of boring task that must be done out of obligation. Maybe it's a desire to see women as pure angels, some sort of derivative of the madonna whore complex?

[Gumby]

To be fair to PZ, he did say that he's bailing on the skeptical movement, not on skepticism itself.
He claimed that Skepticon ("evolutionary psychology is boooring unless you make stuff up") is the true bastion of real skepticism.

To be even fairer to PZ, he's arguably the second most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

I'm pretty sure he's killed millions less people than the first most unpleasant fictional character, however. Three cheers for the Peez!

[ReneeHendricks]

Ok, ok. I'm totally not trying to catch up with the 'pit. My week has been pretty full up on work/training. So, anything cool I've missed?

Walter Ego - welcome back. Sorry to hear about your situation :( I wasn't ignoring you on Skype yesterday, btw. Just in the middle of oodles of training conferences so I couldn't chat.

So, seriously... what's up?

Well, if you haven't seen it, PZ is trying to pass off his resentment over being excluded after his failed coup as A Very Important Criticism of a Very Misleading Claim by JREF's Underhanded Shitbag DJ Grothe. Whether or not TAM is the cheapest skeptic gathering is apparently a matter that requires going to the mattresses.

http://www.freezepage.com/1371013637UQTLSJKPDZ
http://www.freezepage.com/1371132961STYWQDUUYW

I did see that bit of nonsense. If you can't be a part of it, trash it as much as you can - PZ's motto

[ReneeHendricks]

Ok, ok. I'm totally not trying to catch up with the 'pit. My week has been pretty full up on work/training. So, anything cool I've missed?

Walter Ego - welcome back. Sorry to hear about your situation :( I wasn't ignoring you on Skype yesterday, btw. Just in the middle of oodles of training conferences so I couldn't chat.

So, seriously... what's up?

Well, if you haven't seen it, PZ is trying to pass off his resentment over being excluded after his failed coup as A Very Important Criticism of a Very Misleading Claim by JREF's Underhanded Shitbag DJ Grothe. Whether or not TAM is the cheapest skeptic gathering is apparently a matter that requires going to the mattresses.

http://www.freezepage.com/1371013637UQTLSJKPDZ
http://www.freezepage.com/1371132961STYWQDUUYW

Also, WoolyBumblebee was kicked off AVFM. Also, AVFM is nearly identical to FTB/A+.

I heard the audio between her and Elam. I haven't been keeping up with AVfM...so, they're championing MGTOW now?

[windy]

porcupine
http://www.theanimalprintshop.com/image ... Prints.jpg

What a cute little fella!
Thanks for the info, Sacha

Typical ageism and porcupedophilia, we adult porcupines are just invisible, it seems :violin:

[Gumby]

And now....BUTT SEX!

http://i.imgur.com/GWJ2YJ9.jpg

"rape is defined as assault by a penis".

Really?

Fuck it, let's just get rid of all the dictionaries now, no one's using them anyway. And throw all men into active volcanoes while we're at it.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 7e83ce.jpg

[Tribble]

A case from California from many years ago involved the actor Lee Marvin. He had been living with this woman "Michelle" for years, unmarried, but whenever they were out together, she was introduced as "Michelle Marvin". When they broke up, Lee, tried to get out of paying her anything because he said they were never legally married. The testimony, however proved that she was always introduced as either "Michelle Marvin", "my wife", or "Ms Marvin".

Yeah, he paid. BIG.

You know, I remember that case, it was 1976. I remember all the sensationalism. I remember her winning. I remember the coverage dropping off the face of the planet and I never heard another word on it.

Sadly, that's where the problem comes. See, the news rarely reports everything in a sensational case. Especially when the entire process spans years. In this case, it was FIVE years.

The short answer is that after a lot of legal wrangling over appeals, retrial and re-appeals is that Lee Marvin won. Marvin v. Marvin (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 871 [176 Cal.Rptr. 555] She didn't even get the $104K rehabilitative payment the second trial gave her.

So, except for a big legal bill (and I'm sure it was big) he paid nothing.

[Metalogic42]

Ok, ok. I'm totally not trying to catch up with the 'pit. My week has been pretty full up on work/training. So, anything cool I've missed?

Walter Ego - welcome back. Sorry to hear about your situation :( I wasn't ignoring you on Skype yesterday, btw. Just in the middle of oodles of training conferences so I couldn't chat.

So, seriously... what's up?

Well, if you haven't seen it, PZ is trying to pass off his resentment over being excluded after his failed coup as A Very Important Criticism of a Very Misleading Claim by JREF's Underhanded Shitbag DJ Grothe. Whether or not TAM is the cheapest skeptic gathering is apparently a matter that requires going to the mattresses.

http://www.freezepage.com/1371013637UQTLSJKPDZ
http://www.freezepage.com/1371132961STYWQDUUYW

Also, WoolyBumblebee was kicked off AVFM. Also, AVFM is nearly identical to FTB/A+.

I heard the audio between her and Elam. I haven't been keeping up with AVfM...so, they're championing MGTOW now?

Paul Elam practically wants to create a safe space for MGTOWs who have been stabbed in the back by evil wimmenz.

[Steersman]

<snip>
"… as Strawkins would insist compared to The Dictionary."

Why is she talking about me? :shifty:

She’s trying to be clever and not succeeding too well. Another one of her choice bits along the same line:
<snip>

I had a look at her post and noticed that it's actually Notung who first uses the term 'Strawkins'.

Bad Notung.

