Shall Mr Vacula Make a Misstep in the Capital of Eire?

#3061

[quote="Metalogic42"

Thank you. However, I'd argue that even Last Thursdayism can be disproven by reductio into something even epistemically weaker than solipsism (and LTism itself is a reductio of Omphalos). But I leave that as an exercise for the reader.[/quote]

Yes, another point easily conceded about Last Thursdayism. Well played! And thank you for the lesson. I genuinely enjoy being wrong, for moments like this.

Side note, I think it's definitely wise to sidestep the implied solipsism argument in the manner you did above. I actually had a few days of sheer terror when I tried to work through the implications. Turns out, it's bollocks just like it sounds. :D Definitely an exercise best left for the reader.

OK, back to dick jokes and crappy photoshops.

#3062

Metalogic42 wrote: Given that there's some pretty strong arguments that no gods exist, you should believe there are no gods. And if belief in no gods isn't atheism, then what is it?

Which gods? Some people worship the moon as a god. The moon exists.
The proof would have to be pretty complex to cover all the different things that have ever been called 'god'.
There are good proofs against specific gods, and there are good proofs when the word god is used in an unintelligible way, but other than that, you pretty much have to leave open some possibility that you've never heard of.

By going with 'lacking any belief in any gods', it puts the burden on the theist to a) define their god first, b) prove it exists.

Thus, if they say, "My god is the Moon, and the Moon exists," I can just reply, "Yeah, but we already have a word for it: Moon. What do the letters g-o-d add to it that wasn't already there in the word Moon?" Stuff like that. You can also go on to say, "The astronauts planted a flag in your god."

#3063

Metalogic42 wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7yAQdW1wD4E/T ... shpoll.gif
Sorry, but I'm really pissed about this. "You can't prove a negative" is the most egregiously bullshit statement to ever make rounds in the atheism community. I'm just gonna leave this here: http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosoph ... gative.pdf

I bet people thought man couldn't land on the moon, but if you can't prove a negative then that would just be endless speculation. But if you say you can, people could just say, "Man *can't* land the moon." And then get very embarassed when it turns out that, actually, man *can.* I don't say, "The Loch Ness monster doesn't exist." I say, "It's highly unlikely that the Loch Ness monster exists."

It's better than get pie in my face. Besides, the argument can easily be overturned and we'd be back on square one.

#3064

Wonderist wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote: Given that there's some pretty strong arguments that no gods exist, you should believe there are no gods. And if belief in no gods isn't atheism, then what is it?
Which gods? Some people worship the moon as a god. The moon exists.
The proof would have to be pretty complex to cover all the different things that have ever been called 'god'.
There are good proofs against specific gods, and there are good proofs when the word god is used in an unintelligible way, but other than that, you pretty much have to leave open some possibility that you've never heard of.

By going with 'lacking any belief in any gods', it puts the burden on the theist to a) define their god first, b) prove it exists.

Thus, if they say, "My god is the Moon, and the Moon exists," I can just reply, "Yeah, but we already have a word for it: Moon. What do the letters g-o-d add to it that wasn't already there in the word Moon?" Stuff like that. You can also go on to say, "The astronauts planted a flag in your god."

Exactly what you say in the last paragraph. Calling something a god doesn't make it so, nor does worshiping it. But anyway, yes, there is some possibility that I've never heard of. I'm not 100% certain that no gods exist. But if we only believed things which we were certain about, we'd barely believe anything, and solipsism would rear its ugly head.

#3065

Metalogic42 wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote: Holy shit. Point conceded. That article was great!

http://i.imgur.com/uKYLpDe.png

I'm definitely going to be more specific. You most certainly can prove a negative, but you probably can't disprove every claim. That's where it's still convenient to stick with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/proof".
Thank you. However, I'd argue that even Last Thursdayism can be disproven by reductio into something even epistemically weaker than solipsism (and LTism itself is a reductio of Omphalos). But I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Haven't read the link (but I do agree that you can sometimes prove a negative), but that "Last Thursdayism" argument is fucking absurd. I remember when Masimo Pigliucci (sp?) pulled that in one of his arguments with Coyne. I think I did make the comment that : "If someone wants to argue that everything was created last Thursday with the appearance of age, a scientist can say nothing" (his argument) is flawed. A scientist can ask "where is your evidence for this belief?". Without evidence, you have an interesting hypothesis, but one that can be dismissed. When you make the claim that things were only recently created, you're making more assumptions than if you assume that the universe is as it appears. Without evidence, they are unjustified assumptions and basically mental masturbation, which I see a lot of in the philosophical atheist bloggers (as well as theologians). I didn't say all of that in my comment, but I never got a response as far as I remember.