Hadn’t noticed that; just assumed that CaitieCat had first done so – mea culpa.

Her essay itself is laughable. It is a prime example of what happens when you delete basic skepticism from your repetoire of rhetorical techniques.

It is indeed. At least it is after one picks one’s jaw up off the floor. But I think it is something quite a bit more than just “deleting basic skepticism from your repertoire”, although that seems to be part and parcel of it. I think it is more along the line, as discussed here earlier, of the impact ideology has on science – as with Lysenkoism. But my “paradigmatic” example (never use a nickel word when a dollar one is close at hand) is Loyola’s “Rules for Thinking with the Church”, to wit:

That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.

All sorts of rabbit-holes to disappear down, but many created by that same objective and perspective.

So Dawkins’ point is that one common definition of racism can be applied to white people.

Agreed – and an excellent point, I think. You might want to take a look at Miri’s blog post on the question – even if only to take a look at where Richard Dawkins weighs in on the question, and at the responses to his comment by LeftSidePositive and, I think, Sally Strange.

CaitieCat decides to attack the idea of using dictionaries in the first place ….
<snip>
But couldn't the dictionary definition also be considered one of the alternative meanings?
And thus also be valid?

Yea, a bunch of good points and questions, which I’ve been giving some thought to as well, partly in the context of the definition of “misogyny”: simply and starkly “hatred of women” based on specific Greek roots. Which many SJWs wish to redefine as something along the line of saying a few “bad-werdz” to a few women. Which, assuming any reputable dictionary wished to go down that particular rabbit-hole, would then mean that any accusation would entail specifying which of two rather different definitions with very different implications was applicable.

But I think the problem is partly due to many SJWs in particular being decidedly unclear on the concept of adjectives – “how do they work?” – which Dawkins’ suggested by noting the difference between “racism” per se, and “institutional racism”. Seems the most sensible view – which most definitions seem to incorporate – is that the words are defined in the broadest possible sense – simply discrimination based on race for “racism” – which are then qualified through the use of adjectives.

However, you will probably not be surprised to see that my response to CaitieCat along that line was not well received. She seems to have abandoned the field in some disarray – from which I hope more than a few there will draw the appropriate conclusions. That is that she is simply blowing smoke out of her ass.

[sacha]

Hit the wrong button damnit...
When you move someone in with you in some states all property becomes community property. So no matter who actually purchased it both parties here in california are equally entitled to it as community property. Even if you make the majority of the income its 50/50.

So furniture, savings accounts, stock holdings, 401k?

If three guys move in together and share an apartment do the same rules apply?

This is not correct, it is if, the threshold to trigger this is higher than simply moving in together. It requires a certain duration, and most require some level of a relationship.

it used to be seven years = same as marriage in California. Has that changed?

[AndrewV69]

That is, those promoting the model are complaining that women aren't putting out, conveniently ignoring the fact that women are putting out like they've never been putting out before. I mean, it's a clam-bake fiesta out there.

QFT.

There has to be something wrong if you are a guy and can not get laid in this area of the sticks where I am currently residing for one.

[Parody Accountant]

Long time no post. This is just a quick update on my personal situation as explained in the video. Shout to Justin Vacula, Reap Paden, Renee and Justicar if he reads this forum anymore.

You Tube killed the account. The long and short of it is I will be homeless in a week or two and living in shelters until I start receiveing (limited) government benefits in September. I will have Skype access on my laptop though and I would appreciate talking with people (I wont ask you for money). Skype ID: buddhaglass or PM me

OK. I haven't watched much if any of your videos. WTF is up? It is great that you have a plan to get yourself partially back on your feet. I am going to assume that since you are in this position you do not have employment. Is that due to a rough employment market, or do you have some sort of disability that prevents you from working?

Walter is *obsessed* with EllenBeth Wachs... in a very over the top way. He did however drop off the scene for long enough to miss her 180 in the rift wars. It wouldn't surprise me if he is claiming to be homeless because of her. I also bet that his video(s) violate some legal action surrounding his obsession.

Walter: just try to get some help. You know you aren't in a good place right now. I hope you figure something out, though I understand it may be difficult for you. Get healthy man. Good luck.

[AndrewV69]

...Yes i giggled at that thought too but its straight from their ideas. From the website below on the history of mgtow
http://www.mgtowhistory.com/

2. Instilling femininity in Women:

We will hold women equally accountable to men and ignore and shun those who refuse to take any responsibility for their own circumstances. Thus we induce women to take a complementary position with men instead of a competitive position as is now the case.

Feminine qualities we want from Women:

Being a Nurturer.
Being Supportive.
Being Responsible.
Being Respectful.
Being Honest.

The last four are feminine qualities as opposed to simply human ones?
My SO must be right: I need to get out more.

They are all human qualities. Its the same nonsense as the Radical notion that women are people. This is the radical idea that men should be treated as humans by women. Same shit different ass pumping it out.

So I see that I am not the only one who does not consider being a "nurturer" to be an exclusive feminine trait. Men just tend to do it differently than women.

[Mykeru]

Ok, ok. I'm totally not trying to catch up with the 'pit. My week has been pretty full up on work/training. So, anything cool I've missed?

Walter Ego - welcome back. Sorry to hear about your situation :( I wasn't ignoring you on Skype yesterday, btw. Just in the middle of oodles of training conferences so I couldn't chat.

So, seriously... what's up?