#3066

sacha wrote:
Guest wrote:
JackSkeptic wrote:If you can't handle simple humour after I have said that was the intent then tough luck. It was damn obvious to me it was humour after what I had said about vegetarians but I even clarified. I repeat, just like FtB bullies you won't bully me.
http://i.imgur.com/UR0aouA.jpg

hahaha!

[youtube]oO_Ckg5ott8[/youtube]

#3067

Metalogic42 wrote:
JackSkeptic wrote:
Metalogic42, you are switching the burden of proof to yourself when there is not only no need but it will also open you up to easy attacks from a competent theist or apologist. It can be easy enough to disprove particular god claims (original sin associated with other concepts is an example) due to their logical failure but that is not true of the woolly beliefs many theists hold. Also switching this burden of proof will put you in a position of not being able to effectively deal with claims such as those by WLC with his TAG arguments.
I *want* the burden of proof, thank you very much. Makes for a more strongly defended position (not that I don't respond to theistic arguments - I do. But I also make arguments for atheism).

Also, if by TAG you mean 'Transcendental Argument for God", I'm pretty sure WLC has never used that argument.

Yes you are right, sorry. His argument is based on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

#3068

justinvacula wrote:Good discussions with Nugent.

Was it a discussion or an interview? Will the topics discussed be brought up anywhere? Just curious to see how this goes, and if he is going to be the new Witch of the Week.

#3069

John Greg wrote:OK, so, I'm a weak atheist. Big shmoo. I have never believed in god or gods, so I have never felt the need to approach my atheism from some point of research requiring a belief that there are no gods. If that's intellectual cowardice, so be it.

I have never believed even after trying to do so. Furthermore, it took me ages to understand that that there were people who had made an intellectual decision not to believe.

I wonder, are you aware of any good studies on the subject?

#3070

welch wrote:
It's all about who's technique and methodology is the most "academic".

Barb Drescher's reaction when I suggested that one way to improve and grow TAM would be to throw open all the sessions to submissions shows that, and she's one of the better ones. But, suggest her beloved TAM move away from the Academic model, and the fangs come out. The skeptic community at large, to outsiders, has at best, a vague interest in dealing with reality. The only consistent example is the medical stuff, and a huge chunk of that is Orac/Science-based medicine.

How much time was spent doing deep analysis of, yet again, claims of bigfoot. Meanwhile, people get their bank accounts drained all the time due to shysters via email and blind trust in anything called an "ATM". Bring those kinds of things up as good subjects for skeptics and "OH, JUST BECAUSE WE WON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT, WE'RE WRONG". Well, no. But if one of the reasons for this entire silly movement is to "help people not get suckered", then why keep going on and on about the same fucking subjects all the time and REFUSE to consider anything else.

I found it amusing that she talked about how having 20-30 papers submitted for the sunday sessions was some sign of how successful the 20-minute up-against-last-day-breakfast ghetto session is. Given the number of people supposedly wanting to participate, that number's at least one power of ten low.

The skeptic community is a superannuated group of academics and they want to keep it that way.

Am I a bad person, or a bad skeptic for wanting to tell all of these people to pull their heads out of their asses? Too many overly simplistic models to explain complex phenomenon.

#3071

Vacula! Elevator pics or I want my donation back!

#3072

Pitchguest wrote:
Tribble wrote:It's nothing personal. It went down according to 'Is It Down Right Now."

http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/skeptickink.com.html

Website Name: Skeptickink

skeptickink.comURL Checked: skeptickink.com

no responseResponse Time: no response

unknownLast Down: unknown

Skeptickink.com is DOWN for everyone.
It is not just you. The server is not responding...
http://i.imgur.com/jfG4X6E.jpg

? :think:

They're probably conducting a blogger purge and then a redesign as SkepticInk+!