Well, if you haven't seen it, PZ is trying to pass off his resentment over being excluded after his failed coup as A Very Important Criticism of a Very Misleading Claim by JREF's Underhanded Shitbag DJ Grothe. Whether or not TAM is the cheapest skeptic gathering is apparently a matter that requires going to the mattresses.

http://www.freezepage.com/1371013637UQTLSJKPDZ
http://www.freezepage.com/1371132961STYWQDUUYW

Also, WoolyBumblebee was kicked off AVFM. Also, AVFM is nearly identical to FTB/A+.

I heard the audio between her and Elam. I haven't been keeping up with AVfM...so, they're championing MGTOW now?

Yeah, and all that goes with it.

Allow me to rant.

The irony is that I'm kind of MGTOW in the particulars. I was divorced back in '07. I've never remarried. My last relationship was last summer which ended because, despite her "I'm not like that" claims, once the relationship got serious, she started the list of this I should change and that, so much so I told her straight up, if you want to change so many things, maybe you should find someone else. The thing I didn't like about her, which was bad ink, couldn't be changed. That may have been due to some of her bad ink being in Chinese characters, which reminded me of my ex wife and the fact that no one who gets bad Chinese tats has fuck all idea what they mean.

The final straw was she went through my phone and started asking me about text messages. I have texts from women on my phone. Some of them are friends, some I work with. One of them is a stripper And no. I haven't fucked her. I haven't seen her tits, but her ass is amazing. Otherwise in a Meetup group she's just a nice Italian girl.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5488/9035 ... 3d76dd.jpg

And she has eclectic taste in thongs.

Anyway, the point is, once your not so long SO goes through your stuff without asking to quiz you, or starts rummaging through your past associations, that's the big EXIT sign over the door.

I don't go out of my way to meet women. I don't suffer because I'm not in a relationship and, quite frankly, after the last one I did honestly ask myself "Why am I going through this?"

The difference is, I don't assign sweeping sociological theories to any of this. My anecdotes aren't fact, and 100% of the time the constant in my failed relationships is me. Mostly because I'm an insufferable asshole.

I do feel bad for guys screwed over in a divorce. Then again, at least the person I married I judged well enough as the sort of person who fucking me over wouldn't be her number one priority. I'm divorced, but was probably the most amicable divorc ever. So I have to give myself credit for that. And her.

Maybe I'm victim blaming, but when a divorce turns into an exercise in "fuck the other guy" I have to wonder just how well the people married really knew each other. Maybe the qualities that made the person a vindictive cunt made them also a bright shiny object. Having dated a stunningly beautiful, charming, mad-in-the-sack woman who was also the most hateful Borderline Personality when crossed, I can see how it happens. But I didn't marry her. It took a while, but I figured out exactly what she was and it didn't take lawyers to do it.

It's the same way I feel about a woman who stays in an abusive relationship or worse, returns to one. I can at the same time feel bad for her and also think she's either a fucking idiot or there's something she thinks "manly" about the whole exercise. In which case, it may not be society that's to blame.

I know men can suffer from systemic abuse in the courts, but to pivot on that and expect nodding agreement for one's suffering for theorizing that because of that there's something inherently wrong with the system, women in particular and 600 million years of evolution in general.

Basically, it's the worst form of SJW victim-privilege: They got screwed over so you are obligated to overlook the whining, responsibility-shifting and blaming everything and everyone but themselves.

No. Get over yourself.

[bovarchist]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... n-science/

What do you want to bet that if the premise was that the patriarchy makes men slightly more funny, based on some pseudo-scientific concoction, Myers would have far less objection than that gold-digging makes women less funny? Both are totally absurd propositions, of course, but it just underscores the absurdity of using patriarchy alone to draw baseless sociological conclusions.

You mean, what if the premise was that video games were sexist to women so give me money to make a YouTube video proving it? Yeah, it's safe to say Myers would be OK with it then.

[bovarchist]

[...] Even if you are prepared to accept that definition for the sake of argument, it is flawed due to the existence of societies where white people are not the ones with power. For example Japan, China, Indonesia, much of Africa. All you need to do is show one example of a single white person suffering prejudice in one of these societies and the 'prejudice plus power=racism' argument of SJW's lies in tatters.

Small side note: irish, jewish, italians and east europeans were not always considered "white". Seems odd, but it shall illustrate how even such seemingly clear concepts were not static.

And today, Latinos, Arabs and Indians are still not considered white by many.

[Hemisphere]

by ApostateltsopA » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:17 pm

Just to expand a bit on what the others have said, think of privlidge like hunger. You don't have less hungers if you have lots of food to eat. You don't have more hungers if you have not much, or no food to eat. You are simply more or less hungry.

Now you acknowledge that privlidge favors men. So let's look at reasonable responses. If we have two hungry people but one is just ready for a regular meal and the other is malnourished whom do you work harder to get food to?

We can want to end hunger everywhere, and we do, but men's issues won't be a major focus, they are not starving.

What's this? An Aplusser using a 'Dear Muslima' style argument? Oh the hypocrisy...

Source: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4881

[TheMudbrooker]

A case from California from many years ago involved the actor Lee Marvin. He had been living with this woman "Michelle" for years, unmarried, but whenever they were out together, she was introduced as "Michelle Marvin". When they broke up, Lee, tried to get out of paying her anything because he said they were never legally married. The testimony, however proved that she was always introduced as either "Michelle Marvin", "my wife", or "Ms Marvin".

Yeah, he paid. BIG.

You know, I remember that case, it was 1976. I remember all the sensationalism. I remember her winning. I remember the coverage dropping off the face of the planet and I never heard another word on it.

Sadly, that's where the problem comes. See, the news rarely reports everything in a sensational case. Especially when the entire process spans years. In this case, it was FIVE years.

The short answer is that after a lot of legal wrangling over appeals, retrial and re-appeals is that Lee Marvin won. Marvin v. Marvin (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 871 [176 Cal.Rptr. 555] She didn't even get the $104K rehabilitative payment the second trial gave her.

So, except for a big legal bill (and I'm sure it was big) he paid nothing.

Now to finish turning the 'pit into an early 80's episode of TMZ: Didn't Clint Eastwood go through a similar situation when he broke up with Sandra Locke around the same time as the Marvin case?

[Altair]

by ApostateltsopA » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:17 pm

Just to expand a bit on what the others have said, think of privlidge like hunger. You don't have less hungers if you have lots of food to eat. You don't have more hungers if you have not much, or no food to eat. You are simply more or less hungry.

Now you acknowledge that privlidge favors men. So let's look at reasonable responses. If we have two hungry people but one is just ready for a regular meal and the other is malnourished whom do you work harder to get food to?

We can want to end hunger everywhere, and we do, but men's issues won't be a major focus, they are not starving.

What's this? An Aplusser using a 'Dear Muslima' style argument? Oh the hypocrisy...

Source: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4881

Good catch. I also found Tomokun's answer interesting:

Taking the hungry people scenario, obviously the starving person deserves the meal more, but the RIGHT way to deny one person who wants food when giving it to someone else is to acknowledge that they are hungry, and maybe break them off a bit of the meal.

Which do you think gets less protests, "You aren't as hungry as him, so he's going to this steak, potatoes, salad, pudding, and corn bread."

Or

"You are definitely both hungry, and I get that. That sucks. But look at him, he hasn't eaten in a week. His ribs have ribs. He might even die if he doesn't get enough to eat. Here, take this cornbread to tide you over, but let's give the rest to him. He sure could use it, right?"

Compromise is extremely important, and effective. You don't win points and patience from the hungry man by telling him he ain't hungry just because he isn't starving.

I don't think he/she'll last long on A+.

[bovarchist]

The name and icon have changed now that Colgate-Palmolive bought them out (that's the transition in the three tubes). But the Chinese name on the package is: "Black Person Toothpaste."

Just interjecting here to say that I brushed my teeth with this toothpaste this morning. The Chinese on the tube (pinyin: Hei ren) does indeed translate as "Black Man" or "Black Person" (my Taiwanese girlfriend translates it as "Black Man"), and even with my limited knowledge of Chinese I can verify this. It's the number one toothpaste here, and there are ads everywhere for it. I was obviously flabbergasted when I first discovered it, but it really is completely normal here - not frowned upon in the slightest by anyone (except for newbie Westerners like me).

Anyway, as you were!

I don't see why it should be frowned upon. "Darkie", yes, I can see that that is an offensive term by modern standards. But why is it inherently racist to name a product after a particular group? Does the Indian Motorcycle company have this problem? I can't even imagine Spike Lee being upset by this.

And before this devolves into sports teams' names, let me get there first. I loved this post by Myers; it's just...so representative of the kind of distortion, dishonesty and manic flailing that he's turned into an argument style. And in just a few elegant lines!

We’ve had this long-simmering football controversy here in the upper midwest — a North Dakota football team named itself after an Indian tribe. They try to argue that it’s not racist and claim that it’s a respectful homage to the natives, but look at the history of such naming elsewhere: the Washington DC football team name is unabashedly racist.

The North Dakota team in question is called the Sioux. So what's Myers' brilliant argument that this is a racist name and should be changed? Well, there's a completely different team called the Redskins. That's racist, right? So the Sioux must be racist too! Myers then goes on for several paragraphs, detailing the history of the Redskins club, and never even mentions the Sioux team again. Racism: Proven.

There are times when I feel out of my depth in trying to parse exactly how Myers is being deceptive. And then there are times when he obviously isn't even trying anymore.

[bovarchist]

Daphne du Maurier was one of the most talented writers of the early 20th century. When I was growing up in India my cousin (who lived in the the US) gave me an old tattered copy of "Jamica Inn". The last few pages were missing. Turns out I never found out how the book ended as it never occurred to me or my parents that should buy me a good copy or get one from the library. I had to wait till I moved to the US to eventually find out how things turned out for Mary, the lead character in the novel.

Once I got to the US I read a lot of her novels. (I admit that while in grad school I spent a huge amount of time in the library reading things totally unrelated my research. It amazed me no end that I could just go pick as many books as I wanted, check them out and just lounge around reading.).

Many of here novels are very good. Among her best are "Rebbeca", "Hungry Hill", "My Cousin Rachel" and "The House on the Strand". Her most famous short story is "The Birds" which was also made into a movie. "Don't Look Now" is another very good short story.

It might do good for some of the pseudo-intellectual faux-femnists to read du Maurier for her portrayal of women. (Or perhaps not. They might get a hissy-fit on reading "My Cousin Rachel". 'There are some women … who through no fault of their own impel disaster.').[/quote]

I know the feeling. In 1977, at the age of six, we were ten minutes late to the theater for Star Wars. I had to wait TEN YEARS to find out how that movie started.

[bovarchist]

If we're going to talk racist history and actual institutionalized racism, the main example in Sweden would be our extremely shitty treatment of the Sami people, and just look at them:
http://i.imgur.com/8UvuroO.jpg
They are so "white" that it's pretty much impossible to tell them from from a "normal Swede" if they aren't wearing their traditional clothing.