#3073

AndrewV69 wrote:
John Greg wrote:OK, so, I'm a weak atheist. Big shmoo. I have never believed in god or gods, so I have never felt the need to approach my atheism from some point of research requiring a belief that there are no gods. If that's intellectual cowardice, so be it.
I have never believed even after trying to do so. Furthermore, it took me ages to understand that that there were people who had made an intellectual decision not to believe.

I wonder, are you aware of any good studies on the subject?

I was a seeker, but every religion I checked out didn't make sense when you really thought about it. There were things I liked in Bahai, Buddhism, and Taoism, but I just couldn't really believe in any of them.
I would also consider myself a weak atheist in that I don't hold with any certainty that there isn't a god, I just find the concept of god not provable and ultimately irrelevant.

#3074

Metalogic42 wrote:
welch wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote: I believe there is no tooth fairy. Don't you? No way in hell I'm gonna be agnostic about tooth fairies. Same goes for gods.
what's the basis for that belief? What's the structure of it? It's clearly a thing, so what are the details of it?
Before I go full Wonderist, exactly how much information are you asking for here?

Well, I'm not sure? You're making not believing in the tooth fair as an active thing, that you gave or give some thought to on a regular basis. You actively believe there is no tooth fair, whereas, from what I can tell, most people just don't think it's real and that's about all the thought they ever give to it. So if it's a thing that you do, and believing over not believing would imply that, i'm actually curious about it.

I can't imagine actually being terribly active about such things, even on a purely mental basis.

#3075

What's up with the unloved one and his one line anti wonderist droppings

#3076

justinvacula wrote:Belief - n. - a proposition that one holds to be true

I would go with this, but I would take it just one step further. The 'beliefs' that concern me are the ones upon which people will base their *actions* in real life. So for me it's:
Belief - n. - a proposition that one is so confident in that one is willing to act as if that proposition is actually true

I choose this definition because it bridges the worlds of imagination and real-world actions and consequences.

The WTC terrorists truly did believe in their afterlife, that they would be martyrs, and that Allah exists. They believed that to the extent that they were willing to act as if it were actually true. And those are the beliefs that I work against.

Many so called skeptics *actually* believed that there was good evidence of upskirt photography. They acted as if it were literally true, even though it was demonstrably unsupported even by the main witnesses. That is the kind of belief that is dangerous, because it affects the world outside of someone's personal imagination.

#3077

justinvacula wrote:Belief - n. - a proposition that one holds to be true

A dictionary? This is why SIN fired you... With Loftus deciding he's all okay with A+ and asserting that atheism means you must be some sort of SJW type... Well, as we know in A+ land, dictionaries are verboten.

#3078

welch wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
Before I go full Wonderist, exactly how much information are you asking for here?
Well, I'm not sure? You're making not believing in the tooth fair as an active thing, that you gave or give some thought to on a regular basis. You actively believe there is no tooth fair, whereas, from what I can tell, most people just don't think it's real and that's about all the thought they ever give to it. So if it's a thing that you do, and believing over not believing would imply that, i'm actually curious about it.

I can't imagine actually being terribly active about such things, even on a purely mental basis.

You don't necessarily need to put a lot of thought in to believe something doesn't exist. For example: Do you believe that San Francisco is not the capital of England? I'm betting yes - yet you probably formed that belief as soon as you finished reading the previous sentence.

If you want to say "Discussing whether god/the tooth fairy/bigfoot/Metalogic's tiny cock exists is of no importance to me", that's totally fine. But one need not think something is important in order to have a belief about it.

#3079

Metalogic42 wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7yAQdW1wD4E/T ... shpoll.gif
Sorry, but I'm really pissed about this. "You can't prove a negative" is the most egregiously bullshit statement to ever make rounds in the atheism community. I'm just gonna leave this here: http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosoph ... gative.pdf

It's also easily refuted as a positive claim: "Can you prove the negative statement that "You can't prove a negative."?"

Or simply, "Can you prove that?"

#3080

katamari Damassi wrote: I was a seeker, but every religion I checked out didn't make sense when you really thought about it. There were things I liked in Bahai, Buddhism, and Taoism, but I just couldn't really believe in any of them.

I'm considerably fond of Taoism - you've got to love a belief system that seems to consist mainly in lessons on how silly it is to have beliefs.

I really like it - it bothers me a bit that it seems to advocate inaction at its core - but I think that's only because of its wide perspective.

#3081

Badger3k wrote:"Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /dangeroustalk/2013/07/04/has-independence-day-lost-its-luster/ on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request."

That's what I get now. Anyone have any idea what this is?

that can be a lot of things. I'm getting the cloudflare cache of the main site, and nothign for dangeroustalk at all. The traceroute is all kinds of whacky in both atlanta and SLC. It looks like SIN hasn't yet gotten everything behind cloudflare yet. According to Cloudflare, SIN's completely offline, but as to what level, hard to say.

Could be everything from external issues to someone bolluxing up a redesign or change.

#3082

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Short version. Awaken to the reality that the human condition is funny as fuck. Then laugh.

#3083

Fine, fine... ye of little faith

Video: Dublin elevator ride

[youtube]N0PEtO7gxwA[/youtube]

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

http://i.imgur.com/5cMAwY3.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Hh4WGWJ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/vsUMo0Q.jpg

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

#3084

That's *an* elevator...but is it *the* elevator?

#3085

debaser71 wrote:The reason why men double over in pain is because when you get hit in the nuts it hurts in your lower abdomen. Like the pain is transferred or connected somehow. But I suppose YMMV.

It seems like the shock travels all the way up the plumbing. At least when I've been nutted. Not just the nuts, but all the way up to the bladder.

#3086

Were there any warnings within the rape cell, telling men not to rape in confined spaces? Was there a built in rape alarm? Pepper spray behind a "break in case of emergency" glass? It's about time hotels started taking shrodinger's rapist seriously. Especially if they want women to stay in their rooms.

#3087

Metalogic42 wrote:
welch wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
Before I go full Wonderist, exactly how much information are you asking for here?
Well, I'm not sure? You're making not believing in the tooth fair as an active thing, that you gave or give some thought to on a regular basis. You actively believe there is no tooth fair, whereas, from what I can tell, most people just don't think it's real and that's about all the thought they ever give to it. So if it's a thing that you do, and believing over not believing would imply that, i'm actually curious about it.

I can't imagine actually being terribly active about such things, even on a purely mental basis.
You don't necessarily need to put a lot of thought in to believe something doesn't exist. For example: Do you believe that San Francisco is not the capital of England? I'm betting yes - yet you probably formed that belief as soon as you finished reading the previous sentence.

If you want to say "Discussing whether god/the tooth fairy/bigfoot/Metalogic's tiny cock exists is of no importance to me", that's totally fine. But one need not think something is important in order to have a belief about it.

What's belief have to do with things you can verify? I don't "believe" in IPv4 or SNMP. (IPv6 on the other hand...<inside joke>) They are things that exist and work in a specified way, and I can verify them. belief has nothing to do with that, in fact, it's actually harmful for dealing with reality. The current capital of England requires zero belief, regardless of what city that actually is. I can spend a small amount of time to verify what that is from multiple authoritative sources.

I don't believe I have a dog laying about 2.5m from me. I can look and see she's there. If I were to walk over and verify this by touching her, she would have the physical characteristics of what we call a dog. There's zero belief involved with that. So is the horrifying fact that my coffee mug is empty.

This is where such discussions get, from my POV, weird. You used something that requires zero belief whatsoever as an example of belief. Why would you even do that? I'm unsure what it shows.

#3088

AndrewV69 said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 92#p107592):

I wonder, are you aware of any good studies on the subject?

You may cease your wonderishment: I am not.

#3089

Tribble wrote:
debaser71 wrote:The reason why men double over in pain is because when you get hit in the nuts it hurts in your lower abdomen. Like the pain is transferred or connected somehow. But I suppose YMMV.

It seems like the shock travels all the way up the plumbing. At least when I've been nutted. Not just the nuts, but all the way up to the bladder.

If you look at the right anatomical charts, there's a lot of nerves in that area. the fact it has affects in other areas is unsurprising.

#3090

welch wrote: What's belief have to do with things you can verify? I don't "believe" in IPv4 or SNMP. (IPv6 on the other hand...<inside joke>) They are things that exist and work in a specified way, and I can verify them.

Every time someone fails hardcore phenomenology 101 a butterfly that might be a sage dies.

#3091

katanari said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 96#p107596):

There were things I liked in Bahai, Buddhism, and Taoism, but I just couldn't really believe in any of them.