In fairness though, how do you look at that and NOT persecute them? ;)

[Tigzy]

His blog, "Pharyngula," has won many awards, including "Best Science Blog," "Best Expert Blog," and the esteemed science journal "Nature" has given it its highest rating.

I love the idea of some clever dude going over to Pharyngula on those recommendations - best science blog, best expert blog and rated highly by Nature - in the expectation of finding a high quality, academic blog, and then discovering such esteemed luminaries as Janine, Spokesgay, Tony the Queer Shop ( ;) ) and Nerd of Redhead in the comments.

Besides, wasn't Peez bemoaning Grothe's puff of TAM the other day because he thought it violated trade descriptions..?

[AndrewV69]

Since people are discussing female sexuality, this might be on topic:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/47843 ... n-like-sex

In his new book, “What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire,” journalist Daniel Bergner makes a shocking declaration about female desire: It’s base, animalistic, and ravenous:

“Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety … One of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale.”

Some time ago I came to the conclusion that that was exactly the reason why certain societal constraints and customs and practises were developed and implemented. Need I mention that some of them are considered barbaric today?

Speaking of tenderness, it is men who have historically found comfort in the idea that women are emotionally-dependent, nurturing sexual lacklusters — women mewing kittens, men roaring lions waiting to pounce and mount their unwilling/disinterested prey. Even our language has been structured to position men as the subjects and women as the objects: e.g., “He fucked her.”

[/quote]

I beg to differ in that I believe I can find cultures (non-European) where this is not the case. Nonetheless your point is taken.

[Tribble]

Hit the wrong button damnit...
When you move someone in with you in some states all property becomes community property. So no matter who actually purchased it both parties here in california are equally entitled to it as community property. Even if you make the majority of the income its 50/50.

So furniture, savings accounts, stock holdings, 401k?

If three guys move in together and share an apartment do the same rules apply?

This is not correct, it is if, the threshold to trigger this is higher than simply moving in together. It requires a certain duration, and most require some level of a relationship.

it used to be seven years = same as marriage in California. Has that changed?

Yeah, in 1896 when they repealed common law marriages... :) There are only a small handful of States that recognize common law marriages. California isn't one of them.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

If we're going to talk racist history and actual institutionalized racism, the main example in Sweden would be our extremely shitty treatment of the Sami people, and just look at them:
http://i.imgur.com/8UvuroO.jpg
They are so "white" that it's pretty much impossible to tell them from from a "normal Swede" if they aren't wearing their traditional clothing.

In fairness though, how do you look at that and NOT persecute them? ;)

Good point ... :)

More seriously, the *worst* racism I have ever seen or experienced is black on black, black on asian, and asian on black ... have lived in London most of my life, and the degree of hatred individuals in these communities often show each other is shocking. Tribal and cultural roots are to blame. London may be the most multi-cultural city in the world, but that means it brings many factions and tribes that have been at war for many centuries into close contact.

I ran a company once where I employed (independently) two Kenyans. Both had Kenyan parents but both had been born in the UK and brought up here. I later found out their families came from very close to each other in Kenya, but that they were from different tribes. The two tribes had been at war for as long as oral tradition could remember. Those two British black people hated each other to the point where it was very obvious in the office. All probably due to a slight against one tribe or the other in times we had long forgotten about.

I've seen asian shops vandalised by black gangs as the owner was a "paki", others vandalised by Pakistanis as the owner was an Indian.

I've seen what the cate system does in India, I've seen the equivalent of the caste system in China and Japan.

Anyone who claims racism is only specific to certain skin colours or levels of privilege is a complete and utter idiot.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Anyone who claims racism is only specific to certain skin colours or levels of privilege is a complete and utter idiot.

That reminds me ... isn't PZ from Minnesota ... so the extent of his exposure to multiculturalism is probably pretty limited, living in the heartland of white rural America.

As far as he has personally seen racism up close and personal I strongly suspect it is white on white racism ... with Poles, Germans, Irish and Scandinavian immigrants being the majority of the population - and all of those groups having had cultural divides for centuries.

[cunt]

Even our language has been structured to position men as the subjects and women as the objects: e.g., “He fucked her.”

Sure, "She fucked him." totally doesn't work as a declarative statement. Practically fucking gibberish.

[JustAtheist]

Even our language has been structured to position men as the subjects and women as the objects: e.g., “He fucked her.”

Sure, "She fucked him." totally doesn't work as a declarative statement. Practically fucking gibberish.

They fucked him puts aliens in the subjective part and men objectified. Totally valid point if the original is.

[Tribble]

A case from California from many years ago involved the actor Lee Marvin. He had been living with this woman "Michelle" for years, unmarried, but whenever they were out together, she was introduced as "Michelle Marvin". When they broke up, Lee, tried to get out of paying her anything because he said they were never legally married. The testimony, however proved that she was always introduced as either "Michelle Marvin", "my wife", or "Ms Marvin".

Yeah, he paid. BIG.

You know, I remember that case, it was 1976. I remember all the sensationalism. I remember her winning. I remember the coverage dropping off the face of the planet and I never heard another word on it.

Sadly, that's where the problem comes. See, the news rarely reports everything in a sensational case. Especially when the entire process spans years. In this case, it was FIVE years.