Bali behai; Bali below....

/tidly pom ta tum

:oops:

#3092

Whoops: kataMari

#3093

justinvacula wrote:Fine, fine... ye of little faith

Video: Dublin elevator ride

[youtube]N0PEtO7gxwA[/youtube]

16 seconds of TERROR!

Coming soon, to a theatre near you.

#3094

justinvacula wrote:Video: Dublin elevator ride

[youtube]N0PEtO7gxwA[/youtube]

Fantastic! Hihi.

On which floor was Watson staying? Because if the dude asked for coffee within 16 seconds, plus some time to gather courage, the whole story becomes implausible. Not that it matters that much. Her original remark wasn't the issue (and she was right about that one).

#3095

Thanks Justin. Just seeing the elevator that launched 10,000 blog posts was akin to a religious experience. I ululated!
btw, I was bluffing about the refund, I didn't actually send you anything. ;)

#3096

Metalogic42 wrote:That's *an* elevator...but is it *the* elevator?

Looks like they cleaned up all the froth.

#3097

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:High fives, peeps! I just got banned by John W. Lofty-Ass for disagreeing with him. For framing arguments as logical proofs. For being silly. For making a typo. (It's all one in the same in Lofty-Land.)

http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchri ... imination/

Did he block access or otherwise can that page?

#3098

welch wrote:
When I was actively teaching martial arts, I was amazed at the range of responses we'd see from people sparring for their first time, and after a while, I understood why they ONLY sparred with the teachers. Because someone who seemed as calm and level-headed as could be was all too often the person who, upon getting their first hit to the face, "berserk", (best word I can think of) and suddenly, they were on, this was real, and if you didn't have a lot more knowledge and practice than them, it was going to be ugly. This wasn't full contact MMA stuff, nor was it classic TKD 'near hit' stuff. Light to moderate contact, designed to teach them how to apply what they were learning outside of static sets.

Yet, on a number of occasions, I was quite grateful that I had a LOT more knowledge and experience than them, so I could wind things down without having to knock them out. I was even more grateful for the training that allowed me to continue to respond, instead of blindly reacting.

You cannot, can. not. predict how someone is going to react when hit, regardless of force or target. They may remain calm and collected, they may grab the nearest heavy object and beat your skull in with it.

That's why this idea of "appropriate force" in response is so bad, because it makes some assumptions that are not true for the untrained. Person A may react in what you see as an "appropriate" fashion. Person B may not. Expecting otherwise is ignorance.

What style/s did you teach, welch?

I trained in Silat (bela diri), which is great for guerilla fighting or street defence, but not so good in sport fighting. I spent my first and only kick boxing fight worrying about hurting my opponent, i.e. restricting myself to bludgeoning attacks rather than breaking joints or stoving in his larynx.

At 46 I've found that boxing training is great for keeping fit, but requires a different discipline.

(Psst Reap, we are discussing martial arts - and stuff)

#3099

Metalogic42 wrote:That's *an* elevator...but is it *the* elevator?

Below is the description of one of this month's fiber arts challenges for the Nerd Wars Tournament on Ravelry:

Challenge (Discovery): RISE UP, RISE UP

166 posts, 59 images, 7 projects, 77 voices (who?), 662 readers
started 3 days ago
In 1852, Elisha Otis was hired to convert a building from a sawmill into a bedstead manufacturing plant. He devised the safety elevator as a way to move debris from the floor of that building into the overhead storage lofts. He thought so little of his device that he neither patented it, nor did he ask his superiors for any sort of bonus for creating and implementing it.

The elevator has become a ubiquitous part of our world, and indeed the worlds of many of our nerderies. Your challenge this month is to craft an item that in some way depicts or emulates an aspect of â€œelevatorsâ€ as they appear in another teamâ€™s nerdery.

You may choose to weave something that features a pattern such as a chevron that mimics the up and down buttons, or a twill that reminds you of the crossways directions of Willy Wonkaâ€™s wonderful elevator!

You may decide to knit a stole or scarf with a cable or slip stitch pattern that resembles the classic safety gates on old open elevators, as seen in Thoroughly Modern Millie.

Perhaps you want to spin an art yarn where the WPI increases and decreases regularly, like a turbo lift moving between the decks of a starship?