The short answer is that after a lot of legal wrangling over appeals, retrial and re-appeals is that Lee Marvin won. Marvin v. Marvin (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 871 [176 Cal.Rptr. 555] She didn't even get the $104K rehabilitative payment the second trial gave her.

So, except for a big legal bill (and I'm sure it was big) he paid nothing.

Now to finish turning the 'pit into an early 80's episode of TMZ: Didn't Clint Eastwood go through a similar situation when he broke up with Sandra Locke around the same time as the Marvin case?

I don't know. I left California a long time ago. As far as I can remember, the last time I heard about them when I lived in California they were still together. When they broke up, I don't know as following Clint Eastwood and the under-talented Locke was never a priority in my life :)

It's like the whole issue of palimony. When I left, the few cases I knew of, the defendant had won them all on the same grounds -- no enforceable contract. How it's shaken out given the rules of Marvin, I don't know as the case found against her on the facts (no enforceable contract), but left receiving palimony open when there was certain clear and convincing evidence of an agreement (contract) for a palimony situation.

But since I don't do divorce accounting, divorce planning and divorce estate valuation in California anymore (and haven't since the 1990s when I left), I can't be 100% certain of the status of the law. I know that (when I left) if there's an enforceable contract between the two parties, paying palimony can be a contractually obligated issue. But without it, you were going to be pissing up a rope.

[Jan Steen]

A few weeks ago I posted a satirical version of Peezus new book, with the punchline being that the back cover reviews by the top New Atheists, (Dawkins, Sam Harris etc) were conspicuously missing or dissmissive.
Fast forward a few weeks and we find the first publicity for the book from his publisher.

In fact it does contain positive reviews!
From Dawkins?
Sam Harris?
Daniel Dennett?
Michael Shermer?
DJ Grothe?
Jerry Coyne?
AC Grayling?

Errrrrr..... read on

About the Author
PZ Myers is a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota in Morris. He was named Humanist of the Year in 2009 by the American Humanist Association, and was granted the International Humanist Award in 2011 by the International Ethical Humanist Union. He has traveled internationally to lecture on biology and evolution, atheism, and skepticism. His blog, "Pharyngula," has won many awards, including "Best Science Blog," "Best Expert Blog," and the esteemed science journal "Nature" has given it its highest rating.
Reviews
Praise for PZ Myers' "The Happy Atheist
"
"PZ Myers sets himself apart from the rest of the New Atheist authors by talking, not just about the bigger picture of God, but about religion as all of us experience it on a daily basis. Yes, he tackles the philosophers and theologians, but he also reserves energy to take on casual believers and the myths we come across every day. Nothing--not Communion, not the Holy Spirit, not even death--is too sacred to dissect. And that's what he does, dismantling religious cliches with ease, making you reconsider all those ideas you grew up with (and may still hold). If you're still religious after reading this book, you didn't read it carefully enough."
--Hemant Mehta, author of "The Young Atheist's Survival Guide" and blogger at FriendlyAtheist.com

"With a style that blends confrontation, humor, irreverence, and common sense, PZ Myers has become an important voice for America's growing nonreligious demographic. "The Happy Atheist" is quintessential Myers--ridiculing absurdities, exposing contradictions, rejecting claims of authority, and reminding readers that religious dogmatism too often obstructs reason and critical thinking."
--David Niose, Author of "Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans" and President of the Secular Coalition for America

"PZ Myers is well known as an angry man in the land of 140-characters and blogs where he made his name. That anger is also here in this book, and it's always a righteous anger. But PZ Myers is also a happy man, amused as well as bemused by religious follies."
--Andrew Copson, Chief Executive, British Humanist Association

Oh dear...

For some reason you failed to cite the following review:

“Like me, PZ Myers is a real, practising scientist. His opinion is anything but unevidenced fuckwittery which can be dismissed as per the Hitchens quote. There are enough idjits who will never understand that their OPINION is not EVIDENCE. These MRA/Slymepitter types have nothing but attitude. PZ is not one of them. Unlike those losers his opinion IS evidence because he is always right. This is a great book and we can't recommend it. enough. I look forward to reading soon if I can get a break from my scientic work because I'm practising scientist.”
--Nerd of Redhead, professional Pharyngula commenter and practising scientist.

[KiwiInOz]

Do you have any french roots at all, or are you too ashamed of them?

He talked about his groupie experience upthread.

[cunt]

Even our language has been structured to position men as the subjects and women as the objects: e.g., “He fucked her.”

Sure, "She fucked him." totally doesn't work as a declarative statement. Practically fucking gibberish.

They fucked him puts aliens in the subjective part and men objectified. Totally valid point if the original is.

"He fucked himself". Woah, that dumbass is both subject and object.

[JustAtheist]

Even our language has been structured to position men as the subjects and women as the objects: e.g., “He fucked her.”

Sure, "She fucked him." totally doesn't work as a declarative statement. Practically fucking gibberish.

They fucked him puts aliens in the subjective part and men objectified. Totally valid point if the original is.

"He fucked himself". Woah, that dumbass is both subject and object.

They fucked themselves ... Our language has self hating orgies built in

[Tribble]

The name and icon have changed now that Colgate-Palmolive bought them out (that's the transition in the three tubes). But the Chinese name on the package is: "Black Person Toothpaste."

Just interjecting here to say that I brushed my teeth with this toothpaste this morning. The Chinese on the tube (pinyin: Hei ren) does indeed translate as "Black Man" or "Black Person" (my Taiwanese girlfriend translates it as "Black Man"), and even with my limited knowledge of Chinese I can verify this. It's the number one toothpaste here, and there are ads everywhere for it. I was obviously flabbergasted when I first discovered it, but it really is completely normal here - not frowned upon in the slightest by anyone (except for newbie Westerners like me).