So I'm thinking I can knit something in blue yarn, or maybe crochet a coffee cup or a pair of hipster glasses frames. The problem is, which nerdery do Skepchicks belong to? Team Mythology, because they're legends in their own minds?

#3100

John Greg wrote:Sacha, my love, I hate disagreeing with you as you are and will always be one of my favourite 'net peoples, but as for many partners leading to being good in bed, I have to say that I am one of those folks that thinks that is not true.

I've had partners who have had very, very active sex lives with lots and lots of partners, and they were lousy in bed. And as for myself, I too have had lots and lots of partners -- ex-pro musician that I am -- but with the exception of cunning cunilingual skills, I am a pretty darned lousy lay.

So there.

:P

I guess that it all depends on whether you have your partner's pleasure in mind, or are just in it to score and get your end away.

#3101

Lsuoma wrote:
Dave2 wrote: I thought people were joking about making it more difficult for you to actually post - boo to them if not - but maybe you could try being brief and seeing for yourself if it works better at reducing the negative reactions you don't want than your current tack.
It was certainly a bit of a dick move on my part to threaten to move Worderist to his own thread and confine him there.

I still may do this if he pisses me off enough, but the interesting thing is that NOBODY has called me on the dick move, and that says a lot. Compare him to Eucliwoo for example - when I threatened to slow down her posting by setting a board-wide maximum posting rate and then exempting everyone but her from it, people complained. Also, he now has more that three times the number of people ignoring him than Eucliwoo ever had.

I think that says a lot.

We've become numb and blase to your immense fascistness.

#3102

I thought it was a dick move, Lsuoma. But I also thought you were drunk and would regret it later, or change your mind.

[youtube]QsBR9jGVY1w[/youtube]

#3103

KiwiInOz wrote:
welch wrote:
When I was actively teaching martial arts, I was amazed at the range of responses we'd see from people sparring for their first time, and after a while, I understood why they ONLY sparred with the teachers. Because someone who seemed as calm and level-headed as could be was all too often the person who, upon getting their first hit to the face, "berserk", (best word I can think of) and suddenly, they were on, this was real, and if you didn't have a lot more knowledge and practice than them, it was going to be ugly. This wasn't full contact MMA stuff, nor was it classic TKD 'near hit' stuff. Light to moderate contact, designed to teach them how to apply what they were learning outside of static sets.

Yet, on a number of occasions, I was quite grateful that I had a LOT more knowledge and experience than them, so I could wind things down without having to knock them out. I was even more grateful for the training that allowed me to continue to respond, instead of blindly reacting.

You cannot, can. not. predict how someone is going to react when hit, regardless of force or target. They may remain calm and collected, they may grab the nearest heavy object and beat your skull in with it.

That's why this idea of "appropriate force" in response is so bad, because it makes some assumptions that are not true for the untrained. Person A may react in what you see as an "appropriate" fashion. Person B may not. Expecting otherwise is ignorance.
What style/s did you teach, welch?

I trained in Silat (bela diri), which is great for guerilla fighting or street defence, but not so good in sport fighting. I spent my first and only kick boxing fight worrying about hurting my opponent, i.e. restricting myself to bludgeoning attacks rather than breaking joints or stoving in his larynx.

At 46 I've found that boxing training is great for keeping fit, but requires a different discipline.

(Psst Reap, we are discussing martial arts - and stuff)

Kuk Sool. It's a hard/soft korean style, similar to hapkido, but with more of a chinese influence, esp. in the forms. It has a fairly major concentration on various forms of joint locks and submissions. I tended to stay with hobby schools, which collected just enough money to pay for the room at the Y, and so didn't have the "must please the general public" thing as the larger schools. We regularly were fussed at for being too intense. But, since we didn't really care that much about making a buck, we smiled, nodded, and carried on.

#3104

Dave2, posted a reply to you in the other thread, here: viewtopic.php?p=107629#p107629

Useless Lurker · #3105

Aneris -- "On which floor was Watson staying?"

I dont know, but the O'Callahan Alexander has only 5 floors.

#3106

Dave2 wrote:I would have thought that the way to judge whether or not PZ is being sincere about Ally fitting in with his own values is to see if - going forward - he learns anything from Ally.

I agree with you that PZ's defence of "if FTB was a man-hating network it'd be awkward for me" doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

But I don't think it's helpful to suggest that he's wrong in suggesting that Ally is welcome just because the network carries more content expressing concern for women's issues than men's issues.

One of the areas in which I think PZ has blundered is into buying into the whole "what about the menz!!1!" style of (sometimes rather callous) dismissal of men's concerns.

If he notices that Ally makes a better argument because he is able to express sympathy for both sides of the gender war (where such sympathy is legitimate) and condemns either side for their occasional lapses into callousness - then good for him.

I doubt he will, I think he's too entrenched, but it would be a good thing to see him do if he is capable.

Is there anything Ally Fogg says counteracting radfem propaganda that hasn't seen people what-about-the menzed, MRA-assholed and dogpiled on Pharyngula, Szvan's blog and Benson's blog? If anyone were to argue that Fogg is not tainted by the Slymepit, it could be pointed out that that kind of FtB behaviour preceded and motivated the establishment of the Slymepit. Fogg looks like a figleaf tolerated for the purposes of PZ's self-delusion.

#3107

Useless Lurker wrote:Aneris -- "On which floor was Watson staying?"

I dont know, but the O'Callahan Alexander has only 5 floors.

DPRJones of the Magic Sandwich fame (youtube show ft. himslef, tf00t and aron ra) claims he was there that night. He further claims he was talking to her that night just before she went to bed. He said she was staying on the 2nd floor.

#3108

Lsuoma wrote:
Gumby wrote:
On my way out the door -

Wonderboy's "technique" isn't beyond the grasp of anyone here. It's very simple, actually. I've debated for years against creationists using many of the same debating methods. Not rocket science at all. But not all of us are here for the same reasons, and some of us just don't like the fact that that egotistical, pedantic, braying jackass is constantly thumping his "technique" over everyone's heads through his endless condescending and interminable bloviations. Wonderist is patronizing, he's completely full of himself, and he arrogantly assumes the mantle of a sage trying to educate the supposedly stupid unwashed masses here. If he wants to wear a superhero cape and run around his living room in circles with arms outstretched, pretending be the great debater, fine and dandy, that's his business. But when he comes in here and starts endlessly pontificating to us supposedly poor unlearned plebes, like Moses coming down from the mountain with his tablets, that's when he's gonna get mocked and insulted. He can compare people here who resist his nonsense to "debating with theists" all he wants. What he just doesn't comprehend is that trying to force your beliefs and attitudes (whatever they may be) on a place like the Slymepit is only going to get you a collective and well-deserved "fuck off" from people who don't appreciate being talked down to by some unoriginal and tedious pedant with a way-too-high opinion of himself.

OK, now I'm off to start my weekend.
Y'all have fun, now.

I, for one, have as a mission ripping the piss out of Wonderist as much as I feel like, never engaging him on his terms, and generally countering his superdickheadness with my own "technique".

hahaha!

#3109

Well done to Justin for successfully completing his Dublin mission.

#3110

Mykeru wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:High fives, peeps! I just got banned by John W. Lofty-Ass for disagreeing with him. For framing arguments as logical proofs. For being silly. For making a typo. (It's all one in the same in Lofty-Land.)

http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchri ... imination/
Did he block access or otherwise can that page?

Who knew it was possible? Justin's zen butthurt apparently destroyed Septic Kink.

#3111

BarnOwl wrote:So I'm thinking I can knit something in blue yarn, or maybe crochet a coffee cup or a pair of hipster glasses frames. The problem is, which nerdery do Skepchicks belong to? Team Mythology, because they're legends in their own minds?

As long as you kick Ceepolk's ass, I'm happy.

#3112

ReneeHendricks wrote:
Aneris wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?
No, my dear.
:D Must be just me. I've had more than a few use "dear" in the most condescending way when talking to me. I've actually said "if you insist on calling me 'dear', I must insist on calling you 'douchebag'".

I used to sometimes, when faced with a smug or condescending form of 'dear', call the person 'antelope' in return. They never got the joke though (dear sounds like being called a deer), so I stopped doing it.

#3113

Lsuoma wrote:
Dave2 wrote: I thought people were joking about making it more difficult for you to actually post - boo to them if not - but maybe you could try being brief and seeing for yourself if it works better at reducing the negative reactions you don't want than your current tack.
It was certainly a bit of a dick move on my part to threaten to move Worderist to his own thread and confine him there.