Anyway, as you were!

I don't see why it should be frowned upon. "Darkie", yes, I can see that that is an offensive term by modern standards. But why is it inherently racist to name a product after a particular group? Does the Indian Motorcycle company have this problem? I can't even imagine Spike Lee being upset by this.

And before this devolves into sports teams' names, let me get there first. I loved this post by Myers; it's just...so representative of the kind of distortion, dishonesty and manic flailing that he's turned into an argument style. And in just a few elegant lines!

I quite agree. The naming of something using an ethic name, like Seminoles or Sioux, is not inherently racist. Redskins, otoh, is pretty much the equivalent of 'nigger.' Maybe not quite as charged, but it's in the family. Like Spic, Wop, Slope, Kike, Cracker, etc.

We’ve had this long-simmering football controversy here in the upper midwest — a North Dakota football team named itself after an Indian tribe. They try to argue that it’s not racist and claim that it’s a respectful homage to the natives, but look at the history of such naming elsewhere: the Washington DC football team name is unabashedly racist.

The North Dakota team in question is called the Sioux. So what's Myers' brilliant argument that this is a racist name and should be changed? Well, there's a completely different team called the Redskins. That's racist, right? So the Sioux must be racist too! Myers then goes on for several paragraphs, detailing the history of the Redskins club, and never even mentions the Sioux team again. Racism: Proven.

There are times when I feel out of my depth in trying to parse exactly how Myers is being deceptive. And then there are times when he obviously isn't even trying anymore.

That's a false analogy. Sioux is, in fact, the name of a Native American tribe. Redskins is, in fact, a commonly understood as a racial slur. It may have not started out that way, much like 'nigger' came from 'negro' which is merely Spanish for 'black.' But it is now.

I find the Skeptics Guide to be useful when dealing with trying to describe this kind of duplicitous conduct: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resourc ... acies.aspx

False Analogy
Analogies are very useful as they allow us to draw lessons from the familiar and apply them to the unfamiliar. Life is like a box of chocolate – you never know what you’re going to get.

A false analogy is an argument based upon an assumed similarity between two things, people, or situations when in fact the two things being compared are not similar in the manner invoked. Saying that the probability of a complex organism evolving by chance is the same as a tornado ripping through a junkyard and created a 747 by chance is a false analogy. Evolution, in fact, does not work by chance but is the non-random accumulation of favorable changes.

Creationists also make the analogy between life and your home, invoking the notion of thermodynamics or entropy. Over time your home will become messy, and things will start to break down. The house does not spontaneously become more clean or in better repair.

The false analogy here is that a home is an inanimate collection of objects. Whereas life uses energy to grow and reproduce – the addition of energy to the system of life allows for the local reduction in entropy – for evolution to happen.

Another way in which false analogies are invoked is to make an analogy between two things that are in fact analogous in many ways – just not the specific way being invoked in the argument. Just because two things are analogous in some ways does not mean they are analogous in every way.

Highlights added.

[codelette]

Anyone who claims racism is only specific to certain skin colours or levels of privilege is a complete and utter idiot.

That reminds me ... isn't PZ from Minnesota ... so the extent of his exposure to multiculturalism is probably pretty limited, living in the heartland of white rural America.

As far as he has personally seen racism up close and personal I strongly suspect it is white on white racism ... with Poles, Germans, Irish and Scandinavian immigrants being the majority of the population - and all of those groups having had cultural divides for centuries.

Yep.
Most of them live in very very white places; so they think the rest of humanity is just a whole bunch of white folks talking smack and oppressing "the minorities".
It seems they have never heard Mexican people (and these are Native American) talking dismissively about "negritos" and their "culture" (i.e. "they all are lazy", "they all are criminals", "they stain the showertubs", etc).

[codelette]

BTW, this is for the fuckers that think that only white people can be racist.
[youtube]Z341bBS7oj0[/youtube]

[JustAtheist]

The name and icon have changed now that Colgate-Palmolive bought them out (that's the transition in the three tubes). But the Chinese name on the package is: "Black Person Toothpaste."

Just interjecting here to say that I brushed my teeth with this toothpaste this morning. The Chinese on the tube (pinyin: Hei ren) does indeed translate as "Black Man" or "Black Person" (my Taiwanese girlfriend translates it as "Black Man"), and even with my limited knowledge of Chinese I can verify this. It's the number one toothpaste here, and there are ads everywhere for it. I was obviously flabbergasted when I first discovered it, but it really is completely normal here - not frowned upon in the slightest by anyone (except for newbie Westerners like me).

Anyway, as you were!

I don't see why it should be frowned upon. "Darkie", yes, I can see that that is an offensive term by modern standards. But why is it inherently racist to name a product after a particular group? Does the Indian Motorcycle company have this problem? I can't even imagine Spike Lee being upset by this.

And before this devolves into sports teams' names, let me get there first. I loved this post by Myers; it's just...so representative of the kind of distortion, dishonesty and manic flailing that he's turned into an argument style. And in just a few elegant lines!

I quite agree. The naming of something using an ethic name, like Seminoles or Sioux, is not inherently racist. Redskins, otoh, is pretty much the equivalent of 'nigger.' Maybe not quite as charged, but it's in the family. Like Spic, Wop, Slope, Kike, Cracker, etc.