I still may do this if he pisses me off enough, but the interesting thing is that NOBODY has called me on the dick move, and that says a lot. Compare him to Eucliwoo for example - when I threatened to slow down her posting by setting a board-wide maximum posting rate and then exempting everyone but her from it, people complained. Also, he now has more that three times the number of people ignoring him than Eucliwoo ever had.

I think that says a lot.

There was one non-registered poster who told you to repent. And fuck that, and Euclitwat too. Anyway, I am well-pleased by his making his "me me me me me me me me me I will demonstrate my technique" posts in another forum and dropping a link.

Useless Lurker · #3114

PA -- DPR Jones says 2nd floor

If he's correct,15 second trip as Aneris noted. Even if he's mistaken, 60 seconds or so would be the maximum. Whole lot of excitement for such a short ride. Along with all the other problems, I don't find Rebecca's story to be very believable.

#3115

Tribble wrote:
debaser71 wrote:The reason why men double over in pain is because when you get hit in the nuts it hurts in your lower abdomen. Like the pain is transferred or connected somehow. But I suppose YMMV.

It seems like the shock travels all the way up the plumbing. At least when I've been nutted. Not just the nuts, but all the way up to the bladder.

I'll see your bladder, and raise you "all the way around to the fucking kidneys".

#3116

Useless Lurker wrote:PA -- DPR Jones says 2nd floor

If he's correct,15 second trip as Aneris noted. Even if he's mistaken, 60 seconds or so would be the maximum. Whole lot of excitement for such a short ride. Along with all the other problems, I don't find Rebecca's story to be very believable.

agreed. There's a youtube video of his recounting somewhere. I believe it even inspired Matt Dillanhunty to say (paraphrase) "who cares if it's true? The parable holds up."

#3117

Dick Strawkins wrote:
................
At the moment, however, hardly anyone in the general population knows enough about BPD to realise that the abusive person might be a sufferer of BPD. Even most people in relationships with violent borderlines do not know about that disorder. And more importantly they do not know that there is no real cure or effective treatment. They tend to stick it out thinking that it may be a phase or temporary psychological state (like depression) that will settle down if they are patient.
.................

Untrue. BPD may be extremely difficult to overcome in most cases and there is a lot of cynicism and ignorance amongst members of the mental health professions, but it is possible for some people to overcome BPD. It's not always a black and white thing with BPD partnerships as narcissists and co-dependent types often end up in relationships with BPDs. There are message boards for ex partners of BPDs who disseminate a lot of hateful anti-BPD propaganda and it's frequently obvious that the dysfunction is not all on one side.I used to participate on a forum for BPDs in recovery and there were a lot of good people on there who not only suffer a tragic disorder, but are also unfairly tainted with the stigma of being incurably evil.

#3118

justinvacula wrote:Belief - n. - a proposition that one holds to be true

I'm with Steve in these beliefs, except the robots, instead they're clearly gnomes.

[youtube]DF7d-HdjBvE[/youtube]

#3119

welch wrote:
What's belief have to do with things you can verify? I don't "believe" in IPv4 or SNMP. (IPv6 on the other hand...<inside joke>) They are things that exist and work in a specified way, and I can verify them. belief has nothing to do with that, in fact, it's actually harmful for dealing with reality. The current capital of England requires zero belief, regardless of what city that actually is. I can spend a small amount of time to verify what that is from multiple authoritative sources.

I don't believe I have a dog laying about 2.5m from me. I can look and see she's there. If I were to walk over and verify this by touching her, she would have the physical characteristics of what we call a dog. There's zero belief involved with that. So is the horrifying fact that my coffee mug is empty.

This is where such discussions get, from my POV, weird. You used something that requires zero belief whatsoever as an example of belief. Why would you even do that? I'm unsure what it shows.

You cannot know that that is a dog, unless you verify the conditions set for each taxonomic rank. I guess this would involve tests that might leave you with little more than a warm, somewhat slippery doormat once you'd finished. And, of course, your coffee mug is not "empty", not even if it is in a vacuum.

#3120

This was just posted about CONvergence (SkepchickCon)
Any thoughts?

http://i.imgur.com/gfYKFed.png

Here are the panel speakers:
http://ow.ly/i/2wSPo