We’ve had this long-simmering football controversy here in the upper midwest — a North Dakota football team named itself after an Indian tribe. They try to argue that it’s not racist and claim that it’s a respectful homage to the natives, but look at the history of such naming elsewhere: the Washington DC football team name is unabashedly racist.

The North Dakota team in question is called the Sioux. So what's Myers' brilliant argument that this is a racist name and should be changed? Well, there's a completely different team called the Redskins. That's racist, right? So the Sioux must be racist too! Myers then goes on for several paragraphs, detailing the history of the Redskins club, and never even mentions the Sioux team again. Racism: Proven.

There are times when I feel out of my depth in trying to parse exactly how Myers is being deceptive. And then there are times when he obviously isn't even trying anymore.

That's a false analogy. Sioux is, in fact, the name of a Native American tribe. Redskins is, in fact, a commonly understood as a racial slur. It may have not started out that way, much like 'nigger' came from 'negro' which is merely Spanish for 'black.' But it is now.

I find the Skeptics Guide to be useful when dealing with trying to describe this kind of duplicitous conduct: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resourc ... acies.aspx

False Analogy
Analogies are very useful as they allow us to draw lessons from the familiar and apply them to the unfamiliar. Life is like a box of chocolate – you never know what you’re going to get.

A false analogy is an argument based upon an assumed similarity between two things, people, or situations when in fact the two things being compared are not similar in the manner invoked. Saying that the probability of a complex organism evolving by chance is the same as a tornado ripping through a junkyard and created a 747 by chance is a false analogy. Evolution, in fact, does not work by chance but is the non-random accumulation of favorable changes.

Creationists also make the analogy between life and your home, invoking the notion of thermodynamics or entropy. Over time your home will become messy, and things will start to break down. The house does not spontaneously become more clean or in better repair.

The false analogy here is that a home is an inanimate collection of objects. Whereas life uses energy to grow and reproduce – the addition of energy to the system of life allows for the local reduction in entropy – for evolution to happen.

Another way in which false analogies are invoked is to make an analogy between two things that are in fact analogous in many ways – just not the specific way being invoked in the argument. Just because two things are analogous in some ways does not mean they are analogous in every way.

Highlights added.

While yes it is pretty racist by todays standards the funny thing is here in California bills to defeat the use of the name in public school were defeated by a coalition of schools and native tribes who spoke of the name as bringing pride in their warrior heritage to their people. Its all in how you look at it i guess. Yep might be racist but maybe only when the team sucks consistently like in washington :)

[LMU]

Since people are discussing female sexuality, this might be on topic:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/47843 ... n-like-sex

In his new book, “What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire,” journalist Daniel Bergner makes a shocking declaration about female desire: It’s base, animalistic, and ravenous:

“Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety … One of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale.”

Speaking of tenderness, it is men who have historically found comfort in the idea that women are emotionally-dependent, nurturing sexual lacklusters — women mewing kittens, men roaring lions waiting to pounce and mount their unwilling/disinterested prey. Even our language has been structured to position men as the subjects and women as the objects: e.g., “He fucked her.”

Hey, another lurker, long time no see you! welcome back

It's weird that men historically have found comfort in seeing women as "unwilling disinterested prey", since I can't imagine anyone wanting to have sex with an uninterested person. I like it when the woman is interested and wild, when her desire and wants are clearly apparent.

I wouldn't want a woman who sees sex with me as some sort of boring task that must be done out of obligation. Maybe it's a desire to see women as pure angels, some sort of derivative of the madonna whore complex?

If men desire that in their women, then I would speculate that is because it reduces the fear that their partner will cheat on them. In such an interpretation, a woman who appears (naturally or feigned) to be wholly uninterested in sex, is communicating to her male suitor that should he invest himself into raising children with her, then those children are almost surely his.

[BarnOwl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... 29385.html

1. What the absolute fuck is the matter with some people?

2. Watch an 11-year-old handle genuine bigotry and abuse with more maturity and grace than Ophelia "it's-all-about-MEEEEEEE-WAAAHHHHH" could ever muster.

[Pitchguest]

So it seems someone may have trolled Avicenna by quoting Skep tickle (without credit) and sending it as an email to him:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... -blogging/

That someone also included:

http://i.imgur.com/KB2ooYG.jpg

Seems that someone also mentioned Avicenna's girlfriend by name, so I'm guessing it's someone from the FtB clique who wants to stir shit up.

[cunt]

I still love the irony of the people who whine about "dictionary atheists" citing a relatively obscure sociological definition of "racist/racism" with a straight face.

[Cunning Punt]

Hit the wrong button damnit...
When you move someone in with you in some states all property becomes community property. So no matter who actually purchased it both parties here in california are equally entitled to it as community property. Even if you make the majority of the income its 50/50.

So furniture, savings accounts, stock holdings, 401k?

If three guys move in together and share an apartment do the same rules apply?

Marriage. Don't know about civil unions. Merely cohabitating isn't a valid marriage.

Do you realize that in other countries no distinction is made between married and co-habiting? In Australia for example, it's called a de-facto marriage. You have all the same rights regarding taxation, insurance, and division of assets if the relationship ends. The only problem is if it's a contentious breakup, sometimes either party will disagree about when the relationship started, whereas if you're married you have a piece of paper that states when it started. Also estate settlements can be contentious, if one partner dies without leaving a will and someone else in the family wants to make a fuss, although the only case of this that I know was of a gay couple.